FIFA and pop superstars should discount tickets for fans to keep climate costs of 'mega-events' down, say researchers

FIFA and pop superstars should discount tickets for fans to keep climate costs of 'mega-events' down, say researchers Sadie Harley Scientific Editor Andrew Zinin Chief Editor 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 metric tons to some 4.23 million metric tons of carbon for the whole tournament, 82% of which comes from traveling fans, with around 3 million metric tons from flying alone. Environmental economists from Cambridge say that if the cost of mitigating the World Cup's emissions were passed directly to 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, researchers say. They argue that organizers should reward fans with discounts for using lower-carbon transportation, helping to "share responsibility" for an event's climate damage. Coldplay fans drove most cuts Along with projections for the 2026 World Cup, researchers also analyzed data related to Coldplay's 2024 European tour, taking in 1.9 million tickets sold for 32 concerts across 10 cities. Passing the tour's climate costs to fans would add $11 per ticket. Coldplay set out to reduce its 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 traveled. The fans cut their travel-related emissions by 48%, which, combined with other low-carbon measures, almost halved overall emissions (46%) compared with a business-as-usual tour, according to the latest study. The band encouraged this via dedicated apps that compare low-carbon travel options to shows and merchandise discounts for eco-friendly travel. Much of the latest analysis was done by two recent students in Cambridge's MPhil in Environmental Policy: Jackson Goldman, a huge football fan who previously worked in public health research, and Jascha Servi, a 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 Larcom. "As we find with Coldplay's approach, real sustainability comes when organizers influence the wider system of fan behavior, from transportation 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 the future. If hugely popular blockbuster events cannot take responsibility for their emissions, it gives little hope elsewhere," Larcom said. The researchers point out that the study's estimate for 2026 World Cup emissions puts it on par with the annual carbon footprint 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 Servi, the report's joint first author. A test for climate viability 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 the "climate viability" of an event. The likely economic benefits to organizers, as well as the value people place on the experience as estimated by demand for tickets, are balanced against the financial costs of potential emissions. Events should be scaled back, redesigned or even canceled 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 Goldman, one of the study's joint-first authors. "What's needed now is for organizers and fans to work together to take responsibility for these emissions." Sharing the cost of travel The second step is making climate damage part of the true cost of the event. Organizers should be responsible for emissions from venues and staging, but costs of "indirect" emissions, such as spectators traveling 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 rebates for sustainable travel choices." He points to other potential measures, including event location decisions that reduce the need for spectator travel. This may mean a greater number of events in more regions. Alternatively, host locations could be chosen that minimize 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 transportation. 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 modeled the 2026 FIFA World Cup by estimating emissions using FIFA attendance and travel projections. Previous research by Larcom 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 behavior toward 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." More information A framework for assessing climate costs and economic benefits of major entertainment events, Communications Sustainability (2026). DOI: 10.1038/s44458-026-00112-z Key concepts air transportationeffects of climate changetransportationCarbon FootprintClimate ChangeSustainabilityProvided by University of Cambridge