The study, released ahead of this summer's tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico that kicks off this Thursday [11 June}, claims football's governing bodies are prioritising commercial expansion over environmental concerns, saying the sport has become deeply tied to fossil fuel interests and unsustainable growth.
The study, released ahead of this summer's tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico, claims football's governing bodies are prioritising commercial expansion over environmental concerns, saying the sport has become deeply tied to fossil fuel interests and unsustainable growth.
Delivered by Loughborough University, University of Bristol and University of Manchester, the report states football's carbon footprint is not simply caused by fan travel or stadiums, but is politically produced through decades of commercial growth, globalisation, ties to fossil fuel companies and Petrostates.
A Petrostate is a nation whose economy and political power are largely dependent on the extraction and export of oil or natural gas.
Findings showed that elite football increasingly relies on investment from fossil fuel-rich states and companies, citing sponsorships and ownership models linked to Gulf nations and energy firms.
FIFA's partnership with Saudi oil giant Aramco is singled out by the authors, who claim football has become central to a wider strategy of sportswashing by fossil fuel interests.
The researchers say the expanded 48-team format for the 2026 Men's World Cup will significantly increase emissions due to the greater number of matches and the vast travel distances across North America.
The tournament will feature 104 matches across 16 host cities spanning the entire continent. The last Men's World Cup in 2022, Qatar, saw 64 matches played across the 32-team tournament.
FIFA's environmental policies are also scrutinised, with the research team accusing the organisation of promoting sustainability rhetoric while simultaneously expanding competitions and strengthening ties with fossil fuel sponsors.
The study also highlights concerns over future tournaments, noting that Saudi Arabia is set to host the 2034 World Cup while the United States withdrew from the Paris climate agreement under President Donald Trump.
Lead researcher, Dr Mark Doidge, Reader in Sociology of Sport at Loughborough University, said: "Football is the world's most popular sport, and probably the most popular activity. It is for this reason that football authorities, like FIFA, continue to exploit it for commercial profit.
"Football is also a cultural powerhouse with millions of fans, volunteers, and players trying to make the sport better. Football can, and should, use its influence to mitigate against climate change."
Dr Oscar Berglund, Senior Lecturer in International Public and Social Policy at the University of Bristol, said: "FIFA has made elite men's football the primary target of Petrostate sportswashing. This World Cup, with the ridiculous Trump Peace Prize and having Saudi Aramco, the world's largest polluter, as its main sponsor, reaches new levels.
"It has been a key strategy of Petrostates to use football's unrivalled cultural influence globally. They don't need to convince us that fossil fuels are good, just that they are inevitable. So, as we watch and love our beautiful game, we come to accept the necessary evil of fossil capital."
As part of the study, researchers interviewed sustainability managers working in football clubs across Europe, many of whom described tensions between environmental targets and the commercial demands of the modern game.
According to the report, sustainability initiatives are often only approved if they do not disrupt football's core product, including the scheduling and broadcasting of matches.
Some interviewees said clubs remained more focused on increasing revenues than reducing environmental costs, despite the growing financial risks posed by flooding, heatwaves and fixture disruption.
Dr James Jackson, Lecturer at The University of Manchester, said: "Despite the last World Cup offering a preview of what football would be like in a significantly warmer world, FIFA has remained indifferent to better regulation.
"Rather than be proactive and ensure football helps mitigate against the worst impacts of climate change, FIFA is, at best, pursuing meagre adaptation measures that threatens fans and player. As FIFA has sought little in the way of sustainability initiatives to instead cosy up to many of the largest fossil fuel states in the world, they look an increasingly neglect governing body."
The investigation proposes a series of recommendations aimed at reducing football's environmental impact.
Among them are calls for FIFA to stop awarding tournaments to Petrostates, restrictions on fossil fuel ownership of clubs, bans on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship in football, and a halt to the expansion of competitions.
The report additionally calls for sustainability managers to be embedded into all levels of club decision-making rather than operating in isolated compliance roles.
FIFA has previously defended its sustainability strategies and said major tournaments can drive investment, infrastructure and development in host nations. The organisation has also said that expanding competitions increases global participation and opportunities for smaller footballing nations
Findings are drawn from research that will form part of an upcoming book, Football and Climate Change: The Unsustainability of the Beautiful Game, due to be published in 2027.
