Fans Flocked to World Cup Cities—Accounting for 80 Percent of the Tournament’s Turnout

Major sporting events like FIFA World Cup and music tours around the world are major events that generate significant social and economic benefits. But these events also come with a large number of greenhouse gases because of international travel, construction, and mass use.

Last week, a research team from the University of Cambridge published a new system in the journal Communications Sustainability to analyze major events and see “climate potential.” Analyzing 2026 FIFA World Cupwhich ended on Sunday, as well as Coldplay’s 2024 European tour, scientists weighed the health benefits of each event against the cost of production.

“Effective weather methods for large events like World Cup “Continuing to reduce emissions in the environment, because this is only a small part of what is happening,” Cambridge professor Shaun Larcom explained in a statement. to announce of the report’s findings.

According to the research team’s estimates, the expansion of the 2026 World Cup to 48 teams is expected to increase the carbon footprint by about 590,000 metric tons compared to the previous year’s 32-team competition, reaching about 4.23 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Of this total, 82 percent comes from fan travel, with foreign travel accounting for approximately 3.07 million tons. The expected output of the 2026 World Cup was the same as Iceland’s annual output, the researchers found.

If this type of season pricing were passed directly to spectators, it would be an additional cost of $114 per game ticket on average. Using the same formula for Coldplay’s 2024 European tour (10 cities, 32 shows, 1.9 million tickets), the cost of the season without any mitigation measures would be $11 per ticket. Although the measurements and travel distances with fans are different from those of the World Cup-and the research group says that it did not want to compare the two-this trip shows who the “big players” in reducing emissions are.

Coldplay has made efforts to reduce the emissions associated with the show, including the use of mobile battery systems and solar power generation and a kinetic dancefloor. But the researchers estimate that nearly 98 percent of the reduction in emissions during Coldplay’s tour was due to fans voluntarily revising their travel habits. The group offered a volunteer program that allowed fans to compare low-emission transportation options, as well as discounts on merchandise for fans who traveled in an environmentally friendly way, helping to change this behavior.

As a result, Coldplay’s tour managed to reduce emissions from fan traffic by 48 percent. Combined with other measures, this reduced the amount of carbon generated during the trip by 46 percent compared to conventional trips, cutting them in half.

The researchers proposed a two-stage economic model for decision-making aimed at dealing with climate damage caused by extreme events. The first step involves comparing the economic benefit that the organizer gets and the cost to the spectators – estimated according to the demand for tickets – and the financial cost of emissions. If the cost exceeds the benefit, the study suggests that organizers should consider extending, renovating, 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 benefit outweighed the seasonal cost. However, the researchers note that during the World Cup, the calculation may no longer be as the carbon price—that is, the cost of one ton of carbon dioxide based on the damage it can cause—is higher.

“Greater entertainment may lead to better health outcomes for people to account for the costs they generate,” Jackson Goldman, one of the study’s co-authors, said in a press release. “What’s important now is for organizers and fans to work together to take this kind of responsibility.”

The second step is to include the cost of climate change in the total costs of the event. Although the research group argues that the organizers should be responsible for air pollution related to the location and the setting of the stage, they argue that the cost of indirect air – such as the return trips of fans – should be shared by the organizers and fans.