the 2030 World Cup on three continents, the controversy is growing

“An unfortunate geographical choice”euphemism to AFP Benja Faecks, of the NGO Carbon Market Watch, who sifts through the promises of the organizers of major events. Because an event taking place on sites thousands of kilometers from each other means plane transport, teams but above all hundreds of thousands of fans.

With the choice of host countries for the World Cups, the International Federation (Fifa) seeks to promote Football throughout the world, recalls David Gogishvili, researcher at the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.

Three matches will be played in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay

Three matches will be played in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay to mark the 100th anniversary of this event born in Montevideo. “But in terms of environmental impact, it’s a crazy idea”adds the academic.

Fifa, for its part, prefers to emphasize that the remaining 101 matches will take place “in a group of neighboring countries that are geographically close and have extensive and well-developed transport links and infrastructure”.

Format of the competition (48 teams from the 2026 edition, compared to 32 in 2022), chosen locations, partners (the Saudi oil company Aramco has become “major partner” in spring 2024)… “and too bad if the planet dies”sighs Guillaume Gouze, from the Center for Sports Law and Economics, attached to the University of Limoges.

“Going from 32 to 48 teams is almost worse than the Cup on three continents”

Aurélien François, teacher at the University of Rouen.

The questions of decarbonization, very significant in Europe, “are not necessarily shared everywhere”notes Mr. Gouze. However, Fifa, as representative of “sport of sports”a “a moral responsibility to address these issues”. But it offers World Cups in the form of“ecological aberration”.

“Going from 32 to 48 teams is almost worse than the Cup on three continents”estimates Aurélien François, who teaches sports management at the University of Rouen.

More teams means more supporters wanting to go to the sites, more reception capacity in the hotel and catering sector, more waste, etc.

The countries chosen for the 2030 edition already have stadiums (unlike Qatar in 2022 or Saudi Arabia for 2034) and will therefore be less polluting on this front. But Antoine Miche, director of the Football Écologie France association, recalls the problems of drought and lack of water from previous summers in these regions, which can only get worse with the influx of millions of visitors.

For 2030, too many questions arise

“Co-organization is not necessarily a problem”declares Ronan Evain, of the Football Supporters Europe association, based in Hamburg, citing the example of the 2002 World Cup co-organized by Japan and South Korea. “But there, for 2030, there are too many questions”according to him.

What about return trips between Morocco and southern Europe, by plane or boat? What about the environmental and financial costs (for fans) if the draw selects their team for a match in South America? Not to mention the breakdown in sporting fairness, according to him, for the players in these three matches, who risk suffering from jet lag and temperature differential.

So, should we cross the Atlantic? “The real fans will make these trips. Out of passion, we can do inconsistent things”notes Antoine Miche.

For him, as for Ronan Evain, football fans are a reflection of the population, with a growing percentage endowed with a more assertive ecological conscience than a few years ago.

Fifa could take inspiration from the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which, for example, no longer grants the Games to a city where everything would have to be built, notes David Gogishvili, of the University of Lausanne.

Establish “regional gauges?

Because choosing a location that is less fragmented than the 2026 (Mexico, United States, Canada) and 2030 editions is necessary but not sufficient, according to the researchers. They recall that the 2022 Cup took place in a site certainly «compact» (Qatar) but it was necessary to build air-conditioned stadiums there which were rarely reused.

Another idea, to reduce air transport: establish “regional gauges”. Namely reserving a large portion of tickets in stadiums for supporters within a radius of a few hundred km and encouraging travel by train.

Guillaume Gouze, like other experts interviewed by AFP, recommends the multiplication of fan zones in major cities around the world of football, so that supporters “live a collective experience”in front of a giant screen and not in a stadium, but with the atmosphere.

Fifa would then have to accept the impact on the economic profitability of its flagship event. And, on the fan side, “some, but not all, swear by the stadium”notes Antoine Miche.

A positive element, according to Benja Faecks: the attempts to “greenwashing” or from «sportwashing» are less well off than before. Many academics and NGOs assess the environmental viability of these events and dismantle the arguments when they are erroneous.