Evolution of Sustainability Policies and Strategies in FIFA
FIFA governs football on a global scale. It coordinates over 200 national associations, organizes the most-watched tournaments on the planet, and generates economic flows that few other sectors can match. All of this brings with it an environmental and social responsibility of extraordinary proportions. How has it addressed this in recent years? With a strategy that has made significant strides on paper, but still displays relevant contradictions in practice. Understanding this evolution is useful for anyone working in the world of football who wants to navigate an evolving regulatory and reputational landscape.
Where FIFA’s sustainability strategy comes from
FIFA’s commitment to sustainability is not a recent development. Efforts regarding environmental, social, and economic matters have been defined and refined over the past twenty years, continuing to evolve in line with international best practices. However, it was from 2021 onward that FIFA formalized a structured approach, introducing an explicit climate strategy and quantified targets. In 2021, FIFA published its first climate strategy document, committing to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.
These targets form part of a broader framework aligned with the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework and the Paris Agreement. In 2023, FIFA President Gianni Infantino formalized this direction within the strategic vision “Football Unites the World”, which defines global goals for the 2023–2027 cycle. Within this framework, FIFA commits to developing, implementing, and reporting standardized sustainability strategies for events, contributing to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), applying sustainable procurement requirements, adopting climate change mitigation measures, and promoting more sustainable football infrastructure.
The five areas of intervention
FIFA’s current approach to sustainability is structured around five distinct areas of intervention, each with specific tools and responsibilities. The first area is climate action, which includes measuring emissions generated by tournaments, defining reduction targets, and adopting measures to limit the impact of major events. In this regard, FIFA reports its emissions using standard greenhouse gas accounting methods, including tracking emissions from tournaments, host cities, and operational activities. The second area focuses on event sustainability, with specific strategies developed for every major tournament. For the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022, FIFA emphasized that the tournament was the first in history to achieve ISO 20121 certification for sustainable event management, with every stadium used certified as sustainable and achieving 42% higher energy efficiency compared to international benchmarks.
The remaining areas expand into infrastructure, supply chain governance, and broader social goals. Infrastructure sustainability involves providing guidelines for the design and management of sports facilities that take long-term environmental impact into account. This is closely linked to supply chain due diligence, which implements sustainable procurement requirements extending to FIFA’s suppliers and commercial partners. Finally, the fifth area represents the organization’s contribution to the United Nations SDGs, deploying social programs and development initiatives that connect football directly to global sustainable development targets.
The 2022 world cup in Qatar: the first major test
The World Cup in Qatar was the first tournament where FIFA systematically applied its sustainability strategy, and the results highlighted both the progress made and the limitations that remain. On the positive side, the ISO 20121 certification, stadium energy efficiency, and waste management programs represented a genuine step forward compared to previous tournaments. On the critical side, the tournament’s total emissions told a different story from what was officially communicated. The majority of emissions were generated by travel and accommodation, with 78.9% of total emissions produced during the competition itself, 54.9% of which came from air transport.
In fact, transport-related emissions at the Qatar World Cup turned out to be higher than the entire carbon footprint of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. FIFA had marketed the tournament as “carbon neutral.” This claim triggered official complaints in five European countries. The Swiss Fairness Commission concluded that FIFA’s communication was misleading, unsubstantiated, and lacked evidence to support the declared carbon neutrality, ordering the organization to cease using this terminology in its advertising.
World Cup 2026: growing challenges
The 2026 World Cup, hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, brings with it unprecedented logistical complexity. The tournament is expanding from 64 to 104 matches, featuring 16 more teams than the previous edition, with venues distributed across an entire continent. Air transport-related emissions are estimated at 7.72 million tonnes of $CO_2e$, more than four times higher than the average air transport emissions of tournaments held between 2010 and 2022.
This growth makes it highly difficult, if not impossible, to meet the 50% reduction target by 2030 stated in the climate strategy. Furthermore, the specific sustainability strategy for the 2026 World Cup was expected by early 2024 but was not published on schedule. This delay raises legitimate questions about the alignment between stated commitments and the operational capacity to translate them into concrete, documented actions.
2030 and 2034: choices weighing on credibility
Decisions regarding the 2030 and 2034 World Cups have put even greater strain on the credibility of FIFA’s sustainability strategy. The 2030 World Cup will be hosted by Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, with three celebratory matches in Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay to commemorate the centenary of the first World Cup. This geographical setup implies cross-continental travel for players, staff, and fans, significantly increasing transport emissions at a time when reducing them is crucial. Meanwhile, the 2034 World Cup has been awarded to Saudi Arabia, where plans include building 11 new stadiums, one of which will be inside Neom, an urban megaproject yet to be constructed.
The environmental impact of this new construction will be considerable, raising concrete questions about the compatibility of these choices with declared climate goals. These decisions expose a sharp tension between two logics that FIFA still struggles to reconcile, balancing the economic and commercial forces driving tournament bidding allocations against the sustainability goals declared in its official strategy.
What is working and what needs improvement
An honest analysis of FIFA’s sustainability strategy recognizes real progress without ignoring current shortcomings. On the progress front, the organization has successfully formalized quantified climate targets, adopted international standards for emissions reporting, and introduced sustainability requirements in tournament bidding processes and supplier tender specifications. It has also achieved ISO 20121 certification for its events and forged significant strategic alliances, such as extending its partnership with the Pacific Islands Forum to combat climate change.
Conversely, significant shortcomings remain. Out of 18 climate initiatives planned in the official strategy, only 2 have been completed, while 14 show no documented progress whatsoever. Furthermore, there is no dedicated sustainability budget, and reporting on funded initiatives remains highly opaque. The gap between stated commitments and verifiable progress is still significant, requiring a major step up in the internal governance of FIFA’s sustainability operations.
The turning point: from communication to substance
FIFA’s journey in sustainability reflects an ongoing transformation across the entire global sports industry, marking the shift from a communication-led approach to a substance-led approach. For many years, sustainability was managed primarily as a reputational matter, characterized by ambitious statements and selective reporting. Today, this approach no longer holds up, falling short before regulators, institutional investors, and an increasingly informed public.
The real challenge is not setting targets. The real challenge is reducing emissions in a global event that structurally depends on international travel. This challenge cannot be met solely through carbon offsetting or communication; it requires structural choices regarding tournament formats, venue selection criteria, infrastructure, and fan mobility. For clubs, associations, and industry stakeholders looking to FIFA as a regulatory and strategic benchmark, the message is clear. The direction is set, requirements will increase, and those who build a robust measurement and reporting system today will hold a competitive advantage tomorrow. This is no longer just because FIFA may eventually mandate it at all levels, but because sponsors, investors, and the market are already demanding it.
