By Abbas Nazil
Travel by millions of football fans to the 2026 FIFA World Cup will generate far more greenhouse gas emissions than the tournament’s operations, according to a new study published in Communications Sustainability.
Researchers estimate the expanded tournament across the United States, Canada and Mexico will produce about 4.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, with more than 80 percent linked to spectator travel, particularly international air travel.
The study found that fan transportation accounts for about 82 percent of the tournament’s total emissions, while the combined impact of stadium operations, accommodation, food services and other event-related activities contributes less than one-fifth of the overall carbon footprint.
Researchers from the University of Cambridge, led by Professor Shaun Larcom, developed a framework to measure the true environmental cost of large international events by comparing their carbon emissions with the value participants place on attending them.
The team tested the approach using both the 2026 FIFA World Cup and Coldplay’s 2024 European concert tour.
According to the findings, each World Cup attendee is expected to be responsible for an average of about 1.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to roughly one-third of the annual emissions produced by an average European resident.
The researchers noted that long-haul international flights make up the largest share of these emissions, making travel the dominant climate challenge associated with the tournament.
The study also examined Coldplay’s European tour and reached a similar conclusion.
Around 97 percent of the tour’s emissions came from audience travel, while the band’s own touring operations accounted for only about two percent.
This suggests that the environmental impact of major entertainment and sporting events is driven primarily by how spectators travel rather than by the events themselves.
To determine whether such events provide benefits that outweigh their environmental costs, the researchers analyzed resale ticket markets.
They argued that when fans pay significantly more than the original ticket price, the difference reflects the additional value people place on attending.
For Coldplay’s concerts, resale prices averaged nearly five times the face value, creating an estimated $860 million in additional value for concertgoers beyond the original ticket sales.
The researchers compared these benefits with the estimated social cost of carbon, which represents the economic damage caused by each metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions through impacts such as rising temperatures, reduced agricultural productivity and sea level rise.
Using an estimated social cost of approximately $185 per ton, the climate damage from the World Cup was valued at roughly $790 million, while Coldplay’s tour generated climate costs of about $20 million.
Despite these environmental costs, both events were found to produce greater overall value than their estimated climate damage. However, the margin was much narrower for the World Cup.
The study estimated that the football tournament’s benefits exceeded its climate costs by about three to one, compared with approximately fifty to one for Coldplay’s tour.
Researchers noted that if the social cost of carbon reached around $550 per ton, the World Cup’s environmental costs would outweigh its overall benefits.
The researchers argued that responsibility for reducing emissions should be shared between event organizers and spectators. While travel choices are ultimately made by individual fans, those journeys occur because of the event itself.
They pointed to Coldplay’s efforts to reduce emissions by encouraging supporters to choose lower-carbon transport through a rewards-based mobile application, which helped lower the tour’s environmental footprint.
The study identified host location as one of the most effective ways to reduce emissions from global sporting events.
Since a significant proportion of international World Cup fans are expected to travel from Europe, hosting more matches closer to major supporter populations could substantially reduce long-distance flights and lower overall emissions.
The researchers also examined the possibility of incorporating carbon costs into ticket prices.
They estimated that covering the full climate cost would increase the price of a Coldplay concert ticket by about $11, while a World Cup ticket would require an additional charge of around $114.
However, they cautioned that such flat charges could disproportionately affect fans purchasing lower-priced tickets, making attendance less affordable.
Carbon offset programmes were described as a last resort, suitable only for emissions that cannot be eliminated through cleaner transport options or improved planning.
Instead, the researchers recommended that future mega-events prioritise measures that encourage sustainable travel, cluster fixtures to reduce unnecessary flights and carefully consider host locations to minimise long-distance journeys.
They concluded that the greatest opportunity to reduce the environmental footprint of major international events lies not in the venues themselves, but in helping spectators travel in cleaner and more efficient ways.
