Dr. Brian McCullough
Dr. Brian McCullough is a Professor of Sport Management and Program Chair in the School of Kinesiology at the University of Michigan, where he also directs the Center for Sport & Sustainability. His research examines the bidirectional relationship between sport and the natural environment, with a particular focus on sport ecology, organizational sustainability strategies, and Scope 3 emissions in the sport sector. He has authored over 85 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, co-edited books on sport sustainability, and co-founded the Sport Ecology Group to advance research and education on these critical issues.
Email:
brianpmc@umich.edu
X: @mcculloughbrian
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bpmcullough
Headlines and expert commentary often describe the 2026 FIFA World Cup as highly environmentally damaging. With 48 teams, 104 matches, and 16 venues across three countries, the event’s scale will produce more carbon emissions than previous tournaments, especially from travel. But that conclusion can be too blunt to capture the full complexity of how a global sporting event creates environmental impacts, or how those impacts can be reduced.
These claims are easy to make in an era of urgent climate concern. Still, they often flatten the realities of event design, operational choices, and the broader relationship between sport and the environment. The environmental footprint of any mega-event is significant and cannot be erased. Even so, a more careful view reveals real opportunities for mitigation that go beyond simple criticism. If the goal is improvement, the conversation should focus on practical, evidence-based solutions.
A key issue is how emissions are distributed. For events like the World Cup, much of the impact falls into Scope 3 categories: indirect emissions tied to spectator and team travel, accommodations, food systems, and consumption patterns. These are shaped not only by organizers, but also by market conditions, transportation networks, and the tournament’s design. The long distances between host cities in 2026 will likely increase air travel and make the event especially carbon-intensive, but that does not mean nothing can be done. Smarter scheduling, regional match clustering, stronger public transit connections, and incentives for lower-carbon travel can reduce some of the burden.
North America’s hosting model also deserves more careful evaluation than it often receives. Unlike tournaments that require entirely new stadiums or energy-intensive cooling systems, the 2026 World Cup will use many existing high-capacity venues, including NFL and MLS stadiums. Reusing infrastructure can reduce the need for new materials, lower construction-related emissions, and avoid waste associated with buildings that may be underused after the tournament ends. Relative impacts should therefore be assessed in context rather than through broad assumptions.
At the same time, these advantages do not make the event environmentally benign. Mega-events still strain resources and generate emissions in a world already facing severe climate pressure. Heat risks at certain venues, logistical complexity, and the scale of fan mobility all underscore the tension between global spectacle and ecological responsibility. FIFA and host organizations have committed to sustainability, but promises alone are rarely enough. Without rigorous accounting, especially for Scope 3 emissions, and without transparent, verifiable reduction targets, sustainability messaging can become more symbolic than substantive. Offsets may help, but they are not a substitute for actual emissions reduction.
That is why data-driven planning matters. Genuine progress requires measurable goals, open reporting, and collaboration across stakeholders. Organizers, teams, broadcasters, cities, transit authorities, sponsors, and fans all influence the tournament’s final footprint. When responsibility is shared, environmental management becomes part of the event’s social contract. Large-scale sport events do not exist in isolation; they operate within infrastructure systems, political expectations, and public cultures that shape what is possible and what is prioritized.
These events can also function as platforms for innovation and awareness. If managed well, they can accelerate the adoption of renewable energy at stadiums, improve waste-diversion systems, strengthen sustainable procurement practices, and encourage fan engagement campaigns that last beyond the tournament itself. Sport has unusual visibility, and because it reaches such broad audiences, it can normalize pro-environmental behavior in ways that everyday policy messaging often cannot. Even if sport’s direct contribution to global emissions is modest compared with transportation or energy production, its cultural influence can still be significant.
The challenge is to move beyond easy sound bites and toward pragmatic solutions. Environmental impacts are inherent to hosting a global spectacle of this scale. The responsible response is not blanket condemnation but targeted efforts to reduce what cannot be eliminated: refining travel policies, maximizing use of existing infrastructure, improving operational efficiency, advancing low-carbon technologies in facilities, and encouraging shared responsibility among all participants.
Critics are right to demand greater accountability from FIFA and its hosts. Yet academic and media commentary should also engage with complexity. That means contextualizing impacts, identifying trade-offs, and recognizing that better management can still produce meaningful improvements. Simplistic narratives may attract attention, but they risk obscuring the lessons future events could learn from this one.
The 2026 World Cup will carry a substantial environmental footprint, and future mega-events will do the same unless systemic changes are made. But that reality should motivate more responsible planning, not resignation. By taking sport ecology seriously and balancing cultural, economic, and social value with environmental limits, we can push international events toward more credible sustainability practices. The aim should be to replace performative commitments with strategic, evidence-based action that reduces harm where possible while acknowledging the limits of any single tournament in solving planetary problems.
