Handling of the 2030 and 2034 tournaments undermines Fifa’s environmental commitments, but it doesn’t have to be like this
There has been a lot of criticism of Fifa’s plans to host the 2030 men’s World Cup across six countries (Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay) and to relax the minimum number of existing stadiums required to host the 2034 tournament, a key decision that will inevitably lead to a successful Saudi Arabia bid. These have quite rightly raised eyebrows – climate has clearly not been at the heart of the decisions.
If fan travel makes up roughly 70% of football’s carbon footprint, how can Fifa plan to halve its emissions in the same year it hosts a tournament in three continents? And given that infrastructure is a big source of emissions around mega-events, what commitment is Fifa showing to the planet when it encourages more building in Saudi Arabia by reducing the minimum number of compliant existing stadiums from seven to four but keeping the final number of suitable stadiums at 14?
About Author
More Stories
Sam Kerr still a way off return to action, says Matildas coach Tom Sermanni
Nick Kyrgios overcomes injury woes to return to court for Australian Open tilt
Monaco Grand Prix’s long-term future resolved with F1 extension until 2031