Every four years, something fascinating happens: millions of people stay up late, glued to their screens, debating offside calls and celebrating goals as if they’d scored them themselves. A World Cup is more than just a sporting event — it’s a global spectacle. But behind the images of cheering fans, sold-out stadiums and reports of economic success lies a far more complicated reality. Who really benefits from such mega-events? Who pays the price? And how sustainable can a World Cup even be?
© unsplash / Vishal ButoliaEconomic engine or expensive prestige project?
For host countries, the math sounds tempting at first. Tourism, investments and international attention are expected to inject billions into the economy. Following the 2018 World Cup in Russia, the total economic impact was estimated at around 952 billion rubles (approximately 14.5 billion U.S. dollars) — roughly one percent of the annual gross domestic product. Additionally, organizers anticipated long-term benefits from tourism and infrastructure investments.
In fact, certain groups benefit significantly: hotels, restaurants, airlines, media companies and sponsors often report record revenues. Many fans also experience a unique atmosphere that brings people together across cultural and political boundaries.
But the other side is often overlooked. Numerous studies show that the long-term economic effects are often significantly lower than originally promised. New stadiums are sometimes barely used after the tournament, while the public sector is left with high investment costs. Furthermore, the profits often go to international corporations and associations, while the population bears the infrastructure costs.
The environment rarely gets a look in
The balance sheet becomes particularly critical when looking at the climate. According to estimates by climate experts, the current World Cup in North America is considered the most emissions-intensive World Cup to date. Due to the enormous geographical distance between the venues, around 7.8 million tons of CO₂ could be generated — more than twice as much as at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Around 87 percent of the emissions are attributed to air travel.
Qatar 2022 already highlighted the difficulties of such sustainability promises. FIFA and the organizers described the tournament as “climate-neutral.” However, environmental organizations and scientists criticized this characterization as misleading, as emissions were apparently underestimated and questionable offset measures were factored in.
The central question is therefore: Can an event that sends millions of people flying around the world and requires massive infrastructure projects be sustainable at all?
© unsplash / Wonder KIM
© unsplash / Nasif TazwarWhy FIFA is repeatedly under fire
FIFA itself is also regularly under fire. The allegations range from a lack of transparency to corruption. The 2015 corruption scandal, in particular, shook the world of soccer. U.S. investigators accused FIFA officials of having accepted millions in bribes over decades. Among other things, the focus was on the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
Added to this are allegations regarding human rights, governance structures and questionable sustainability communication. Critics complain that economic interests are often prioritized over social or environmental responsibility.
A positive way forward?
Despite all the criticism, it would be wrong to demonize major events outright. Sports can bring people together, inspire and spark social debates. The solution, therefore, lies not in abandoning them, but in reforming them.
Future tournaments could rely more heavily on existing infrastructure, be organized in a more geographically compact manner and meet binding sustainability standards. Transparent bidding processes, independent audits and realistic carbon footprint assessments would further build trust.
Bottom line
A World Cup is simultaneously a public celebration, an economic driver and a climate issue. It creates unforgettable moments but also incurs significant costs — financial, environmental and social. The crucial question is therefore not whether we want to continue hosting such tournaments, but whether we are willing to organize them in a way that ensures the excitement on the field is not overshadowed by the consequences outside the stadium. After all, the greatest trophy of all would be a World Cup that is not only a sporting success but also a social and environmental one.
Ressources
- FIFA 2018 World Cup effect on Russia’s GDP to reach $2.3-3.2 bln per year over 5 years: TASS
- Climate cost of expanded World Cup under scrutiny as emissions set to soar: Reuters
- FIFA 2022 World Cup’s “carbon neutral” claim is far-fetched and spurious: Carbon Market Watch
- Qatar World Cup: Fifa ‘made false statements’ about carbon-neutral tournament, says Swiss regulator: BBC
- No, Qatar’s World Cup Can’t Be Classed as Carbon-Neutral: WIRED
- 2015 FIFA corruption scandal: Encyclopaedia Britannica