faces criticism over Saudi Aramco World Cup deal

Why the backlash is growing

Criticism is not coming from one corner of the game.

• The report says campaigners want to end the deal before 2026.
• More than 130 women’s players are said to have opposed the arrangement in an open letter.
• Critics also point to the wider optics of football’s biggest tournament being linked to an oil giant.

That matters because the 2026 World Cup is already under scrutiny for its environmental footprint. It will feature 48 teams across 16 cities, with vast international travel baked into the format. Reports suggest some researchers believe it could become the most polluting edition of the tournament yet.

The player welfare question

The sharper argument is about heat, not branding.

• The report says researchers have warned that dangerous temperatures could affect most scheduled matches.
• A group of 21 doctors and scientists is said to have called for stronger protections.
• Their proposals reportedly include mandatory cooling periods and a lower threshold for postponements.

That turns a sponsorship story into a governance story. If players and supporters may be exposed to extreme conditions, critics argue that fossil-fuel sponsorship becomes more than a reputational issue. The letter described it as “a conflict of interest with the protection of player welfare”.

’s credibility test

has defended its model, saying 90% of World Cup revenue is reinvested in football, and it has pointed to emission-cutting targets plus heat-mitigation measures. But this is where the pressure will intensify. Climate pledges sound weaker when paired with a controversial sponsor, especially before a summer tournament expected to face serious weather questions.

As planning for 2026 continues, the next storyline is clear: whether sticks rigidly to its commercial position, or faces growing pressure to show that welfare and climate concerns carry real weight before the opening match.