The most significant figure is 87%: the report says that share of projected emissions will come from travel, largely by air.
The tournament will involve 48 teams, three host countries and 16 cities across North America. That geography creates long journeys between fixtures, training camps and fan destinations. The expanded format increases participation, but it also spreads the competition across a far wider operating map.
Reducing energy use inside stadiums cannot fully address a footprint dominated by flights. The biggest sustainability gains would need to come from scheduling, transport planning and limiting unnecessary movement between host cities.
The reported total is equivalent to the annual emissions of 1.7 million cars, a comparison that underlines the scale of the challenge. It also sharpens the debate around the decision to make the World Cup larger and more geographically dispersed.
Football’s global reach is one of its strongest assets. Yet every additional team, venue and travel corridor adds pressure to an event already dependent on international aviation. The commercial benefits of expansion therefore arrive alongside a measurable environmental burden.
The report says has committed to cutting its emissions by half by 2030. A World Cup projected to move in the opposite direction will invite scrutiny of how that target is being pursued.
Sustainability initiatives may reduce the impact of venues and operations, but they cannot erase the central travel problem. As the tournament approaches, ’s strongest response would be transparent accounting, a clear reduction plan and evidence that future competitions will not repeat the same pattern.
The next storyline will be whether the 2026 World Cup can match its promise of global spectacle with credible action on the emissions created to deliver it.