Fans Flocked to World Cup Host Cities—Causing 80 Percent of the Tournament’s Emissions

Major sporting events like the FIFA World Cup and global music tours are major events that generate significant cultural and economic value. But these events also come with massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions caused by international travel, building infrastructure, and mass consumption.

Last week, a research team from the University of Cambridge released a new framework in the journal Communications Sustainability to evaluate mega-events from the perspective of “climate viability.” Analyzing the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which ended on Sunday, and Coldplay’s 2024 European tour, the scientists weighed the consumer welfare gains of each event against the emissions costs.

“Effective climate strategies for mega-events like the World Cup go well beyond reducing operational emissions at venues, as this is only a fraction of the overall footprint,” Cambridge professor Shaun Larcom explained in an announcement about the report’s findings.

According to the research team’s estimates, the expansion of the 2026 World Cup to a 48-team format is expected to increase total emissions by approximately 590,000 metric tons compared to the 32-team tournament of years prior, reaching about 4.23 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Of that total, 82 percent is attributable to fan travel, with international travel accounting for approximately 3.07 million metric tons. The estimated emissions from the 2026 World Cup were on par with Iceland’s total annual emissions, the researchers found.

If the climate cost of these emissions were passed directly on to spectators, it would amount to an additional cost of $114 per match ticket on average. Applying the same framework to Coldplay’s 2024 European tour (10 cities, 32 shows, 1.9 million tickets), the climate cost without mitigation measures would amount to $11 per ticket. While the scale and the distances traveled by fans differ from those of the World Cup—and the research team says it did not intend to directly compare the two—the tour shows who the “key players” in emissions reduction are.

Coldplay has made efforts to cut the emissions tied to putting on the show, including using mobile battery systems and generating power through solar power and a kinetic dancefloor. But the researchers estimate that approximately 98 percent of the emissions reductions on Coldplay’s tour were due to fans voluntarily reevaluating their travel methods. The band offered a dedicated app that allowed fans to compare low-carbon transportation options, along with discounts on merchandise for fans who traveled in an environmentally conscious manner, helped drive this behavioral change.

As a result, Coldplay’s tour succeeded in reducing emissions from fan travel by 48 percent. Combined with other measures, this reduced the tour’s overall emissions by 46 percent compared to a typical tour—effectively cutting them nearly in half.

The researchers proposed a two-stage economic framework for decision-making aimed at addressing the climate damage caused by mega-events. The first stage involves comparing the economic benefits reaped by the organizer and the value to spectators—estimated based on ticket demand—with the monetary cost of emissions. If the cost exceeds the benefits, the study suggests organizers should consider scaling back, redesigning, or canceling the event.

When applied to the 2026 FIFA World Cup and Coldplay’s 2024 European tour, the framework showed that in both cases, the economic benefits exceeded the climate costs. However, the researchers note that for the World Cup, the calculation may no longer hold if the social cost of carbon—that is, cost per ton of emissions based on the damage they’ll do—is on the higher side.

“Large entertainment events are likely producing more than enough welfare to account for their emissions costs,” Jackson Goldman, one of the study’s coauthors, said in the announcement. “What’s needed now is for organizers and fans to work together to take responsibility for these emissions.”

The second step is to incorporate the costs of climate change damage into the event’s overall costs. While the research team argues that organizers should be responsible for direct emissions associated with venues and stage setup, they contend that the costs of indirect emissions—such as fans’ roundtrip travel—should be shared by both organizers and fans.