FIFA has a published sustainability strategy. A signed UN Sports for Climate Action Framework. A Human Rights Policy. A stated commitment to ‘use football as a vehicle for a better world.’
FIFA also organised the 2026 World Cup…
By Briony Pete, The Circular Life.
Doubled projected emissions
The 2026 Men’s World Cup is projected to generate between 7.8 and 9 million tonnes of CO2. This is more than double the footprint of Qatar 2022.
87% of that comes from spectator air travel. Not construction or stadium operations – travel. 104 matches across 16 cities, separated by thousands of miles. Nobody designed this tournament to minimise emissions. It was designed to maximise reach (and sponsorship opportunities), with climate cost a distant afterthought.
One week before the tournament, FIFA reversed its own policy: reusable bottles are banned. Spectators can now only bring in a single 500ml disposable water bottle – for the entire match, in summer heat. 6.5 million attendees.
I get it, there is a safety risk with thrown objects, but they have had years to plan this. Years to find a genuinely sustainable solution. And in the final stretch, they landed on… more single-use plastic.
Is this just sloppy planning, or was the intention always just to greenwash?
Playing in the danger zone
In stark contrast, rising temperatures are putting matches themselves into territory sports medicine experts call unsafe.
Last week I learned the term “Wet Bulb Globe Temperature.” If it’s new to you too, here’s the short version: it combines heat, humidity, sunlight and wind to measure what the body experiences at certain temperatures (not just what the thermometer says).
Above 28°C, players are at heightened risk of heat cramps, heat exhaustion and heat stroke. There are already clear international guidelines that matches at this threshold should be postponed or delayed.
Now, FIFA can’t control the global thermostat. But the placement and timing of games is something they can plan for, and that planning needs to centre on the health of players and fans.
Queen’s University Belfast modelled this risk across all 16 stadiums. Their finding: 14 could exceed 28°C WBGT at some point in the tournament. In a hotter-than-average summer, as many as nine could hit that mark for half their games.
I welcome the response of three-minute hydration breaks. But a real commitment to not playing in stadiums where heat makes them unsafe would go further.
→ And wouldn’t this have been the perfect moment for a public health message on health and climate?
The human cost
This part makes me really sad.
Omar Artan, Africa’s top-rated referee in 2025 and the first Somali official ever selected for a World Cup, was denied entry to the US after arriving in Miami. He will not officiate.
And Artan is not alone. Multiple team staff, federation leaders, and journalists from several countries have faced visa denials or restrictions. Iran’s federation reports that they will only be allowed to enter one day before their match, and have to fly back and forth to Mexico (the perfect regenerative pre-match game activity!)
Players are reporting angst at not having their loved ones alongside them, as family members can’t navigate or afford the the visa process.
–> Now tell me honestly, can you imagine any European squad or referee facing this kind of treatment?
FIFA knew hosting in the US under current travel policies carried these risks. They proceeded anyway, and the fallout is in real time rather than the planning room where it could have been handled and mitigated.
And then there’s Aramco
Let’s not forget the reported $400 million sponsorship deal with Aramco, the Saudi state-owned oil company.
Let me say that again. A global sports federation, which has pledged to cut emissions by half, signed a $400 million sponsorship deal with one of the world’s biggest oil companies.
Last year,, a coalition of human rights and climate organisations wrote to FIFA, warning that the deal could contravene international human rights law. More than 135 professional players publicly demanded that the deal be dropped.
The response? Nah, we’ll keep it.
Sustainability strategies are only as credible as the decisions made when following them come at a cost. A document on a website isn’t a strategy. It’s a wish list, dressed up to look like one.
Real leadership means:
- NO! to the $400 million oil deals.
- Host cities without a continent’s worth of flights between matches.
- Fighting for the officials you selected, not issuing a statement after the fact.
The gap between what we say and what we do, that’s where culture is built. And right now, FIFA’s culture is on full display.
So, what’s the real lesson?
It might be more introspective than you think.
It’s not as simple as “don’t do what FIFA did.” And it’s also not just a moment to scoff at the hypocrisy and move on. (Or worse, feel quietly relieved that at least we’re not this bad.) Scale amplifies bad decisions that were made years ago.
I see similar patterns inside organisations all the time, just on a smaller scale.
Beautiful purpose statements, mostly backed by real intention. Then the difficult conversation happens, or the difficult partner comes along, and the values get put to one side. Nobody announces it, and the gaps take a while to surface.
We might not be shelving values on a t be on a FIFA scale… But they’re often there in the shadows.
So maybe rather than“how did FIFA get it so wrong?”
The better question to ask instead is: “where am I doing something similar?” (albeit on a much smaller and often unintentional scale 🙂
If this question is resonating, there is quick, frequent action you can take:
Ask yourself, your team, or your board these three questions:
- What am I shelving right now, that I’d be uncomfortable seeing named out loud?
- What’s the key question our board7team should keep asking to stay honest about what we’ve committed to?
- How frequently do/should we ask ourselves these kinds of questions to stay accountable?
The World Cup, at its best, can be one of the most unifying things on the planet.
It gives a kid in Tehran and a kid in Texas something to share. It has the reach, the audience, and the emotional power to shift culture at a scale most organisations can only dream of.
That potential is real, and it’s exactly why this matters.
We don’t have to accept this level of hypocrisy from global entertainment in 2026.
We hold brands far smaller than FIFA to higher standards. The organisation running the most-watched sporting event on the planet should be no different.
************************************************************************************************
👋 Hi, I’m Briony. I work with sustainability professionals and senior leaders to make sense of sustainability and embed it into mindset and operations, in a way that makes financial sense – for the long run.
If this piece struck a nerve, the questions above are worth sitting with for longer.
▶️ If you want to work with your team or board on these kinds of coaching approaches to help embed sustainability and accountability, reach out here: briony@circularlife.co.uk
▶️ If you want more of this kind of thinking straight to your inbox, pop your details in here https://circular-life.kit.com/a31ffa598b
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brionypete/
https://www.circularlife.co.uk/
