Fans getting to the 2026 FIFA World Cup produced most of the tournament’s estimated greenhouse gas emissions, according to a University of Cambridge research team. The finding is a fairly blunt problem for FIFA and future host cities: polishing stadium operations does not do much if the carbon bill is being run up in airports.
The researchers published a framework in Communications Sustainability for judging the “climate viability” of large events. They applied it to the 2026 World Cup, which ended Sunday, and to Coldplay’s 2024 European tour. Their model compares the welfare created for spectators and organizers with the monetary damage associated with the emissions those events generate.
For the expanded 48-team World Cup, the Cambridge team estimated total emissions at about 4.23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is roughly 590,000 metric tons more than the older 32-team format, according to the study. The researchers said the tournament’s footprint was comparable to Iceland’s annual emissions.
The boring, unavoidable culprit was travel. The team attributed 82 percent of the World Cup’s emissions to fans moving to and between host cities. International travel alone accounted for about 3.07 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Shaun Larcom, a Cambridge professor involved in the work, said in a university announcement that climate plans for events such as the World Cup have to reach beyond venue operations, because stadium emissions are only a slice of the total.
What the climate bill would look like
The study translates emissions into money by using the social cost of carbon, a way of estimating damage from each ton of greenhouse gases. If spectators paid the World Cup’s estimated climate cost directly, the researchers calculated an average surcharge of $114 per match ticket.
The team put the tournament’s total carbon cost at $787 million. It also said a $4.50 fee per broadcast viewer could cover that amount. The researchers warned, however, that a flat ticket charge would hit cheaper seats harder in relative terms, so pricier tickets should carry more of any carbon levy.
Their first test asks whether an event creates more economic and spectator value than climate damage. On that measure, the World Cup and Coldplay tour both passed. The researchers cautioned that the World Cup calculation becomes less secure if the social cost of carbon is set toward the high end.
Jackson Goldman, a study coauthor, said in Cambridge’s announcement that large entertainment events likely create enough welfare to account for their emissions costs, but that organizers and fans need to share responsibility for the pollution.
Coldplay’s tour shows the lever
The Cambridge team also analyzed Coldplay’s 2024 European tour, covering 10 cities, 32 shows and 1.9 million tickets. Without mitigation, the researchers estimated the climate cost at $11 per ticket.
Coldplay used measures including mobile battery systems, solar power and a kinetic dancefloor. The study found, though, that nearly all of the emissions reduction came from fans choosing lower-carbon travel. The band offered an app to compare transport options and merchandise discounts for fans who chose more climate-conscious travel, according to the researchers.
That shift cut fan-travel emissions by 48 percent, the team estimated. Combined with other measures, the tour’s total emissions fell 46 percent compared with a typical tour.
For future events, the Cambridge researchers suggested tools that are technically dull and politically awkward: choose host cities that reduce travel distances, discount rail travel, encourage carpooling and charge for emissions. They noted that around 40 percent of international visitors to the 2026 World Cup were expected to come from Europe, meaning a European host location could have reduced travel-related emissions compared with North America.
Larcom said climate change and record temperatures will constrain how mega-events are staged. The study’s message is less glamorous than the opening ceremony: if organizers sell global attendance, they also inherit the travel problem that comes with it.
This story draws on original reporting from WIRED.
