FIFA must take sustainability seriously at Trump’s big, beautiful World Cup | OneFootball

When the keys to the 2026 World Cup were handed to the United States, Canada and Mexico, FIFA sold it as a celebration of scale, diversity and modern footballing ambition. Sixteen host cities, three nations, 48 teams and 104 matches. Bigger than ever.

But as the countdown ticks on, it’s increasingly clear that this tournament will also be the biggest test football has ever faced when it comes to sustainability. And possibly its most uncomfortable mirror.

The 2026 World Cup will be the first genuinely continental World Cup. That distinction brings opportunity, but it also brings a carbon footprint that dwarfs anything the sport has previously attempted to manage. Independent environmental research published since the tournament’s award suggests total emissions could reach around nine million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, almost double the historical World Cup average and significantly higher than Qatar 2022. The primary culprit isn’t stadium construction or operations, but the unavoidable reality of long-haul travel across North America.

In Europe, international tournaments benefit from dense rail networks and short flight times. In North America, distances between host cities stretch thousands of miles. A supporter following their team from Los Angeles to Dallas to Atlanta is not hopping on a high-speed train; they are boarding a plane, likely more than once. The same applies to teams, officials, media and sponsors. No amount of recycling bins or LED floodlights can fully offset the emissions generated by that volume of air travel.

This structural challenge is compounded by the tournament’s expanded format. Moving from 32 to 48 teams means more matches, more movement and more operational strain. FIFA have positioned expansion as a victory for inclusivity and global development, but environmentally it comes at a cost that is difficult to reconcile with football’s increasingly vocal climate commitments.

The governing body insist sustainability is a core pillar of their planning. FIFA have publicly pledged to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2040, and the 2026 World Cup is supposed to reflect that ambition. Yet critics argue that many of the proposed mitigation measures rely heavily on future technologies, offsets or behavioural change rather than hard reductions baked into the tournament’s structure.

At city level, the picture is more granular and more encouraging. Several host cities have published sustainability strategies tied to the World Cup, focusing on waste reduction, public transport usage and community engagement. Dallas, for example, has framed its tournament planning around recycling, composting and transit-oriented fan movement. Houston has linked the World Cup to broader environmental education initiatives, low-carbon transport planning and green infrastructure projects designed to leave a legacy beyond football.

These efforts matter. Mega-events have a habit of descending on cities, extracting value and leaving little behind. In this case, organisers are at least attempting to align football’s short-term demands with long-term civic goals. The challenge is that sustainability standards vary widely from city to city. There is no single, binding framework governing how environmental performance will be measured or enforced across all 16 venues.

Stadium operations themselves are not the biggest emissions problem, but they are symbolically important. Most 2026 venues are existing NFL stadiums rather than newly built arenas, which avoids the enormous carbon cost of large-scale construction. Many already incorporate modern energy-efficient systems. Host committees have discussed reducing single-use plastics, improving waste sorting and encouraging fans to use public transport where possible. These steps are worthwhile, even if their impact is ultimately marginal compared to the emissions generated by inter-city travel.

Climate risk is another unavoidable subplot. The tournament will be played in June and July, across regions that are increasingly exposed to extreme heat. Cities such as Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Monterrey regularly experience temperatures that push the limits of safe athletic performance. FIFA have already confirmed hydration breaks will be standard at matches, a small but telling adaptation to a warming climate. It is a reminder that sustainability is not only about reducing emissions, but about resilience in the face of environmental change.

There are further concerns around air quality and extreme weather. Canadian host cities have experienced wildfire smoke events severe enough to disrupt outdoor activity in recent summers, while parts of the US and Mexico face growing risks from storms, drought and heatwaves. Contingency planning for such scenarios is ongoing, but the scale of the tournament means flexibility will be limited once the schedule is locked in.

This is where the 2026 World Cup becomes more than just another edition of football’s biggest showpiece. It is a stress test for the sport’s environmental credibility. Football has spent years talking about sustainability, launching glossy strategies and signing climate pledges. Now it must reconcile those words with an event whose very design pulls in the opposite direction.

The uncomfortable truth is that there are no perfect solutions here. A continental World Cup in North America will never be low-carbon. But how FIFA and the host cities respond – how transparent they are about trade-offs, how honest they are about limitations, and how much they prioritise genuine legacy over optics – will shape how future tournaments are conceived.

If football is serious about confronting climate reality, 2026 cannot just be written off as an outlier. The lessons learned, good and bad, will influence decisions about expansion, hosting models and travel planning for decades.

For a sport that prides itself on being the global game, that responsibility is unavoidable. The question is whether football is ready to accept that some goals are harder to score than others. And that sustainability may be the toughest fixture of all.