As the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, a pressing concern looms: the escalating threat of heatwaves driven by climate change. With the tournament set for June 11 to July 19, 2026, in the heart of the Northern Hemisphere summer, players, fans, and organizers face significant risks from extreme heat. Qatar set a precedent in 2022 with air-conditioned stadiums to combat its scorching climate, prompting the question: Can the US replicate this feat?
The Heatwave Threat:
Climate change has intensified summer temperatures globally, and the US is no exception. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the June-to-August period has warmed by 1.05°C (1.89°F) since the first World Cup in 1930, with the rate of warming accelerating since the 1990s. This trend raises serious concerns for the 2026 World Cup, particularly in host cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, and Monterrey, Mexico, which the global soccer players’ union, FIFPRO, has flagged as “extremely high risk” for heat stress due to temperature and humidity data.
Players face the risk of exertional heat illness, including muscle cramping, heat exhaustion, and life-threatening heat stroke, when core body temperatures exceed 40°C (104°F). For instance, during the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup in the US, players like Chelsea’s Enzo Fernández reported dizziness from the heat, with some requesting substitutions due to debilitating conditions. Spectators are equally vulnerable, facing long queues and exposure to searing temperatures, as seen at the 2025 Club World Cup in Charlotte, where fans waited in sweltering conditions.
Professor Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures in Leeds, England, warns, “The deeper we go in the decade, the greater the risk without considering more dramatic measures, such as playing in the winter months and/or cooler latitudes.” The 2026 World Cup’s schedule aligns with a period when heatwaves are increasingly common in the US, exacerbated by climate change. For example, cities like Dallas and Houston frequently experience temperatures above 35°C (95°F) in June and July, with humidity amplifying the heat index. These conditions could lead to severe health risks and disrupt the tournament experience.
Air-Conditioned Stadiums:
Qatar’s 2022 World Cup showcased innovative climate control, with seven of eight stadiums equipped with advanced air-conditioning systems. These systems used energy-efficient cooling technologies, such as district cooling, to maintain comfortable temperatures for players and fans, even in outdoor venues. The US, however, faces a different reality. While some 2026 host stadiums, like those in Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, are covered and have climate control, others, including Kansas City, Miami, and Monterrey, are open-air and exposed to the elements.
Retrofitting existing stadiums with Qatar-style air-conditioning is a daunting challenge. Qatar’s stadiums were purpose-built or renovated with cooling systems integrated from the design phase, supported by significant financial investment. In contrast, many US stadiums, primarily designed for American football or baseball, lack the infrastructure for large-scale air-conditioning. Installing such systems would require extensive modifications, including reinforced structures to support cooling units, enhanced power grids, and advanced ventilation systems. The cost could run into billions, with estimates for a single stadium’s retrofit exceeding $100 million, depending on size and complexity.
Moreover, the environmental impact of air-conditioned stadiums raises concerns. Qatar’s systems, while effective, consumed substantial energy, drawing criticism for their carbon footprint. The US, under pressure to meet sustainability goals, would need to balance cooling needs with eco-friendly solutions, such as solar-powered systems or energy-efficient designs. However, time constraints—less than two years until the tournament—make widespread retrofitting unlikely. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has stated that covered stadiums will be prioritized for daytime matches, but this leaves open-air venues vulnerable to heat, potentially limiting scheduling flexibility.
Calendar Change:
FIFA’s traditional June-July World Cup schedule, rooted in the 1930 tournament, aligns with the Northern Hemisphere summer but clashes with rising temperatures. The 2022 Qatar World Cup was moved to November-December to avoid extreme heat, a precedent that highlights the feasibility of rescheduling. However, shifting the 2026 tournament poses challenges. European soccer leagues, which dominate global viewership, operate from August to May, making a mid-season World Cup disruptive to domestic schedules and the UEFA Champions League.
FIFA has not publicly considered alternate dates for 2026, and the US Soccer Federation has not advocated for a calendar change, likely due to logistical and commercial pressures. European TV audiences, a key revenue driver, prefer evening kickoffs, which translate to afternoon or early evening games in the US, precisely when heat is most intense. FIFPRO and players like Enzo Fernández have urged FIFA to avoid afternoon kickoffs, but the expanded 48-team format and 104-match schedule make early morning or late-night games logistically difficult. FIFA’s reluctance to adjust the calendar is evident in its 2030 World Cup bid evaluation, which downplayed heat risks in Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, despite temperatures exceeding 40°C (104°F) this summer.
Professor Friederike Otto from Imperial College, London, emphasizes the stakes: “If you want to play football for 10 hours a day, they’ll have to be the hours of the early morning and late evening, if you don’t want to have players and fans die from heatstroke or get severely ill with heat exhaustion.” Without a calendar shift, FIFA may rely on stopgap measures like extra water breaks and shaded benches, as seen in the 2025 Club World Cup, though these were criticized as inadequate.
2026 World Cup:
If the 2026 World Cup proceeds from June 11 to July 19, extreme heat could significantly affect the event:
-
Player Health and Performance: High-intensity soccer in temperatures above 35°C (95°F) increases the risk of heat-related illnesses. Players may experience reduced stamina, cognitive impairment, and dehydration, as seen in the 2025 Club World Cup, where even goalkeepers like Real Madrid’s Thibaut Courtois struggled. This could lower match quality and increase injury risks.
-
Fan Experience: Spectators face prolonged exposure to heat, especially in open-air stadiums or while queuing. The 2025 Club World Cup saw games delayed by thunderstorms, a risk in summer months, potentially disrupting schedules and fan travel plans. Heat exhaustion among fans could strain medical resources at venues.
-
Logistical Challenges: The expanded tournament requires a daily four-game schedule, making it hard to avoid daytime kickoffs. Open-air stadiums in high-risk cities like Miami and Kansas City could exacerbate heat issues, while thunderstorms, common in the US summer, may cause delays, as seen in Charlotte and New York during the 2025 Club World Cup.
-
Economic and Reputational Risks: A heatwave-related incident, such as mass heat exhaustion or a player collapsing, could tarnish the tournament’s reputation and FIFA’s credibility. Environmental advocacy groups like Fossil Free Football warn that the 104-match schedule increases the likelihood of “dangerous weather” intersections, amplifying risks.
A Path Forward: Balancing Tradition and Safety
The US cannot fully replicate Qatar’s air-conditioned stadiums due to time, cost, and infrastructure constraints, but targeted solutions could mitigate risks. Prioritizing evening kickoffs in covered stadiums, enhancing hydration stations, and providing shaded areas for fans are feasible steps. Long-term, FIFA must confront the climate crisis head-on, potentially shifting future World Cups to cooler months or regions, as suggested by Professor Forster. The 2030 World Cup in Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, also scheduled for summer, underscores the urgency of rethinking the soccer calendar.
As Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania climate scientist, notes, “This is symbolic of something bigger—not just the danger to fans and players, but the fundamentally disruptive nature of climate change when it comes to our current way of life.” The 2026 World Cup is a chance for FIFA and the US Soccer Federation to innovate, prioritizing safety and sustainability over tradition.
