The countdown to the FIFA World Cup 2026 has begun, and excitement is already building. FIFA has announced that ticket sales will officially start next week, with entry-level tickets priced at $60. This is the start of a wave of global interest in the first World Cup hosted by three countries: the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Beyond football, the 2026 World Cup is being framed as the largest sporting event in history, set to break records in scale, audience, and financial impact. However, as the tournament grows, questions about sustainability and climate accountability are surfacing more strongly than ever.
This article explores the key elements shaping the 2026 World Cup—from the scale of ticketing and stadium preparations to the climate debate and FIFA’s promises on environmental management.
Ticket Sales and Record Demand
FIFA confirmed that ticket sales for the 2026 World Cup will start next week, with the lowest-priced tickets at $60. While this marks a lower entry point compared to past tournaments, demand is expected to outpace supply significantly.
The 2026 edition will host 48 teams for the first time, up from 32, and feature 104 matches across 16 cities in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. This expansion increases the number of tickets available. FIFA projects that over 5.5 million tickets could be sold, surpassing the record 3.1 million sold in Brazil 2014 and the 3.4 million in Qatar 2022.
FIFA is also testing new ticketing models, including bundled packages for group-stage matches and hospitality programs. Organizers are betting on the North American market’s strong purchasing power to drive record-breaking revenue. It could potentially surpass $11 billion in total tournament income.
Stadiums and Infrastructure: North America’s Advantage
The United States, Canada, and Mexico have much of the needed infrastructure. This lowers construction costs and cuts environmental impact compared to previous hosts. FIFA’s Bid Book notes that 16 stadiums across the three countries are already built and will require minimal adaptation.
The U.S. alone will host 11 stadiums, including New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium (capacity ~82,500), Dallas’ AT&T Stadium (~80,000), and Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium (~70,000). Canada contributes Toronto and Vancouver, while Mexico adds Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey.
The use of existing facilities shows a change from past tournaments. For example, in Qatar 2022, seven new stadiums were built. This will lower the carbon footprint of construction. However, emissions from operations and travel are still significant.
Football’s Carbon Footprint
Football—known as soccer in North America and other regions—is far from climate-friendly. The sport generates an estimated 64–66 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent annually, making it as emissions-intensive as the entire country of Austria.

This figure shows energy use in stadiums, construction, and merchandise. It also highlights travel and high-carbon sponsorships. These two areas make up about 75% of total emissions.
At the elite club level, teams like Liverpool FC and FC Barcelona are leading the action. Liverpool cut operational emissions by 89% from 2019 to 2024, sources 96% of energy from renewables, and offsets all remaining club operations. FC Barcelona registered a footprint of 1,190 t CO₂e in 2021–22, has switched entirely to renewable electricity, and aims for net-zero by 2030.
Football has a big impact on global emissions. Yet, top clubs are finding ways to lessen this harm. They aim for a more sustainable future for the sport.
The Climate Debate: FIFA’s “Blind Spot”
FIFA is under increasing scrutiny about the tournament’s environmental impact, even with better stadium usage. A recent report, IFA’s Climate Blind Spot (July 2025), said that FIFA’s climate promises are unclear and not enough for the World Cup’s needs.
Air travel emerges as the largest concern. With 48 teams, expanded matches, and international fans, emissions from flights are expected to reach record highs. The report highlights that travel-related emissions could exceed those of Qatar 2022, where the event generated an estimated 3.6 million metric tons of CO₂e.

Moreover, emissions related to top sponsors are adding up to the event’s total carbon footprint.

Critics say FIFA’s carbon-neutral pledges lack clarity. The organization often relies on offsets, especially forestry projects. However, these have faced questions about their permanence and integrity. FIFA is facing calls to invest in direct emissions cuts. This includes renewable energy and low-carbon transport.
FIFA’s Environmental Promises
FIFA’s Bid Book and environmental assessment documents outline strategies to mitigate the tournament’s impact. The focus is on three pillars: infrastructure efficiency, waste reduction, and renewable energy.
FIFA has committed to:
- 100% renewable energy use at stadiums and fan zones.
- Waste recycling systems aim for 80% diversion from landfills.
- Water-saving technologies in stadiums, especially in drought-prone areas like California and Mexico.
