Fifa’s 2026 World Cup is shaping up to be the most carbon-heavy sporting event ever staged. The three-country tournament—hosted by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico—was never going to be small, but early estimates suggest it could emit up to 10 million tons of CO2. That’s roughly double the footprint of Qatar 2022, which already failed to meet its own green promises. The problem isn’t just the scale. It’s that Fifa hasn’t fixed the issues that made 2022 a climate flop. Air travel remains the giant in the room. Teams from Europe and South America will fly across multiple time zones, while North American fans will crisscross the continent in jets. A single round-trip from London to Los Angeles for a player or journalist already clocks in at about 3.5 tons of CO2 per person. Multiply that by thousands of people, and the numbers add up fast. Fifa’s carbon offset program—supposed to cancel out emissions—hasn’t delivered. In 2022, the organization claimed to offset 1.8 million tons of CO2, but critics say the projects it funded were weak and often double-counted. For 2026, Fifa’s offset plan is even vaguer, with no clear breakdown of where the money’s going or how much real reduction it will achieve. Then there’s the heat. The 2022 World Cup happened in tiny Qatar, where summer temperatures hit 122°F. For 2026, the games will spread from Dallas to Vancouver, but summer in those cities isn’t exactly mild. Dallas regularly hits 100°F in June and July, while Vancouver’s humidity turns stadiums into saunas. Fifa’s solution? Most matches will kick off at night or in air-conditioned stadiums, but that doesn’t solve the problem for fans stuck waiting outside in the sun or workers assembling temporary venues. Stadiums themselves are another issue. Fifa wants to reuse some venues from the 2026 bid—like MetLife Stadium in New Jersey or SoFi in Los Angeles—but building temporary structures for events like the semifinals and final will still mean tons of concrete and steel. The 2022 World Cup used modular stadiums, but the carbon cost of assembling and disassembling them was still massive. Fifa promised in 2019 to cut emissions by half compared to 2018’s Russia World Cup. Instead, the opposite happened. A study by the Rapid Transition Alliance found that Russia 2018 emitted about 2.1 million tons of CO2. Qatar 2022’s official tally is 3.6 million tons, but independent analysts say the real figure is closer to 5 million. If 2026 hits 10 million, Fifa’s green claims look even flimsier. The organization hasn’t released a final emissions plan, but leaked documents show it’s betting big on carbon offsets again. The problem? Offsets don’t reduce emissions—they just shuffle the problem elsewhere. A recent investigation by Carbon Market Watch found that 85% of Fifa’s 2022 offset projects failed to deliver real reductions. For 2026, Fifa’s offset partner, South Pole, has already been linked to projects that overstated their climate benefits. Fans aren’t going to let this slide. Climate protests disrupted the 2022 World Cup, and activists are already planning bigger actions for 2026. Groups like Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace are calling for a boycott of Fifa’s sponsors and a push for real climate policies. Even some players are speaking up. Norway’s national team has refused to play in tournaments hosted by countries with poor human rights or climate records. ## Fifa’s climate promises keep getting broken Football is the world’s biggest sport, and the World Cup is its crown jewel. But Fifa’s relationship with climate action reads like a broken record. In 2017, then-president Gianni Infantino promised a “carbon-neutral” 2022 World Cup. By 2022, that claim was dead. Fifa’s own sustainability report admitted the tournament emitted 3.6 million tons of CO2—a figure that’s almost certainly an undercount. For 2026, Fifa’s language has shifted. Instead of “carbon-neutral,” the organization now talks about “net-zero” emissions. But the math doesn’t add up. Net-zero means Fifa would need to cut emissions dramatically while also funding high-quality offsets. So far, neither has happened. The bigger issue is that Fifa’s climate strategy relies on unproven tech. The organization is banking on future innovations like green hydrogen for stadium power and electric flights for teams. But those solutions aren’t ready for prime time. Even if they were, Fifa’s timeline is too tight. Stadiums in the U.S. and Canada are being built or renovated now, and teams need to finalize travel plans by 2025. There’s no room for last-minute tech miracles. ## The fans are caught in the middle Most people going to the 2026 World Cup aren’t thinking about carbon footprints. They’re focused on tickets, travel, and the spectacle. But the choices Fifa makes will affect regular fans the most. Higher prices for offset flights, heat-related health risks, and air pollution in host cities will hit working-class supporters hardest. A fan flying from Sydney to Toronto for a match could easily spend $2,000 on a carbon-offset ticket—if they can find one. But even then, the offset might not do much. Fifa’s 2022 offset program was supposed to plant trees in Turkey, but many of the projects were abandoned or never started. For 2026, Fifa’s offset plan includes a mix of forest protection and renewable energy projects, but details are scarce. What’s clear is that fans will bear the brunt of the costs—financial and environmental—while Fifa and sponsors reap the profits. ## What happens next? Fifa’s next move matters. The organization has a chance to change course before 2026, but so far, it’s doubling down on the same mistakes. The U.S. government could step in, given that American cities host most of the games. Congress has already held hearings on Fifa’s climate failures, and lawmakers could push for stricter environmental rules. But Fifa’s contracts with host cities lock in many of the tournament’s worst polluting features. Changing plans now would mean renegotiating deals, which Fifa is loath to do. The only real solution is for fans to demand better. Pressure on sponsors like Adidas, Coca-Cola, and Visa could force Fifa to act. Sponsors have pulled out of tournaments before over human rights issues. Climate could be the next battleground. Until then, the 2026 World Cup will roll forward—bigger, hotter, and dirtier than ever. And the planet will pay the price.

What You Need to Know

  • Source: The Guardian
  • Published: May 17, 2026 at 10:00 UTC
  • Category: Environment
  • Topics: #guardian · #climate · #environment · #war · #conflict · #green

Read the Full Story

This is a curated summary. For the complete article, original data, quotes and full analysis:

Read the full story on The Guardian →

All reporting rights belong to the respective author(s) at The Guardian. GlobalBR News summarizes publicly available content to help readers discover the most relevant global news.

Curated by GlobalBR News · May 17, 2026

🇧🇷 Resumo em Português

O Mundial de 2026 promete ser um divisor de águas — não só nos gramados, mas também no impacto ambiental, com emissões de carbono já superando as promessas verdes frustradas de 2022. Com a expansão de 48 para 16 sedes, incluindo três países sul-americanos, a logística e o deslocamento de torcedores e delegações elevam o alerta: será a Copa com a maior pegada de carbono da história.

No Brasil, que sediará nove das 104 partidas, a pressão é dupla: não só precisamos garantir a infraestrutura necessária, como também mostrar que o esporte pode caminhar de mãos dadas com a sustentabilidade. Especialistas alertam que, sem mudanças urgentes na matriz energética, no transporte público e na gestão de resíduos, o legado verde do evento pode ficar no papel — ou pior, agravar a crise climática em um país já afetado por secas e queimadas.

A Fifa e os organizadores precisam agir rápido: ou cumprem o discurso de “Copa sustentável” com ações concretas, ou o Mundial de 2026 será lembrado não só pelos gols, mas também pelo retrocesso ambiental.