The Ecological Consequences of Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup

FIFA has revealed that Saudi Arabia will be the host of the 2034 men’s World Cup, marking the return of the world’s premier football tournament to the Middle East.

The bidding process raised various issues, including concerns about human rights, labor laws, and regulations related to LGBTQ+ rights. Environmental challenges are also significant, as hosting a sporting event in a desert petrostate necessitates considerable construction of new stadiums and airports, with a strong desire from the country to improve its image through greenwashing.

The Saudi bid highlighted “environmental sustainability” as a key priority, claiming that the nation is “remaking its landscape” with environmental protection at the heart of the proposal. While this sounds promising in theory, what are the real implications?

The tournament is set to occur across five cities: Riyadh, Jeddah, Al Khobar, Abha, and the ambitious, yet-to-be-built megaproject of Neom. Out of the expected 15 stadiums, 11 are either in the construction phase or not yet initiated. Although the designs for these facilities are impressive, they come with serious environmental issues that have yet to be adequately addressed.

In Riyadh, a new venue called the Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Stadium will feature glass elements, LED screens, solar panels, and “perforated shimmering metal”. The Saudi authorities assert that this will contribute to a futuristic look.

Concurrently, the Neom stadium is said to rely entirely on renewable energy, primarily generated from wind and solar sources. This ambitious strategy aligns with a larger national plan to achieve 50% reliance on renewable energy by 2030. However, renewables presently contribute less than 1% of Saudi Arabia’s power supply, making such a swift transition unlikely.

The newly proposed Aramco Stadium in Al Khobar, named after the state-owned oil behemoth— the world’s largest oil producer— has sparked controversy regarding its sponsorship of FIFA. Recently, over 100 women’s professional footballers urged FIFA to sever its ties with Aramco, calling it a “slap in the face”.

The deep ties between major oil companies and football contradict FIFA’s claim that sustainability is a core goal, as well as Saudi Arabia’s quest for “environmental stewardship”.

National Transportation Expansion

Saudi Arabia currently boasts 16 international airports and 13 domestic facilities, with private jet terminals located throughout the host cities. However, these infrastructures are set for expansion in preparation for the tournament.

For instance, Jeddah’s main airport is projected to increase its capacity from 43 million to 90 million passengers annually, while Abha’s airport expansion will grow from 1 million to 10 million. Additionally, Neom International Airport is set to accommodate 20 million passengers.

This extensive expansion raises concerns about escalating carbon emissions, prompting questions about the necessity of such developments solely for sporting events. Is it really essential to construct new airports for tournaments that occur every few years? This situation is further complicated by the fact that countries like the US, Canada, and Mexico already possess much of the infrastructure needed for the upcoming 2026 tournament.

Many of these new stadiums might become white elephants, as proposed capacities often exceed 45,000, which is significantly higher than the average attendance for any team in the Saudi Pro League during the 2024-25 season.

Nevertheless, there are positive signs that Saudi Arabia may improve public transportation in the host cities, incorporating electric or hydrogen bus and rail services.

The World Cup proposal also aims to develop pedestrian pathways and encourage the rental of bikes and e-scooters near stadiums. All “fan festivals” are planned to be within walking distance of hotels.

However, previous studies indicate that Saudis are less likely to cycle or walk than people in other countries, raising concerns about the long-term legacy of these initiatives. If there is little post-tournament use of these pathways or bike lanes, the environmental benefits of constructing this infrastructure may be questionable.

Energy Generation

Aligned with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 development strategy, the nation aims to utilize the World Cup as a catalyst for advancing renewable energy initiatives.

Stadiums are expected to be designed and constructed with locally sourced materials and sustainable energy systems. For example, the South Riyadh Stadium will incorporate native plant species and employ rainwater harvesting technologies.

However, the bid documentation lacks thorough specifics on how the incomplete transportation services and venue infrastructure will effectively harness renewable energy or how these efforts will ultimately decrease the nation’s reliance on oil and gas.

Recently, the Saudi government has aimed to diversify its economy beyond oil, targeting other industries like mining. Yet, there appears to be limited dedication towards pursuing substantial investments in renewable technologies. The actions of Saudi Arabia at the recent Cop29 climate summit—where it took a leading role in obstructing progress away from fossil fuels—cast doubt on its intentions.

Moreover, previous World Cups (notably Qatar 2022) made lofty promises regarding effective stadium repurposing and ongoing support from energy-efficient technologies, yet these pledges have often failed to materialize.

Hosting the World Cup in Saudi Arabia amid a climate crisis raises substantial environmental risks due to stadium construction, transportation expansion, and heightened energy consumption. These matters have not been sufficiently considered in the country’s plans. The connections between sponsorship and greenwashing could hinder aspirations to become a global leader in environmental sustainability.

Matthew Hutchinson, Lecturer in Sport Business Management, Keele University and Seth I. Kirby, Senior Lecturer in Sport and Leisure Management, Nottingham Trent University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.