Fifa has been accused of “greenwashing” and prioritising “profit over people” over plans to hold the 2030 World Cup across three different continents.
A proposal unanimously approved by the Fifa Council this week will see three games played in South America before shifting to a tournament hosted by Spain, Portugal and Morocco. It will need to be ratified by member associations next year.
It means 2030 World Cup games will take place in six different countries with Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and their opponents, all having to fly more than 5,000 miles between group games.
“Any climate VAR call would be giving a straight red card to Fifa’s decision,” climate lead at Friends of the Earth Jamie Peters tells i.
“It is the latest in a long list of real-world actions that show its grandiose claims about sustainability and protecting the environment are just empty words.”
Fifa claims to have taken “concrete actions to protect our planet, in particular around Fifa’s flagship events”.
A spokesperson from world football’s governing body told i: “ Fifa is fully aware that climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time and believes it requires each of us to take immediate and sustainable climate action.
“As with all our World Cup tournaments, Fifa will implement a robust sustainability strategy for the event. Fifa will do everything possible to maximise the experience of teams, fans and officials while minimising the impact on the environment.”
Yet Peters adds: “Real climate action means cutting harmful emissions, not adding thousands of unnecessary air miles and expense for fans, to seemingly prioritise profit over people, players and planet. It also means kicking dirty sponsorship money from fossil fuel companies out of the beautiful game, something Fifa is failing to lead on.
“Fans and communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis – including in the countries set to host the 2030 tournament where global heating is already having a devastating impact – deserve more than greenwashing from football’s global governing body.”
Fifa also claims to have offset the “unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions” created by the last three World Cups – but the burden will be even greater for the 2024 edition hosted by Mexico, USA and Canada, with the most disparate venues some 2,500 miles apart.
“The bigger, broader issue is that Fifa feels that continued expansion, including the 48-team format, is acceptable in the face of a climate and ecological emergency,” Dr Russell Seymour, chair of the British Association for Sustainable Sport, tells i.
“The international federation of the most popular sport in the world is, effectively, telling its fans that you don’t need to do anything about our impacts on the environment. It maintains a business-as-usual approach.”
Dr Seymour added: “Fifa talk about taking action on sustainability but their actions indicate that expansion is far more important than genuine meaningful action.
“To Fifa economic growth and continued expansion is more important than managed, responsible climate action, so contributing to the destruction of livelihoods and the environment.
“The actions of one of the biggest players in world sport fly in the face of all scientific and sensible political advice.”
The format will appease three different confederations, with 2030 hosting rights partially held by nations from Conmebol in South America, CAF in Africa and Uefa in Europe.
After unanimously voting for the 2030 format, Fifa then invited bids from Asia and Oceania for the 2034 tournament, widely interpreted as a move to allow Saudi Arabia a clearer path to hosting the tournament in 11 years’ time.
A statement from Football Supporters Europe said: “The format will be horrendous for supporters, disregards the environment, and rolls out the red carpet to a host for 2034 with an appalling human rights record.
“End to end, the 2030 tournament will cover six countries, six time zones apart and could feature round trips of over 20,000km. All to allow Saudi Arabia to bid for 2034 uncontested.
“The announced plan for 2030 shows no consideration for match-going supporters. The costs for fans will be astronomical should their team be drawn to play in South America for one game, only to then set course for Europe and/or North Africa for the remainder of the tournament.
“It’s not a ‘celebration of the beautiful game’ as FIFA claims, it’s a slap in the face of match-going fans and a mockery of its own sustainability strategy.”
from Football - inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/my92wIA
Post a Comment