- Partnerships with public transit systems to encourage sustainable travel.
In theory, hosting across three countries spreads the load across existing infrastructure. However, the flip side is significantly higher travel demand. Fans, teams, and officials will need to fly long distances between cities such as Vancouver, Miami, and Mexico City. This challenge raises doubts about whether the tournament can realistically achieve a “sustainable” profile.

Chasing $11B: Football’s Financial Juggernaut
The World Cup is not only a sporting spectacle but also a financial powerhouse. FIFA expects revenues to exceed $11 billion, up from $7.5 billion in Qatar 2022. The majority will come from broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and ticket sales.
North America’s large stadiums and established sports economy are central to this projection. For instance:
- The average stadium capacity is over 60,000, compared to Qatar’s average of 47,000.
- Sponsorship opportunities are expected to grow by 20–25%, as global brands align with the expanded 48-team format.
The global audience could exceed 5 billion viewers, making it the most-watched sporting event in history. This scale raises the stakes for FIFA not just financially, but in terms of its responsibility toward sustainability and social impact.
Expansion vs. Emissions: Can Growth Be Green?
FIFA’s expansion to 48 teams reflects the tension between inclusivity and sustainability. More nations participating increases global engagement, but also magnifies emissions and logistical challenges.
Environmental experts argue that FIFA should use the World Cup to set new standards for sustainable mega-events.
Options include:
-
Mandating airlines to provide emissions disclosures.
-
Investing in renewable energy projects in host cities.
-
Funding carbon removal technologies instead of relying heavily on offsets.
The July 2025 report emphasizes that FIFA cannot afford to ignore climate accountability, especially as global climate negotiations intensify. With COP30 set to take place in Brazil in late 2025, pressure will grow on FIFA to align with global climate goals.
Lessons from Past Tournaments
Comparisons with earlier tournaments illustrate both progress and gaps:
- Germany 2006 was the first World Cup to adopt a formal sustainability program, focusing on energy efficiency.
- Brazil 2014 faced criticism for stadiums that became “white elephants.”
- Russia 2018 introduced carbon offset programs, but they were limited in transparency.
- Qatar 2022 claimed “carbon neutrality,” but independent reviews challenged these claims due to reliance on offset credits.
The 2026 edition, taking place in countries with great infrastructure and solid climate policies, can set a strong example. It all depends on whether FIFA keeps its promises seriously instead of just using marketing talk.
What to Watch in the Lead-Up
As the tournament approaches, several milestones will shape both excitement and scrutiny:
- Ticket sales volume and pricing trends once sales open next week.
- Details on FIFA’s climate and sustainability programs, expected in late 2025.
- Infrastructure upgrades, particularly in transport and stadium retrofits.
- Policy linkages between host governments and FIFA, especially around emissions and energy use.
The spotlight will intensify not only on the quality of football but also on FIFA’s ability to balance entertainment with responsibility.
The 2026 World Cup will be the biggest ever. It boasts record ticket sales, more teams, and amazing financial returns. Yet, its growth comes with heightened responsibility. FIFA’s climate strategy faces criticism. How the organization manages emissions, offsets, and renewable energy will affect views on the event, extending beyond football.
As ticket sales begin and excitement builds, fans and stakeholders alike will be watching not only for goals on the pitch but also for progress on sustainability. The World Cup offers an unparalleled opportunity to demonstrate that mega-events can align with global climate goals—if the commitments are real and the implementation matches the ambition.
The post FIFA World Cup 2026: Ticket Frenzy, $11B Payday, and Football’s Climate Test appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business
Key takeaways
- SBTi is the default reference point for corporate climate action: 51% of Fortune Global 500 companies now hold net-zero targets, up from 8% in 2020, and over 11,000 organizations worldwide have SBTi-validated targets.
- Net Zero Standard V2 redefines climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions, not reduction alone.
- The new standard adds flexibility through five-year cycles, a “best efforts” standard, and an Asset Transition Method for companies whose path to net-zero doesn’t fit a straight-line trajectory.
- Voluntary carbon credits are formally recognized for the first time, with reduction and removal credits accepted from 2027, and removals required from 2035.
- Companies with 2030 targets keep using V1 for their current cycle and move to V2 in 2028; companies without targets can start using V2 on February 1, 2027.
