Organizing the 2030 football World Cup on three continents is a “nonsensical” idea and an “ecological aberration”, say environmental experts and environmental activists.
This Wednesday (11), FIFA (International Football Federation) will formalize the organization of the 2030 World Cup on three continents with three matches in South America and the other 101 in Morocco, Spain and Portugal, for a total of 48 teams.
“Ecological freak”
“An unfortunate geographical choice,” said Benja Faecks, from the NGO Carbon Market Watch, speaking to AFP, highlighting the inconsistency with past promises by organizers of major events.
This organization, specialized in analyzing the climate footprint of companies, governments or events, draws attention to a gigantic competition, divided between venues thousands of kilometers away that involves air transport, not only for the teams, but also for hundreds of thousands of fans .
With its decision, FIFA also seeks to promote football around the world, says David Gogishvili, researcher at the University of Lausanne.
Three matches will be played in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay to celebrate the centenary of the first football World Cup, that of Uruguay in 1930. “But in environmental terms it is a crazy idea”, adds the university expert.
“The format of the competition —48 teams from the 2026 edition onwards, compared to 32 by 2022—, the chosen venues, the sponsors [como a empresa petrolífera saudita Aramco desde o início deste ano]…And if the planet dies, what a shame”, says Guillaume Gouze, from the Center for Sports Law and Economics, linked to the University of Limoges, in France.
Concern about decarbonization, very present in Europe, “is not necessarily shared everywhere”, points out Gouze.
FIFA, as football’s highest entity, has “a moral responsibility when facing these issues”, he points out. But instead, it proposes World Cups with a format that is “an ecological aberration”.
More teams, more fans
“Going from 32 to 48 teams is almost worse than having the World Cup on three continents”, says Aurelien François, professor of sports management at the University of Rouen, also in France.
“More teams means more fans wanting to go to venues, more needs in terms of hotels and food and more waste.”
The countries chosen for the 2030 edition already have stadiums [ao contrário do Qatar em 2022 ou da Arábia Saudita, que será escolhida oficialmente como sede para 2034]which will mean that, at least in this regard, pollution and impact will be lower.
Antoine Miche, director of the Football Ecologie France association, recalls the problems of drought and lack of water in previous summers in these parts of the world, something that would worsen with the massive flow of millions of visitors.
On the fans’ side
“Co-organization is not necessarily a problem”, assesses Ronan Evain, from the Football Supporters Europe association, based in Hamburg, Germany, citing the 2002 event in South Korea and Japan as an example.
“But for 2030 there are many questions,” he said.
What will happen to travel between Morocco and southern Europe? And what about the environmental and economic costs — for fans — if the draw designates a match in South America? Furthermore, players in these three matches could suffer from time zones and temperature differences.
Is it worth crossing the Atlantic? “Real fans will make these trips. Out of passion, they can do incoherent things”, comments Antoine Miche.
Proposals for the future
Thinking about the future, FIFA could be inspired by the IOC (International Olympic Committee), which, for example, no longer awards the Olympic Games to a city that has to build everything for the event, highlights David Gogishvili, from the University of Lausanne.
Choosing a place with fewer distances than the 2026 (United States, Canada, Mexico) and 2030 editions is necessary, but not sufficient, according to the researchers.
They remember above all that the 2022 World Cup in Qatar was played in a very “compact” place, in a very small radius of kilometers, but that for this it was necessary to build new stadiums and air-condition them.
Another idea for the future, to reduce air transport: introduce “regional limits”. In other words, reserving a large portion of stadium tickets for fans from a perimeter of a few hundred kilometers and favoring train travel.
Guillaume Gouze, like other experts consulted by AFP, advocates multiplying ‘fan zones’ in the big cities of the football world, so that fans “live a collective experience” in front of a giant screen and not in the stadium, but in their own environment of a big event.
To do this, FIFA would have to accept the impact this could have in terms of the economic profitability of its most important tournament. For some fans, who only plan to experience the World Cup inside the stadium, the formula may not be enough.
