Soccer, also known as football, is the world’s most popular sport, with billions of fans and a vast global reach. While football is the commonly used term in most countries, soccer is widely recognized in regions like North America. Regardless of the name, the sport’s environmental impact remains a major concern, and its carbon footprint is growing.
Recent studies, particularly the New Weather Institute report “Dirty Tackle: The growing carbon footprint of football“, estimate that soccer’s total carbon footprint is around 64-66 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) annually. This is comparable to the annual emissions of Austria and 60% more than those of Uruguay.
Knowing the main causes of soccer’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is key to reducing its impact. So, what are the main culprits of the game’s growing carbon emissions?
The Major Contributors to Soccer’s Carbon Emissions
Here are the top three major sources of the sports’ rising GHG emissions:

Sponsored Emissions: A Significant Source of Impact
One of the largest sources of football’s emissions is its sponsorship deals with high-carbon industries. The New Weather Institute report shows that 75% of soccer’s carbon footprint comes from sponsorships. This includes high-emitting companies like fossil fuel corporations and airlines. These deals are associated with industries that have high emissions, including frequent air travel and fossil fuel-based transport.
For example, FIFA signed a deal in 2024 with Saudi oil giant Aramco, the world’s largest fossil fuel company. UEFA also has ongoing sponsorships with Qatar Airways and Emirates, both major airline polluters.

- The 2022 FIFA World Cup had four big sponsorship deals, with associated emissions estimated at over 16 million tCO₂e. Also, the top four European clubs with airline sponsorships added 8 million tCO2e.
RELATED: UEFA’s Green Goals: $7.6M Climate Fund for EURO 2024 Carbon Footprint
Travel Emissions: The Heavy Cost of Mobility
Soccer matches require significant travel, both for teams and spectators. The reports highlight that spectator travel is the biggest contributor to non-sponsorship emissions. Air and car travel make up the bulk of these emissions, particularly for international competitions.
- One Men’s FIFA World Cup match emits 44,000-72,000 tCO2e, equivalent to 31,500 to 51,500 average UK cars driven for a year.
- A single English Premier League (EPL) match emits around 1,700 tCO2e, with spectator travel accounting for half of this.
- Matches in international club competitions increase emissions by 50% due to air travel.
- The FIFA World Cup, including qualification matches, emitted 6.5 million tCO2e over four years.
Expanding tournaments and increasing international matches contribute to higher emissions. The 2026 World Cup in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada will need a lot of air travel. This will greatly raise emissions from travelling.

Efforts to promote greener travel among spectators remain insufficient. While some clubs encourage fans to use public transport, overall adoption is low.
Experts suggest that more teams could adopt low-carbon initiatives, such as electric mobility, to reduce emissions. They could offer discounted match tickets for fans who use low-carbon transport.
Stadium Construction: Where Emissions Come From
Stadiums cause a lot of carbon emissions. This happens both during their construction and while they are maintained. The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar saw the construction of new stadiums emitting 270,000 tCO2e per stadium. Major clubs continue to renovate or build new stadiums, adding to their carbon footprint.

- New stadiums for top-tier clubs like Tottenham Hotspur and Brentford resulted in significant emissions.
- Clubs like Manchester United, Real Madrid, and Barcelona have large stadium expansion projects underway, which will further increase emissions.
Moreover, stadium energy use contributes to ongoing emissions. Many stadiums still use non-renewable energy. They have high electricity use on match days. While some clubs have implemented solar panels and LED lighting, these efforts must be expanded across all leagues.
Green Goals: Are Soccer’s Climate Commitments Enough?
Despite these staggering numbers, soccer’s governing bodies have pledged to curb its carbon footprint. FIFA and UEFA have committed to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2040. However, some of their actions raise questions about alignment with these commitments.
- FIFA’s partnership with Aramco has raised discussions about its climate commitments.
- UEFA’s expansion of the Champions League and FIFA’s decision to increase the World Cup to 48 teams in 2026 are expected to result in higher emissions.
- Many top clubs continue to sign sponsorship deals with airlines and fossil fuel companies, industries associated with high carbon emissions.
Also, increasing the number of matches in player schedules may also have environmental impacts. Players travel more often, which raises emissions from team transport.
Notably, the upcoming 2026 FIFA World Cup, to be co-hosted by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, further stirs environmental concerns. The tournament will expand to 48 teams. This means more travel and better infrastructure are needed. This leads to higher GHG emissions.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup Emissions
In March 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a task force to oversee preparations for the event. This task force aims to leverage the World Cup to promote American excellence and attract foreign investment.
However, Trump’s statement that political and economic tensions with co-host nations Canada and Mexico would ‘enhance the excitement’ of the tournament has been noted by analysts. They also highlight environmental considerations.
Estimates suggest that the event could generate over 3.7 million tonnes of CO₂. Most emissions come from air travel, stadium construction, and fans getting to games. These exceed the emissions from the 2022 Qatar World Cup, one of the most polluting ever, recording an estimated 3.6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions—the highest yet.
These changes bring attention to the environmental impact of the 2026 World Cup and the potential for mitigation efforts.
Some Ways to Cut Soccer’s Footprint
Soccer has the power to lead climate action given its global influence. Here’s how the sport can reduce its environmental impact:
- End High-Carbon Sponsorships: Some have suggested that sports governing bodies could consider phasing out sponsorships with high-carbon industries, similar to past restrictions on tobacco advertising.
- Reduce Air Travel: Football clubs and leagues should encourage train and bus travel for domestic matches. Ticketing policies can prioritize local fans to cut travel emissions.
- Smaller, Regional Tournaments: Clubs should prioritize regional competitions. This change can help cut down on long-haul flights.
- Sustainable Stadiums: Clubs should invest in low-carbon stadiums. They can use renewable energy sources like solar panels and LED lighting.
- Encourage Low-Carbon Fan Behavior: Clubs can offer incentives for public transport use, cycling, and electric vehicle travel to matches.
- Stronger Climate Rules: Football federations could set sustainability standards for competitions, with clubs potentially needing to meet carbon reduction goals to participate.
- Player-Led Advocacy: Many professional soccer players are already speaking out about climate change. Their influence can drive awareness and push governing bodies toward stronger climate commitments.
Football’s Path to Action
Soccer’s carbon footprint is significant, but the sport also has the potential to influence climate action. With its unmatched global reach, football can be a powerful force for sustainability.
With collective action from governing bodies, clubs, players, and fans, soccer can reduce its carbon footprint while maintaining its global appeal.
The post How Soccer’s Carbon Footprint Adds Up: A Closer Look at the Global Game Called Football appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 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 Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