Why every business needs to understand the SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has become the default reference point for credible corporate climate action. Net-zero targets are now held by 51% of Fortune Global 500 (FG500) companies, up dramatically from just 8% in 2020, and more than 11,000 organizations worldwide have set SBTi-validated targets.
However, SBTi’s influence extends well beyond the companies formally participating in the program. Every business in the value chain of an SBTi participant will have to reduce its own carbon emissions, and businesses that aren’t SBTi participants themselves still look to the program for guidance on climate action.
In short, SBTi gives every business a credible blueprint for climate action, and companies that follow its principles can pursue climate action with confidence, whether or not they’re formally part of the program.
How will the Net Zero Standard revision affect business climate action?
SBTi participation is expected to grow. Despite strong target-setting participation among the F500, only 17% of companies use the SBTi Net Zero Standard V1 beyond target setting, largely because its rules have been seen as too rigid to apply in practice. Much of the Net Zero Standard revision has focused on creating more flexibility to enable higher participation. Medium and small businesses will also increasingly feel pressure for climate action, since SBTi mandates that its participants reduce carbon emissions across their value chains.
Net Zero Standard V2 also redefines climate leadership: leading climate action now means reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. Reducing your own emissions while ignoring the emissions you continue to release along the way is no longer considered leadership. Supporting voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits is now backed by the leading authority on corporate climate action.
What lessons shaped the Net Zero Standard V2 revision?
The revision reflects a few learnings about what actually drives climate progress, and how SBTi built those lessons into the new standard.
| Net Zero Standard V1 Learnings | Net Zero Standard V2 Implementation |
|---|---|
| Making real short-term progress is more important and more difficult than making big long-term promises | Focus on short-term climate progress |
| Every company has a different path to net zero that doesn’t always fit generalized net-zero rules | Create asset transition plans based on each company’s unique asset lifecycles and capital planning |
| We need to mitigate our ongoing emissions to keep global carbon emissions in check | Reduce global carbon emissions by financing voluntary carbon projects with high-integrity carbon credits |
What are the key changes between the old and new Net Zero Standard?
Both versions of the standard are grounded in net-zero by 2050. However, the old standard treated climate leadership as simply reducing emissions, expected a long-term commitment to net zero, based emission reduction targets on generalized net-zero goals, revoked status from companies that fell behind on targets, and ignored voluntary carbon projects entirely.
The new standard treats climate leadership as reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions. It shifts the focus to short-term progress through five-year cycles, and it bases emission reduction targets on both the net-zero goal and a company’s own asset decarbonization plan. A new Asset Transition Method lets companies set decarbonization targets through asset plans with committed, verifiable steps; an ambitious but achievable path based on a company’s starting point, financial resources, and technology, with multiple pathways to reflect the unique opportunities and constraints of different industries and companies.
Crucially, the new standard moves to a “best efforts” basis that creates real flexibility on progress against targets. Businesses that miss their targets can keep their status if they’ve used “every lever” within their control, and minimum progress rules will be set out in the SBTi Assurance Manual.
Finally, the new standard formally uses voluntary carbon projects to mitigate ongoing emissions. From 2027 through 2034, this mitigation is recognized, and both carbon reduction and removal credits are accepted. From 2035 forward, mitigation with carbon removal credits becomes required, with durability matching between the removal and the emission it offsets.
| Old Net Zero Standard | New Net Zero Standard |
|---|---|
| Grounded in net-zero by 2050 | Grounded in net-zero by 2050 |
| Climate leadership is reducing emissions | Climate leadership is reducing emissions and mitigating ongoing emissions |
| Make a long-term commitment to net-zero | Focus on short-term progress in 5-year cycles |
| Emission reduction targets are based on net-zero goal |
|
| Businesses who fall behind targets lose status |
|
| Ignores voluntary carbon projects |
|
When does the new Net Zero Standard take effect?
Companies with existing 2030 targets should continue using the old Net Zero Standard for their current cycle, and start using the new Net Zero Standard in 2028 to set targets for the next cycle (2030–2035).
Companies that don’t yet have targets can use the new Net Zero Standard starting February 1, 2027.
What are SBTi’s Category A and Category B companies?
