Faith Nyasuguta
The 2030 FIFA World Cup is set to be one of the most geographically ambitious tournaments ever. With matches spanning three continents, Europe, South America, and Africa, it has drawn criticism from environmentalists and researchers alike. Many argue that the extensive travel involved will significantly impact the environment, raising serious questions about the tournament’s sustainability.
FIFA has confirmed that Morocco, Spain, and Portugal will host the bulk of the games, while Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay will each host one match to mark the 100th anniversary of the inaugural tournament in Montevideo. While this setup has historical and symbolic value, experts are alarmed by the environmental toll it will exact.
Guillaume Gouze, from the Centre of Sports Law and Economics at the University of Limoges, did not mince words, calling the plan an “ecological aberration.” He emphasized FIFA’s moral obligation to consider climate concerns in organizing such a globally significant event. “FIFA has to lead by example,” Gouze said. “This setup, however, sends the wrong message entirely.”
COSTLY COMMEMORATION
The three South American matches are meant to honor the tournament’s roots, with Montevideo hosting the inaugural game in 1930. But critics argue that such symbolic gestures come at a steep environmental price. Benja Faecks, of the NGO Carbon Market Watch, described the geographic spread as an unfortunate decision.
“This is an era when large-scale events are scrutinized for their carbon footprint. Yet FIFA has chosen a format that guarantees extensive air travel for both fans and teams,” Faecks said.
Flights across three continents mean skyrocketing carbon emissions. Hundreds of thousands of fans and teams will crisscross the globe, resulting in significant environmental harm. “It’s a crazy idea in terms of the planet,” said David Gogishvili, a researcher at the University of Lausanne.
Concerns over environmental impact aren’t limited to 2030. FIFA’s expansion of the tournament format itself has drawn scrutiny. In 2026, the World Cup will feature 48 teams, up from 32 in 2022, leading to larger crowds, increased travel demands, and more waste.
Aurelien Francois, who teaches sports management at the University of Rouen, criticized FIFA’s decision to enlarge the tournament. “More teams mean more fans, more waste, more strain on infrastructure, and a bigger carbon footprint,” he explained. The sheer scale of the 2026 World Cup, held across Mexico, the United States, and Canada, is already a cause for concern. The 2030 plan, with its multi-continental format, takes this a step further.
FIFA’S DEFENSE
FIFA has defended its decision, stating that the matches outside Europe, those in South America, are exceptions. “For 101 games, the tournament will remain within neighboring countries with well-developed transport links and infrastructure,” FIFA said in a statement.
However, this argument does little to appease critics who highlight the overall environmental cost. Even if most matches are geographically contained, the long-haul flights required for the South American fixtures and the intercontinental travel for fans are unavoidable.
Adding fuel to the fire is FIFA’s controversial sponsorship deal with Saudi Aramco, an oil and gas giant. The deal, which runs through 2027, has been slammed for its contradiction to FIFA’s claims of promoting sustainability. In October, over 100 female professional footballers from 24 countries signed an open letter calling for the deal to be canceled. The letter criticized the partnership, saying, “FIFA might as well pour oil on the pitch and set it alight.”
Experts believe FIFA must do more than just tweak its tournament structure to address environmental concerns. The 2022 World Cup in Qatar, for example, was held in a compact site, but it required the construction of new air-conditioned stadiums, many of which have since gone unused.
Researchers have proposed several solutions to mitigate the environmental impact of future tournaments. One idea is to avoid awarding hosting rights to cities or countries that would require large-scale construction projects. This approach echoes a rule adopted by the International Olympic Committee.
Another suggestion is to prioritize local fan attendance. By reserving a significant portion of tickets for people living within a few hundred kilometers of match venues, FIFA could cut down on the need for air travel. Additionally, encouraging the use of trains instead of flights for regional travel could also help reduce emissions.
Fan zones in soccer-loving cities have also been proposed as a way to recreate the stadium experience. Large screens could allow fans to gather locally, reducing the need for long-distance travel while still fostering a sense of community. However, this idea would likely face resistance from FIFA, as it could reduce the economic profitability of the World Cup.
CHANGING FAN BEHAVIOR
Soccer fans themselves are becoming more environmentally conscious. Ronan Evain, of Hamburg-based Football Supporters Europe, noted a growing awareness among fans about the climate crisis. “Fans are a reflection of society. Environmental consciousness has grown significantly in recent years,” he said.
Still, die-hard supporters remain willing to go to great lengths to follow their teams, even when it means taking long-haul flights. Antoine Miche, director of Football Ecologie France, acknowledged this paradox. “Passion can make you do things that don’t make sense,” he admitted.
The 2030 World Cup, despite its symbolic gestures and historical significance, poses unprecedented environmental challenges. While FIFA’s desire to celebrate the tournament’s 100-year legacy is understandable, its current plans have raised critical questions about the future of global sporting events in a climate-conscious world.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the World Cup is more than just a game. It’s a global spectacle with far-reaching implications for fans, host countries, and the planet. If FIFA truly wants to champion the sport and its values, it must find ways to reconcile tradition and sustainability. The stakes, both for football and the environment, have never been higher.
RELATED:
