World Cup spread across three continents raises environmental concerns

The decision to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup across three continents—South America, Europe, and Africa—has sparked concerns over its environmental impact, particularly the greenhouse gas emissions caused by extensive travel.

The tournament will feature matches in Morocco, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, a move critics have labelled an "ecological aberration."

FIFA's plan, announced on 9 December, aims to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first World Cup held in Montevideo, Uruguay, with matches in South America. However, environmental campaigners argue that the vast geographical spread undermines sustainability goals.

Guillaume Gouze from the Centre of Sports Law and Economics at the University of Limoges stressed FIFA's moral obligation to integrate climate considerations into its plans.

Instead, he called the tournament's format an irresponsible decision, saying, "It's an idea that defies ecological logic."

Unprecedented scale of environmental impact

The 2030 tournament will involve 48 teams, following the expanded format set for 2026.

With teams, fans, and officials travelling across continents, the emissions from long-haul flights will be substantial. "FIFA's ambition to promote football globally is commendable, but this decision comes at a huge cost to the planet," said David Gogishvili, a researcher at the University of Lausanne.

The matches in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, meant to celebrate the tournament's centenary, have faced sharp criticism. Benja Faecks from Carbon Market Watch called the setup "an unfortunate geographic choice," highlighting the logistical strain of hosting games thousands of kilometres apart.

The 2026 edition, held in Mexico, the United States, and Canada, will also see challenges. Aurelien Francois, a sports management expert at the University of Rouen, argued that FIFA's expansions, while beneficial for inclusivity, exacerbate environmental concerns with increased fan travel and infrastructure demands.

Proposals for sustainable hosting

FIFA has defended its decision by emphasising that 101 of the matches in 2030 will take place in geographically proximate locations with advanced transport links.

Still, experts believe more can be done to mitigate the environmental impact. Suggestions include prioritising cities with pre-existing infrastructure, reserving tickets for local fans to reduce air travel, and promoting train transport over flights.

Fan zones in major football cities have also been proposed as an alternative.

These zones would offer stadium-like atmospheres with big screens, reducing the need for extensive travel. However, this approach would likely affect FIFA's revenue.

Criticism over corporate sponsorship

Adding to the controversy is FIFA's partnership with Saudi Aramco, the oil and gas giant. The deal, running until 2027, has faced backlash from environmental activists and human rights advocates.

In October, over 100 female professional footballers signed an open letter urging FIFA to cancel the deal, describing it as a blatant disregard for sustainability and ethics.

Fan perspectives

Environmental concerns resonate increasingly with football fans, according to Ronan Evain from Football Supporters Europe.

While some die-hard supporters may still follow their teams across continents, many question the financial and ecological viability of such a tournament.

"Passion drives fans to make irrational decisions," said Antoine Miche, director of Football Ecologie France.

"But the 2030 World Cup raises too many questions about its impact on the planet and accessibility for ordinary fans."