Experts warn that Saudi Arabia's plans to host the 2034 FIFA World Cup could significantly harm the environment due to large-scale construction and emissions. The Gulf nation, recently confirmed as the host, aims to build or renovate 15 stadiums, develop a futuristic city, and expand airports to accommodate millions of visitors.
These developments will generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions from producing and transporting materials like concrete and steel, as well as from operating heavy machinery and cooling new facilities.
Such emissions are a major contributor to climate change. Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College, criticized the plan as "environmentally wasteful in the extreme." He argued that the World Cup should be hosted in nations with an established soccer infrastructure to avoid unnecessary construction.
Seth Warren Rose, founding director of the Eneref Institute, emphasized the urgency of climate action. "By 2034, we'll be living in a different climate and that's not a metaphor," he said, urging organizers to either take meaningful steps to cut emissions or abandon the event.
Saudi Arabia's plans rely heavily on concrete, responsible for 8% of global emissions and steel, which adds another 7%. The construction of eight new stadiums and the expansion of three currently underway for the tournament's first-ever 48-team format raise concerns about the potential for "white elephant" venues-facilities left unused after the event.
The Saudi bid includes sustainability measures, such as powering stadiums with clean energy, adopting natural ventilation, and enforcing green building standards. However, Karim Elgendy, a fellow at Chatham House, warned that the vast scale of the project and the distances between host cities could make it the most carbon-intensive World Cup to date.
Without robust mitigation, he said, the event's emissions could nearly double the record set during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
In comparison, this year's Paris Olympics achieved a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by using renewable energy, recycled materials, plant-based food options, and energy-efficient infrastructure.
Critics question FIFA's decision to fast-track Saudi Arabia's unopposed bid, suggesting more suitable hosts like the UK, which already has numerous stadiums.
However, Walker Ross, a sport sustainability researcher at the University of Edinburgh, argued that global inclusivity should remain central to hosting decisions. "If this sport is truly for the world, then we have to be open to everyone hosting," he said.
Previous events have also faced scrutiny. Qatar's 2022 World Cup, which cost $200 billion and included seven new stadiums and extensive infrastructure, reportedly emitted 3.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Claims of a "carbon neutral" tournament were met with skepticism.
Saudi Arabia's growing emissions-533 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2022-are compounded by its heavy reliance on fossil fuels. While the country aims to source 50% of its energy from renewables by 2030, renewable energy adoption remains minimal.
Khaled Diab of Carbon Market Watch criticized FIFA for seemingly ignoring lessons from Qatar. "It appears FIFA has learnt very little from the debacle with the World Cup in Qatar," he said.
Messenger/EHM
