FIFA and pop superstars should discount tickets for fans to keep climate costs of ‘mega-events’ down – study
- Travelling by fans dominates the climate damage of large-scale events, accounting for 82% of emissions for the 2026 FIFA World Cup and 97% for Coldplay's 2024 European tour, new research suggests.
- Cambridge experts call on FIFA and popstars to eat some carbon costs by rewarding fans with rebates for greener travel to events. The study found similar initiatives by Coldplay resulted in tour emissions almost halving.
The vast majority of carbon emissions caused by “mega-events” such as World Cups and global concert tours come from audience travel, according to University of Cambridge researchers.
In a new study, researchers estimate that expanding to 48 teams for this year’s World Cup increased emissions by well over half a million tonnes to some 4.23m carbon tonnes for the whole tournament, 82% of which comes from travelling fans, with around 3m tonnes from flying alone.*
Environmental economists from Cambridge say that if the cost of mitigating the World Cup’s emissions was passed straight to the fans, it would average an additional $114 per match ticket.
More effective would be to focus on reducing spectator travel, as this produces by far the most emissions, say researchers, who argue that organisers should reward fans with discounts for using lower-carbon transport, helping to “share responsibility” for an event's climate damage.
Along with projections for the 2026 World Cup, researchers also analysed data related to Coldplay’s 2024 European tour, taking in 1.9 million tickets sold for 32 concerts across ten cities. Passing the tour’s climate costs to fans would add $11 a ticket.
Coldplay set out to reduce their carbon footprint through initiatives such as solar-powered stage systems. However, almost all the band’s climate mitigation ended up coming through the fans. Researchers estimate that around 98% of the tour's emissions reduction was from fans voluntarily changing how they travelled.
The fans cut their travel-related emissions by 48%, which, combined with other low-carbon measures, almost halved (46%) overall emissions compared with a business-as-usual tour, according to the latest study. The band encouraged this via dedicated apps comparing low-carbon travel options to shows, and merchandise discounts for eco-friendly travel.
Much of the latest analysis was done by two recent students on Cambridge’s MPhil in Environmental Policy: Jackson Goldman, a huge football fan who previously worked in public health research, and Jascha Servi, music enthusiast and strategy consultant in the media industry, who built datasets from ticket resale markets among other sources. They worked with Dr Sam Vosper and Professor Shaun Larcom in Cambridge’s Department of Land Economy.
“Effective climate strategies for mega-events like the World Cup go well beyond reducing operational emissions at venues, as this is only a fraction of the overall footprint,” said corresponding author Prof Shaun Larcom.
“As we find with Coldplay’s approach, real sustainability comes when organisers influence the wider system of fan behaviour, from transport and routing to decisions about the scale and design of an event."
"We now regularly see record-breaking temperatures as a result of climate change, which will limit if and how these mega-events can be staged in future. If hugely popular blockbuster events cannot take responsibility for their emissions, it gives little hope for elsewhere,” Larcom said.
The researchers point out that, the study’s estimate for the 2026 World Cup emissions puts it level with the annual carbon footprint of the nation of Iceland.**
“Live entertainment is environmentally consequential. But unlike many carbon-intensive industries that operate under thin margins and at a distance from consumers, mega-events generate substantial economic value and are uniquely close to their audiences – giving them both the means and the cultural influence to lead on climate action,” said Jascha Servi, the report’s joint first author.
In the latest study, published in the journal Communications Sustainability, Larcom and colleagues outline a two-step economic blueprint for climate damage caused by mega-events.
The first step determines “climate viability” of an event. The likely economic benefits to the organisers, as well as the value people place on the experience by estimating the demand for tickets, is balanced against the financial costs of potential emissions.
Events should be scaled back, redesigned or even cancelled if climate costs outweigh social and economic benefits, the researchers argue. Applying this test to the 2026 FIFA World Cup and Coldplay’s 2024 tour, they find both get a green light.
“Large entertainment events are likely producing more than enough welfare to account for their emissions costs”, said Jackson Goldman, one of the study’s joint-first authors. “What’s needed now is for organisers and fans to work together to take responsibility for these emissions.”
The second step is making climate damage part of the true cost of the event. Organisers should be responsible for emissions of venues and staging, but costs of “indirect” emissions, such as spectators travelling to and from events, should be shared.
“There are practical tools readily available to implement shared responsibility for indirect emissions, with many more to discover,” said Larcom. “Bands like Coldplay have led the way by introducing merchandise rebate for sustainable travel choices.”
He points to other potential measures, including event location decisions that reduce the need for spectator travel. This may see a greater number of events in more regions. Alternatively, host locations could be chosen that minimise long-haul travel.
For example, for the 2026 World Cup, around 40% of international attendees are expected to come from Europe. Hosting in Europe instead of North America would have substantially reduced travel emissions.
As with Coldplay, FIFA could offer discounts for fans who use rail or share transport. The cost of emissions could be priced into some tickets, with proceeds used to fund research into cleaner aviation or high-quality carbon removal. However, a flat fee hits those with cheaper tickets hardest, so top-tier tickets should absorb more carbon charges, the researchers argue.
Co-author Goldman even floats the idea of a small broadcast fee, calculating that a $4.50 charge per viewer could offset the total $787 million carbon cost of the 2026 World Cup.
The researchers modelled the 2026 FIFA World Cup by estimating emissions using FIFA attendance and travel projections.
Previous research by Larcom has calculated the carbon reduction that would come with the Catholic Church reinstating meat-free Fridays, and he argues that major entertainers and sports stars have just as much potential to nudge population behaviour towards sustainability.
“These mega-events go far beyond mere entertainment. They elevate the human spirit and provide a sense of communion for fans. In many ways, they offer the perfect opportunity to inspire the shared responsibility required to prevent further climate change,” said Larcom.
“Modern entertainers wield huge influence, and are industries in their own right. If Taylor Swift decided she wanted climate viability at the heart of her tours, then it would have to happen.”
Notes:
*The modelling finds that expanding this year’s World Cup from 32 to 48 teams adds roughly 594,000 tonnes of CO₂ to the tournament’s carbon footprint, 16% higher than a hypothetical 32-team World Cup and 11% higher than the 2022 tournament.
** The EDGAR 2025 dataset puts Iceland's 2024 total greenhouse gas emissions at 4,282,411 tonnes CO₂e (4.282 MtCO₂e).
Journal
Communications Sustainability
Method of Research
Data/statistical analysis
Article Title
A framework for assessing climate costs and economic benefits of major entertainment events
Article Publication Date
16-Jul-2026
No comments:
Post a Comment