The 2025 FIFA Club World Cup revealed growing concerns about tournament logistics under climate stress, particularly as global temperatures reach record highs. Staged in multiple cities in the US, this Club World Cup was also stained as an extreme weather event with record levels of both heat and humidity, which led to discussions regarding FIFA organizational capabilities and the physical health of the participants in relation to the upcoming World Cup in 2026.
In Cincinnati, the game became almost unplayable because pitch level temperatures grew to 117 degrees Fahrenheit (47 degrees Celsius). Substitutes of Borussia Dortmund preferred staying in the air-conditioned dressing room at the most important moments of the game. Manager Niko Kovac said the conditions were “like coming out of a sauna,” while Juventus coach Igor Tudor reported ten of his players requested substitutions due to exhaustion in their clash with Real Madrid.
These are not isolated cases. The oppressive heat and resulting fatigue were visible in nearly every match. Slower gameplay, early substitutions, and on-field medical attention became routine, further underlining the dangers of playing in heat waves.
Scheduling decisions and their consequences
Prioritizing European viewership
The scheduling controversy is probably one of the reasons as to why FIFA decided to conduct matches at the hottest times of the day. Noons and early afternoons kickoffs which aimed to fit European television prime time, put sporting actors in the peak hours of sun exposure. The need to maximize global viewership clashed directly with the physiological limits of elite performance.
FIFPRO’s medical director Dr. Vincent Gouttebarge openly criticized this approach. According to him, “several matches exceeded our safe heat threshold” based on Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) readings. FIFPRO sets its heat stress threshold at 28°C (82.4°F), while FIFA’s more lenient standard is 32°C (89.6°F). Many games went beyond both, yet few were rescheduled or delayed.
Inadequate relief measures
To address the heat, FIFA mandated a single cooling break per half. Critics argue that this was more symbolic than practical. Benfica’s Andreas Schjelderup called the heat “unhealthy,” citing the inability to recover even during short breaks. Chelsea players reportedly shortened their training sessions in Philadelphia due to the extreme weather, which affected their readiness and match-day performances.
The cumulative effect was a visible drop in match intensity. Tactical execution gave way to survival instincts. Matches lost rhythm, and the quality of football suffered.
Risk assessments for 2026 venues
Extreme-risk cities identified
FIFPRO published a detailed heat risk assessment of 2026 World Cup venues. Six cities—Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, and Monterrey—were classified as posing an “extremely high” risk of heat-related injury. Other three such cities as Orlando and Guadalajara were also rated as very high risk. These urban centers often record high summer heat indices after exceeding 100 °F (38 °C).
Others such as Dallas and Houston stadiums are also fitted with retractable roofs. Others such as Miami Hard Rock stadium and Monterrey Estadio BBVA are entirely subjected to external conditions and cast doubt on whether they can host games in the summer without reforming the schedule.
Uneven infrastructure and preparation
This inequality of sports infrastructure generates inequalities to teams and fans. An indoor match in Houston cannot be equated reasonably well with an outdoor game in scorching sun of 100 o Fahrenheit in Monterrey. Sport persons playing in the teams which train in various cities are near an unfair physical burden, which affects the fairness in sports.
FIFA has yet to confirm whether venue selection will adapt to these assessments or whether schedule changes will be made to minimize exposure.
Player and fan health implications
Physiological stress on athletes
Medical professionals stress that core body temperatures over 40°C (104°F) can cause serious complications. Symptoms include dizziness, muscle dysfunction, and even loss of consciousness. These risks increase under sustained exertion—common in professional football. During the Club World Cup, several players displayed signs of acute heat stress, often needing early substitution or on-field medical attention.
Benfica’s team doctors reported signs of hyperthermia in two players during their quarter-final match in Miami. Despite immediate treatment, both were ruled out for the next game. This raises concerns about the cumulative toll of heat on player performance and long-term health.
Spectator safety under scrutiny
Fans are not immune. In open-roofed stadiums with turf surfaces, heat indices have exceeded 160°F (71°C). Heat exhaustion of hundreds of fans at the Philadelphia and Dallas facilities was treated by the emergency services. As the 2026 world cup is anticipated to draw hundreds of thousands of foreigners, cities hosting the event are now being put in jeopardy to have proper cooling places, hydration spots, and emergency care.
