The World Cup problem that could disrupt all of sports

After last year’s dangerously hot and humid FIFA Club World Cup in the U.S., attention has turned to how soccer’s governing body might handle extreme heat during its largest-ever tournament: The 2026 FIFA World Cup, set to kick off June 11. Much of the focus has been on how the temperatures could affect the footballers, but the event is a reminder that the ones in real peril are the fans — and the players of the future.

Less than a month out from the first whistle, we’ve got a better idea of the heat risks faced at each of the tournament’s 16 venues across the U.S., Canada and Mexico. A quarter of the matches are likely to be played when conditions exceed a wet-bulb globe temperature (a measure of how effectively the body can cool itself) of 26C, a level considered dangerous and requiring numerous cooling breaks, according to an analysis by World Weather Attribution, an international scientific collaboration that evaluates the possible influence of climate change on extreme weather events. About five matches are expected to occur at a wet-bulb temperature of 28C, a threshold at which the American College of Sports Medicine suggests cancellation or postponement. In a press briefing, one of the researchers involved in the study described these figures as "conservative," meaning the reality could be a lot worse.

We still don’t have clarity on FIFA’s heat policy. The organization has announced a three-minute hydration break per half, no matter what the temperature is. During last year’s Club World Cup, FIFA allowed extra cooling breaks at a wet-bulb globe temperature of 28C, but only after the International Federation of Professional Footballers intervened. Neither of these measures are adequate.

Still, though players may struggle, we’re more likely to see sluggish and boring matches as the world’s best footballers pace themselves to deal with the heat than medical emergencies. These are elite, acclimatized athletes, and the stop-start nature of soccer is different from, say, long-distance running — see: Jonny Brownlee’s dramatic finish at the 2016 Triathlon World Series finale in Mexico.

Instead, it’s the fans who are in real danger. As well as being in tiptop condition, footballers and other elite athletes are monitored closely by medical professionals. The same cannot be said for spectators. At the World Cup, somewhere between 5 million and 7 million people are expected to watch the matches in person. This enormous group will have a diverse range of fitness levels, demographics and preexisting conditions that may make them more vulnerable to the heat. Even if the match is held in one of the three air-conditioned stadiums, fans will be exposed to the heat when navigating to and from the event, queuing for long periods or watching from outdoor fan zones. They also probably won’t be following best practices for dealing with high temperatures. Beer isn’t very hydrating, after all.

Keeping people safe isn’t rocket science. FIFA should ensure that water is easily accessible and free. Cooling stations and shade should be provided around the stadiums and in fan zones, while the heat risks and how to deal with them should be well communicated. But with the body barely taking player safety seriously, it would be no surprise if spectator health was an afterthought.

Also too often ignored: The danger extreme weather poses to sport doesn’t stop at large sporting events — it threatens participation writ large, too. Kids can’t learn to play football on a flooded pitch; it’s harder to safely go for a run in a heatwave. If a government has to funnel resources toward weather crisis response, there’s less left over to fund community sport initiatives.

A global survey by IPSOS in 2021 found that while over half the people said they wish to engage in more physical activity, 17% cited unfavorable weather conditions as a key obstacle. Under current trajectories, according to a World Economic Forum report, the combined impacts of worsening physical inactivity, climate change and nature loss could reduce the sports economy’s annual revenue by up to 14% (or $517 billion) by 2030, rising to 18% by 2050 — mainly due to reduced sports participation and demand for sporting goods.

Kevin Wekesa, a Kenyan rugby sevens player, told the Guardian that he had to cancel a free rugby coaching session he was giving at a school in a usually green and verdant area of Kenya when he found a "unplayable dry field." The students told him it’d been like that for months. If children are unable to enjoy running around with a rugby ball, where will the top players of the future come from?

Analysis from nonprofit Football for Future looked at climate projections for 18 locations around the world where the likes of David Beckham, Kylian Mbappé and Lionel Messi began their footballing journeys. It found that by 2050, the number of days in these regions with an wet-bulb globe temperature of 32C would increase by 45%, while days exceeding a wet-bulb globe temperature of 35C are predicted to rise by 150%. Nobody wants to practice dribbling in those conditions.

If our upcoming athletic superstars and even everyday fans can’t reliably train, the future of sport looks dire. But it goes further than the economic and health impacts. Being active is fun. So climate change is not just a threat to our safety and will-being, but also to the simple enjoyment of our lives.

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change.