FIFA has made clear commitments to become more environmentally sustainable, including a goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.
The organisation has promised to reduce emissions, improve tournament operations and make events more climate-friendly. Yet the 2026 World Cup has exposed one of the biggest challenges facing those ambitions: the sheer scale of modern football’s global spectacle.
A World Cup spread across three countries was always going to create a significant environmental challenge. With 16 host cities across North America, teams have been required to travel vast distances between matches, with some nations covering thousands more miles than others.
England’s journey has been one of the most extreme examples. Before reaching the semi-finals, Thomas Tuchel’s side travelled more than 14,000 miles, repeatedly flying between their base in Kansas City, Missouri, and match venues including Atlanta, Boston, Mexico City and Miami. Argentina, also based in Kansas City, covered more than 8,000 miles, while France remained largely on the east coast and travelled fewer than 2,000 miles before heading to Dallas for their semi-final.
Other teams faced similar challenges. Spain accumulated more than 12,000 miles, while Switzerland exceeded 10,000 after moving between venues across North America. By contrast, some nations benefited from more compact schedules and shorter journeys.
The environmental impact of this travel sits uneasily alongside FIFA’s climate commitments. Aviation is one of the largest contributors to the carbon footprint of major sporting events, and repeated long-haul flights by teams, officials and supporters create emissions that are difficult to eliminate. While FIFA can introduce measures such as renewable energy, waste reduction and carbon accounting, the basic structure of a tournament spread across a continent remains highly carbon-intensive.
FIFA’s argument is that a global tournament requires international travel and that sustainability improvements can reduce its impact. However, critics argue that reducing emissions is not the same as avoiding them, and that carbon offsetting cannot fully address the consequences of a highly travel-intensive competition.
The 2026 World Cup demonstrates the difficult balance FIFA faces. The organisation wants football to lead on climate responsibility, but the growth and geography of its flagship tournament push in the opposite direction. If FIFA is serious about becoming net zero, future World Cups may need to consider not only how events are managed, but also how they are designed.
And whilst the 2030 World Cup may be better – Portugal, Spain and Morocco are geographically closer – with Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay each scheduled to host a match, it is unlikely to be substantially so.
