“In 2030, three continents – Africa, Europe and South America – and six countries – Argentina, Morrocco, Paraguay, Portugal, Spain, and Uruguay – will welcome and unite the world while celebrating together the beautiful game, and the centenary of the World’s Cup” [1].

With these words, FIFA announced how the World Championship for 2030 is planned to be held. 6 countries, 3 different continents, they affirm. On the other hand, they also maintain that this World’s Cup will be the “first neutral carbon emissions world’s event”. These two ideas do not seem to be compatible. Have you ever wondered what implies these kinds of events? Let’s take a quick look at it.

Hosting a World event in just one country is already a handful. First and most obvious, at least one stadium is needed. Some countries may already have stadiums with the required characteristics, but some others have to build them from scratch. Let’s skip for the moment the hydric consumption, just thinking about materials transportation and the building process, emissions-free?

Forgetting the stadium, let’s just take a look at the competition. There will be national teams from lots of countries that will have to move around in planes (private, of course). Each of the 48 national teams will play several matches [2]. Again, emissions-free?

And last, the most important thing in football is the fans. They are not staying at home, people would love to go and cheer for their teams [3]. In their case, the flights would probably be commercial, but the question remains, emissions free?

There were already some humanitarian doubts regarding the last world championship that have been talked about. If we only focus on the environmental part, it seems obvious that organizing an event with these proportions and characteristics while maintaining it at a zero-emissions level would be titanic. Even without flights, or buildings, what about the hydric impact? The grass of a football field needs to be daily watered, and it needs about 20000L of water each day per stadium [4]. Now, have we to multiply this value by at least six?

Once more, the criticism is not toward the event or football itself. It is toward a system that intends for events to be bigger, more massified … More profitable.

Because preparing for the World’s Cup just in one country is “too small” nowadays. However, would it be that bad? Football started as a part of popular culture, and it is used to transmit values. They may not be the most sustainable or friendly – in this case, environmentally – now, but they could come to be. Consider the impact that the national teams could have taken a commercial flight, or even a bus or a train instead of a private plane. Not only the picture itself would be positive, and fans could take some examples, but if the team is taking those transports, it would mean that there have been some previous measures taken such as improvement of train infrastructure and other public transport services. 

Ultimately, we need to rethink, just like so many other things, how our leisure model works if we want it to be compatible with a healthy planet and nature. we know it’s possible to change this kind of massive events such as football matches or concerts.

Coldplay took a 6-year-long break in which they tried to re-design their concerns and their tour to make them as sustainable as possible. After their last tour, they managed to drop their emissions by up to 50% [5]. And they can do more, they said.

A 6-year-long break is not a realistic thought for the football world, but we should give thought to re-designing how to make things, it seems more feasible. It is urgent to stop having as a goal to create the biggest and most impactful event, because even though some organizations like to think that impact – in the public’s eyes – is the most important, they tend to forget other impacts: environmental or social.