As record heat scorches host cities across North America, a coalition of environmental groups, health experts, and professional footballers is demanding FIFA sever ties with Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil giant — the tournament's exclusive energy partner and the world's largest corporate carbon emitter.
On a sweltering Sunday afternoon outside SoFi Stadium, where Belgium and Iran were about to face off in a World Cup knockout match, the air was thick with more than just heat. Hundreds of protesters gathered, chanting and holding signs that read "Drop Aramco" and "Our Game, Not Their Ad."
They were part of a coordinated day of action targeting five World Cup venues and six other major sporting arenas across the United States . Their message was simple but urgent: football should not be a platform for fossil fuel advertising.
At the center of their ire is Saudi Aramco, which signed a four-year deal with FIFA in late 2024 estimated to be worth $100 million annually — a total package of approximately $400 million . The sponsorship grants the company exclusive rights in the energy category for both the 2026 Men's World Cup and the 2027 Women's World Cup .
The Conflict of Interest
For critics, the partnership represents a fundamental contradiction. Aramco is consistently ranked as the world's largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter, responsible for 4.28% of global CO₂ emissions in 2024 alone .
"Having Saudi Aramco as a major worldwide sponsor of this FIFA World Cup completely undermines any credibility FIFA has, or could have had, around sustainability claims," said Madeleine Orr, an assistant professor of sport ecology at the University of Toronto .
FIFA has pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2040 and reduce its carbon footprint by 50% by 2030 . Yet the tournament itself is projected to be the most polluting in World Cup history — in part because of the sheer scale of the event, with 48 teams playing 104 matches across 16 cities in Canada, Mexico, and the United States .
Heat, Health, and Hypocrisy
The irony is not lost on activists: Aramco's emissions are helping fuel the extreme heat that now threatens players and fans alike. Climate Central found that nearly all of this year's host stadiums are experiencing more intense heat during June and July than during previous North American World Cups .
Earlier this month, 21 doctors and scientists signed an open letter to FIFA calling for stronger heat protection policies — and urging the organization to ban fossil fuel sponsorships altogether .
"Oil companies are causing climate change, and it's very clear burning fossil fuels is what is causing our planet to heat up, and that's actually threatening the very sports that they are associating themselves with," said Dr. Samantha Green, a Toronto family physician and president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment .
David Wheeler, a former English professional footballer now training as a sports psychologist, echoed the concern. "It's a business that significantly worsens the climate crisis, forcing players to play in extreme heat risking their health," he told The Guardian .
Players Speak Out: 'We Do Not Want to Sell Our Souls'
In October 2024, more than 130 professional women's footballers from 27 countries signed an open letter to FIFA President Gianni Infantino, condemning the Aramco deal .
"This sponsorship is much worse than an own goal for football," the players wrote. "FIFA might as well pour oil on the pitch and set it alight" .
Dutch international Tessel Middag, one of the signatories, told CBC Radio that the opposition runs deeper than climate concerns. "It was their track record when it comes to human rights as well," she said, citing Saudi Arabia's record on women's rights and LGBTQ+ protections .
The players argued that "the marginalization of women in football forges a unique intersectional standpoint that challenges the institutional legitimacy of FIFA's profit-driven model," according to a study published in the journal Sport in Society .
FIFA's Defense and Aramco's Response
FIFA has stood firm. A spokesperson told The Los Angeles Times that the organization's projected revenue for the 2027-2030 cycle will be roughly $14 billion, about 90% of which will be reinvested into global football development .
"This record level of reinvestment helps ensure football can be organized and developed in more than 100 countries where it would otherwise not be possible — underpinned by commercial partnerships, including those with global partners such as Aramco," FIFA said in a statement .
Aramco, for its part, declined to comment on the protests but has previously framed the partnership as an opportunity to "harness the power of sport to make an impact around the globe" and "create pathways for opportunity, positively impact society and promote development at the grassroots level" .
Beyond the World Cup
Sunday's protests extended beyond FIFA. In Los Angeles and Cleveland, demonstrators targeted Major League Baseball teams over their ties to Phillips 66 and Marathon Petroleum. In Portland, protesters called on the Portland Timbers to end their sponsorship with Bank of America, a top financier of fossil fuel projects .
The movement is part of a broader reckoning over "sportswashing" — the practice of using sports sponsorships to improve public perception of controversial industries or regimes.
Frank Huisingh, founder of Fossil Free Football, framed the fight in simple terms. "I'm a football fan and I want my sport to do the right thing," he told CBC. "I don't want my sport to be a broadcaster for the messages of oil companies" .
The Stakes
With Saudi Arabia slated to host the 2034 World Cup , critics warn that the Aramco deal sets a dangerous precedent. Activists and doctors, players and scientists are united on one point: football's future is inextricably linked to the climate's future — and accepting fossil fuel money is no longer a neutral act.
"Among FIFA's core aims are to safeguard player welfare and the future of the game," Wheeler said. By accepting Aramco funding, he added, "it is categorically failing in both"
Comment
Reply