The new Net Zero Standard splits companies into two categories, with different requirements attached to each.
Category A covers large companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from high-income countries. A company from any country qualifies if it meets at least one of: net turnover of €450 million or more, or 1,000 or more full-time employees. A company from a high-income country qualifies if its Scope 1 and 2 emissions are 10,000 tCO2e or more, or if it meets at least two of: balance sheet of €25 million or more, net turnover of €50 million or more, or 250 or more full-time employees.
Category B covers small companies from all countries and medium-sized companies from lower-income countries.
How do Scope 1 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 1 targets aim to transition companies to net-zero direct emissions by 2050 or sooner, and companies can choose from three approaches.
- Absolute emissions reduction follows a straight-line emissions trajectory from the target base year to the net-zero year.
- Emissions intensity reduction lets companies follow sector-specific pathways designed to reflect the reduction opportunities available in sectors like steel, cement, or chemicals.
- Asset transition is designed for companies whose capital stock turnover doesn’t follow a linear or sector pathway. These companies design a transition plan to operate existing assets efficiently and replace them with low-carbon assets, using predetermined milestones.
How do Scope 2 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 2 targets address emissions from purchased electricity through three pathways:
- Reducing electricity consumption,
- Reducing grid consumption by installing onsite or direct-line offsite clean energy generation, and
- Cleaning up the regional grid using market-based tools like PPAs, RECs, and GOs that drive clean energy development.
V2 introduces a dual Scope 2 framework requiring two separate targets, with an overall goal of 100% low-carbon electricity by 2040.
The location-based target addresses the carbon intensity of a company’s physical power use, and requires companies to show that their grid consumption is falling and/or that their physical grid use is getting cleaner; in other words, that their market-based solutions are actually making the grid cleaner.
The market-based (or zero-carbon electricity) target tracks a company’s use of low-carbon power generation contracts and Energy Attribute Certificates. It requires geographical matching of these certificates with electricity consumption based on deliverability regions (grid regions); annual matching is allowed, though hourly matching is encouraged. Category A companies with large electricity loads must report the percentage of their Scope 2 electricity consumption matched with low-carbon attributes on an hourly basis, and there’s an optional recognition framework for companies that meet hourly matching thresholds.
How do Scope 3 targets work under Net Zero Standard V2?
Scope 3 targets share the same 2050-or-sooner net-zero goal, but companies set near-term targets only for material emissions sources in their value chain and areas where they have real influence. Long-term Scope 3 targets are generally not required.
Limited, justified exclusions are allowed for near-term targets, including categories that individually account for less than 5% of total Scope 3 emissions, and activities where a company lacks practical influence, like leased assets it doesn’t operationally control, or the processing of sold products. Optional exclusions are also available in specific categories.
Companies can choose from three approaches to near-term Scope 3 targets:
- An overarching emissions reduction target, which follows a linear contraction of emissions from the base year to residual emissions of 10% or less by 2050 or sooner;
- An overarching supplier/customer alignment target, benchmarked against a growing share of tier 1 suppliers and customers reaching net-zero by 2050 or sooner; or
- A category- or activity-specific target, tailored for companies with concentrated emissions in particular Scope 3 categories or high-emitting activities.
What is “ongoing emissions mitigation” under the new SBTi standard?
This is one of the most significant additions in Net Zero Standard V2. Accelerated climate contributions are needed to help the world achieve climate objectives, limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support the scale-up of climate solutions, and V2 formally recognizes that. Ongoing emissions mitigation runs as a parallel track to companies also reducing their own emissions.
The framework is initially voluntary, with recognition available at three contribution levels to encourage early action.
- Engaged companies address more than 1% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
- Advanced companies address more than 10% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, including 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
- Leadership companies address 100% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions with a contribution budget of $80/tCO2e.
Carbon credits used for this purpose have to meet certain quality standards. They must be ex-post (issued after the mitigation has actually occurred), independently third-party-assured, emissions reductions or removals, measured in tCO2e, that occur within five years prior to the reporting year. They must be sourced from outside the company’s own value chain. Further minimum criteria will be set to align with high-integrity frameworks, with additional details on the recognition program expected in the second half of 2026.
