Just a few hours remain before the big one. Argentina will face arch-rivals Spain in the final of the FIFA World Cup at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. As players lace up their boots and prepare to take to the turf, sports fans are watching every move closely. However, a set of studies conducted by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), the New Weather Institute (NWI), the Environmental Defence Fund (EDF), and Cool Down: The Sport for Climate Action Network are now pointing to the ecological toll the tournament has taken. These studies have led the groups behind them to brand the FIFA 2026 World Cup the “most polluting ever.”
Long before the tournament began, FIFA had made big promises of its own. Under its official targets, FIFA pledged to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2040. For the 2026 World Cup specifically, it committed to minimising the tournament’s environmental footprint by using only existing stadiums, expanding public transport, promoting recycling and circular waste management, and using renewable energy at venues.
Despite these commitments, calculations by Scientists for Global Responsibility suggest this was the most carbon-intensive World Cup in history, potentially generating more than 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. According to the researchers behind these figures, this would make it the most polluting World Cup to date. This was also the year FIFA expanded the tournament to 48 teams, a change that required extensive air travel across the United States, Canada and Mexico for both players and fans.
A Structural Surge In Global Emissions
According to data compiled in the joint assessment titled FIFA’s Climate Blind Spot: The Men’s World Cup in a Warming World, authored by Scientists for Global Responsibility, the Environmental Defence Fund, Cool Down, and the New Weather Institute, the tournament is estimated to have produced 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Per the report’s findings, this figure is almost double the historical average for World Cups held between 2010 and 2022, which the researchers say stood at 4.71 million tonnes. Separate official tournament reports indicate the 2018 World Cup in Russia generated approximately 2.16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, while the 2022 World Cup in Qatar generated an estimated 3.63 million tonnes.
NDTV spoke to Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Weather Institute, which carried out research on the matter. Simms pointed to the immediate threat that global heating poses to the sport’s future: “Sport is one of the great human joys but is increasingly threatened by extreme weather due to global heating fuelled by burning fossil fuels. World Cup games have been played in sweltering temperatures that put players, fans and officials at risk. FIFA has a duty of care to protect the game, and the people who play and love watching it. But instead, it is making things worse.”
The Venue Problem
This year’s tournament saw FIFA officially move to a 48-team format, with 104 matches held across 16 host cities in three nations. That shift alone drew criticism. Because the venues were spread across such a vast area of the US, Canada and Mexico, teams are reported to have logged unprecedented travel distances.
Research conducted by Scientists for Global Responsibility, Fossil Free Football and Stay Grounded, published by The Canary, estimated that had England reached the final, they would have flown approximately 39,000 kilometres (24,200 miles) to complete their matches.
Criticism has also extended to FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who has faced scrutiny over his alleged use of a private jet. According to a report by the Associated Press, by the time either Argentina or Spain is crowned champion, Infantino is estimated to have flown far enough to circle the planet almost two and a half times. The same report also states that Infantino attended at least one match at all 16 World Cup venues.
Speaking to NDTV, Frank Huisingh, director of Fossil Free Football, pointed to logistical failures as one of the tournament’s central problems: “To protect football, from the elite to the grassroots, FIFA has a responsibility to take serious climate action. A few years ago, they promised this action, saying it would reduce its pollution by 50% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2040. Instead of delivering on these promises, it organised the most polluting World Cup ever, forcing teams and fans to fly enormous distances between host cities. FIFA President Infantino himself gave the worst example, flying crisscross across three countries in a private jet.”
Sweltering Conditions And The Heat Protocol Gap
Compounding the issue, according to campaigners, was another undeniable factor: heatwaves. Even before the tournament began, heatwave conditions in host cities were repeatedly flagged by observers. In the run-up to the event, more than 20 signatories from the fields of health, climate and sports performance sent an open letter to FIFA, warning that insufficient adaptation to extreme heat would put players at risk of “heat-related injury.”
According to data compiled in the end-of-tournament briefing published jointly by Cool Down, Fossil Free Football, and the New Weather Institute, nine group-phase matches were contested in conditions exceeding a 28 degrees Celsius Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT), an index that estimates human heat stress by factoring in air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation in direct sunlight.
Reflecting on the physical strain placed on athletes, Huisingh observed: “During this World Cup, we’ve seen an excellent Messi, an unbeatable Spanish midfield and matches we will never forget. But we also saw slower games and exhausted players, due to the heat made worse by climate change.”
Outlook: The Path Forward
As this World Cup draws to a close, attention is already turning to future tournaments, including the 2027 Women’s World Cup in Brazil and the multi-continental 2030 Men’s World Cup spanning South America, North Africa and Europe. Campaigners argue that lessons from this year’s findings must be taken on board to ensure the sport is played in cleaner, greener ways. Simms set out what he believes should happen next: “If the sport is to have a future, before the next World Cup FIFA needs new safety protocols that are in line with the science, to reduce the huge, polluting scale of the World Cup, and to drop sponsors whose products heat the planet.”