The broader climate context
The 2025 heat dome
The Club World Cup has been hosted according to the meteorologists as a heat dome during an occasion that is characterized by the trapping of the heat over expansive areas of the earth. During June 15-30, some of the cities such as Washington, D.C., Kansas City, Atlanta experienced WBGT above 28o C. The readings reached as high as 29.3C in Washington alone, which is a record in the city in June.
One cannot expect this trend to turn upside down. According to NOAA climate models, by 2026 most US cities will see an average of 20 more extreme heat days per year than in 2000. These projections suggest that extreme weather should be treated as a baseline condition rather than an exception in tournament planning.
FIFA’s climate responsibility questioned
Environmental groups, including Fossil Free Football, have called FIFA’s response insufficient. Peter Crisp of the organization stated that
“FIFA’s policies are outdated and reactive, not grounded in the climate science we’ve had for years.”
He warned that unless FIFA addresses heat as a central planning issue, the 2026 World Cup risks becoming a public health controversy.
To date, FIFA has not announced any revisions to its heat protocol or venue timeline. While it claims to be consulting with meteorologists and health experts, no formal changes have been committed.
Internal and external criticism of FIFA
Acknowledging but not acting
FIFA’s Chief of Global Soccer Development, Arsène Wenger, acknowledged during a press briefing in Charlotte that “the heat has taken a toll on this tournament,” and suggested that learnings would be applied in 2026. However, critics contend that acknowledgement without policy shifts offers little assurance.
Event organizers from participating clubs have echoed this sentiment. Enzo Maresca, Chelsea’s head coach, said,
“You can’t expect performance when safety is not guaranteed.”
The English club experienced 36°C heat during training in North Carolina, prompting concerns over heat acclimatization.
Commercial priorities vs. health standards
Underlying the debate is a larger tension: FIFA’s financial model is built on global broadcast deals. European prime-time viewership drives much of the sport’s revenue. Adjusting match times to accommodate cooler hours would reduce visibility in key markets, potentially costing broadcasters millions.
This structural tradeoff, one of business and safety, reveals a weakness in the FIFA governance. Organization of world football events without a priority placement of welfare of the athlete and fans would not only be ethically weak, but also weak competitively as well as in reputational terms.
A call for preparedness and accountability
Recommendations for 2026
To ensure such a setback does not repeat in 2026, player unions and sports medicine organizations have suggested a few initiatives, such as flexible scheduling in accordance with real-time weather reports, a mandatory environment-controlled stadium in cities that face high risk, extra cooling breaks, and better medical checkup schedules.
These would not only involve technical changes but entail a political determination of FIFA and synchronisation with the local authorities. The tournament spans three countries—each with differing climate conditions, infrastructure capabilities, and public health frameworks.
Can FIFA adapt?
The 2026 World Cup will be the largest in history, with 48 teams and an expanded match schedule. With this scale comes the responsibility to rethink not only logistics, but the moral foundations of tournament planning. FIFA has long promoted football as a force for unity and progress. The question now is whether it can extend that ethos to environmental stewardship and health protection.
For a broader perspective, sports analyst Bd_irB_ll addressed these issues. He emphasized the need for FIFA to revise its heat protocol before 2026, noting the Club World Cup offered “a clear dress rehearsal for disaster.” His comments, shared widely on social media, call attention to the growing pressure on FIFA to take decisive action.
Listen I’m a hyperbolic guy but I don’t think I’m overstating it when I say the entire fabric of global football likely changes because of the Club World Cup#BDAIRBALL This Tournament Could DESTROY Footballhttps://t.co/ytNV1ottz5 pic.twitter.com/SoLI8i1Jyn
— Bd@irB@ll (@Bd_irB_ll) June 12, 2025
The months ahead will reveal whether FIFA has the institutional capacity and resolve to confront the 2026 World Cup heat challenge head-on. As climate risks become unavoidable, football stands at a crossroads. Will it adjust, innovate, and lead—or will it remain bound to outdated priorities, waiting for another crisis to force its hand?