Starting in 2035, carbon removals become mandatory for Category A companies. From that point, the carbon removal coverage requirement rises linearly from 1% of Scope 1–3 emissions to 100% by a company’s net-zero year. Within that, 10% of long-lived GHG emissions must specifically be covered by durable removals, also rising linearly to 100% by the net-zero year.
How must companies neutralize residual emissions?
At a company’s net-zero target year and thereafter, it must reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions to zero or to residual levels, and neutralize all residual emissions using eligible carbon removals. Those removals have to meet two conditions: they must occur within the same reporting period as the residual emissions they’re neutralizing, and long-lived GHGs must be neutralized with long-lived removals, matching the durability of the removal to the atmospheric lifetime of the emission being addressed.
What is the SBTi implementation hierarchy?
Net Zero Standard V2 also lays out how companies should prioritize their actions for credible target delivery, in three tiers.
- Direct actions, at the activity level, are actions that reduce emissions at the source within a company’s own operations and value chain; things like efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and engaging suppliers and customers to reduce their emissions.
- Actions within shared systems, or activity pools that reduce the emissions of shared systems like electricity or gas grids. This includes market instruments that convey low-carbon attributes, such as PPAs, RECs, and GOs, all of which must meet minimum integrity criteria that SBTi will elaborate on in future guidance.
- Sector-level actions relate to the same type of activity occurring in a relevant geography or system, in a way that meaningfully reduces the emissions a company is responsible for.
How Terrapass helps businesses meet the new SBTi standard
As the rules around carbon credits become more rigorous, the quality of the credits behind them matters more than ever. Terrapass has expanded our global network of carbon projects: more project types, locations, prices, ICVCM CCPs, and UN SDGs, spanning super-pollutant destruction, nature-based solutions, and durable removals. We offer Green-e® Climate Certification and we only source from third-party-verified projects on ICVCM-Eligible registries.
We also help clients with impact beyond carbon: EACs, RECs, and GOs including Green-e® Certified credits that support leading renewable energy projects; water credits that support water restoration projects; and custom environmental product needs like RNG and SAF. Wherever your organization is on its sustainability journey, we help clients around the world address climate risk, advance their environmental and social goals, and get the most out of their sustainability budgets.
FAQ: SBTi Net-Zero Standard revision
What is the SBTi Net-Zero Standard?
It’s the framework the Science Based Targets initiative publishes for companies that want validated, credible net-zero targets tied to limiting global warming.
What is changing in the SBTi Net Zero Standard V2 revision?
The biggest changes are more flexibility (five-year cycles and a “best efforts” standard), a new Asset Transition Method for companies whose emissions don’t follow a straight-line path, and formal recognition of voluntary carbon credits for mitigating ongoing emissions.
When do companies need to switch to the new SBTi standard?
If your company already has 2030 targets, you keep using V1 for your current cycle and move to V2 in 2028. If you don’t have targets yet, you can start using V2 as of February 1, 2027.
Can companies use carbon credits to meet SBTi targets?
They can. Under V2, high-integrity carbon reduction and removal credits count toward mitigating ongoing emissions from 2027 through 2034. Starting in 2035, only removal credits count, and they need to be durability-matched to the emissions they offset.
What’s the difference between Category A and Category B companies under SBTi?
Category A is large companies everywhere plus medium-sized companies in high-income countries, based on thresholds like revenue, headcount, or emissions. Category B is small companies everywhere and medium-sized companies in lower-income countries.
What happens if a company misses its SBTi target?
Under the old standard, falling behind could cost a company its SBTi status. Under V2’s “best efforts” approach, a company can hold onto its status as long as it’s used every lever within its control, with minimum progress rules coming in the SBTi Assurance Manual.
Sources: This post is based on Terrapass’s internal analysis of the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0. Facts and figures were checked against SBTi’s official V2.0 announcement, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 — Chapter 6: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, Trellis’s coverage of the standard, Trellis’s reporting on Ongoing Emissions Recognition costs, Sylvera’s analysis of what comes next, Anthesis Group’s Fortune 500 net-zero commitments research, and Climate Impact Partners’ seventh annual FG500 analysis, as reported by CarbonUnits.com.
The post SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2: What the Revision Means for Every Business appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
How to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
How community stewardship makes carbon credits durable
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
![]()
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

