World Cup 2026: The Energy and Climate Challenges

We’re joining the conversation of the summer: Mexico’s third World Cup. A historic event, not only for the sports aspect, but also because of the timing. In 2026, hosting a mega-event is no longer just a logistical feat; it’s also a sign of how prepared we are as a region to address the energy and climate challenges of our time.

To put this into perspective, it’s worth translating the numbers into something tangible. The 2022 World Cup in Qatar generated around 3.8 million tons of CO₂, a figure that was widely criticized at the time for its environmental impact. By comparison, recent research estimates that the 2026 World Cup could exceed 9 million tons of CO₂ equivalent, making it the most polluting tournament in soccer history. To put this into perspective, this volume of emissions is equivalent to what more than 6.5 million cars generate in a full year, a reference that helps illustrate the true scale of the energy challenge.

Given its scale — 48 teams, 16 cities across three countries — the 2026 World Cup could far exceed those levels. Put simply, it’s like multiplying an already carbon-intensive event by three separate logistical systems. And that’s where the fundamental question arises not just how much it will emit, but how the energy that makes it possible is being managed.

Three Countries, Three Levels of Energy Readiness

One of the most interesting and most challenging aspects of the 2026 World Cup is that there isn’t just one energy system behind the event, but three. In theory, this opens the door to leveraging each other’s strengths. In practice, it highlights varying levels of progress.

The United States, which is hosting many of the venues, has a clear advantage: modern, proven infrastructure. Many stadiums already operate under advanced energy efficiency standards, featuring smart systems, LED lighting, and, in some cases, access to renewable energy. Furthermore, the tournament’s model has prioritized the use of existing facilities, thereby avoiding emissions associated with new construction. However, the approach remains decentralized. Each city is moving forward with its own initiatives, without a coordinated national energy strategy for the event. This limits the potential for scalability and regional impact.

Canada, for its part, is likely starting from the strongest structural position. Cities like Vancouver have predominantly renewable energy grids, which automatically reduces the carbon footprint associated with the event’s energy consumption. This is a key differentiator: it’s not just about making the event more efficient, but about the fact that the energy powering it is already clean at the source. However, this advantage is the result of a long-term energy policy, not a specific strategy for the World Cup. Canada is better prepared, but not necessarily because of the tournament.

Mexico presents a different and more nuanced picture. There has been clear progress in infrastructure modernization: stadium renovations, improvements in urban connectivity, and upgrades to the power grid to ensure reliability during matches. This is essential. However, from a broader energy perspective, the process can be described as an evolving transition. There are positive signs including regulatory adjustments and a gradual opening to new investments but we have yet to see large-scale integration of solutions such as dedicated renewable generation, energy storage, or the comprehensive electrification of the fan experience.

It is not a lack of progress, but neither is it a well-established model.

What emerges from this picture is not a lack of effort, but the absence of a shared energy vision. Three countries, three different paces, and three distinct approaches to an event that, in practice, will operate as a single system.

The Uncomfortable Benchmark

In this context, the comparison with Formula 1 is particularly revealing.

Despite being a global sport with intensive logistics, F1 has managed to reduce its carbon footprint by 26% since 2018 and maintains a clear goal of net-zero emissions by 2030. Beyond the commitment, what matters is implementation: renewable energy in operations, logistics optimization, and the development of sustainable fuels.

In Mexico, the Grand Prix has put this strategy into practice with solutions such as solar lighting, hybrid generators, and sustainable mobility programs that have prevented measurable emissions at every event.

The lesson is clear: even in complex systems, the energy transition is possible when it is integrated into the operational design, not when it is treated as a secondary component.

Regional Integration

As the tournament has begun, the window for structural changes in preparation for the event has closed. The decisions that truly transform the energy landscape renewables, storage, electrification are made years in advance.

However, the World Cup can serve as a starting point. The upcoming review of the USMCA presents a strategic opportunity to deepen energy integration among Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Greater coordination on electricity infrastructure, clean energy, and sustainable mobility would not only strengthen future events but also regional competitiveness.

Looking Ahead

Beyond this World Cup, it’s worth imagining what comes next: events where stadiums run entirely on renewable energy, where urban mobility relies on electric mass transit, where air travel incorporates sustainable fuels, and where energy is the cornerstone of design not just another operational variable.

That future isn’t far off, but it won’t happen on its own.

The 2026 World Cup will be a sporting and media success. But in terms of energy, it represents a halfway point: a reflection of progress, yes, but also of the gaps that still exist.

Three countries, three levels of preparedness, one shared opportunity.

Because in this decade, the true measure of major events will not lie in the spectacle, but in the energy infrastructure they leave behind.