As excitement builds for the 2026 FIFA World Cup across North America, a growing coalition of football supporters, athletes, doctors and climate advocates is urging world football’s governing body to reconsider one of its most prominent commercial partnerships.

At the centre of the debate is FIFA’s sponsorship agreement with Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian state-backed oil company, which critics argue conflicts with the organisation’s commitments on climate action and player welfare.

Among those leading the campaign is Frank Huisingh, founder of advocacy group Fossil Free Football. A lifelong football supporter from the Netherlands, Huisingh says anticipation for the tournament is accompanied by concern over the environmental message associated with the event.

While looking forward to supporting the Dutch team and watching emerging football nations compete on the global stage, Huisingh believes football should not provide a platform for fossil fuel promotion.

Fossil Free Football has joined broader international efforts calling on FIFA to end its partnership with Aramco, arguing that fossil fuel sponsorship undermines both climate commitments and the future of sport itself.

The campaign comes as scientists warn that rising global temperatures are already affecting sporting events worldwide. Concerns are especially pronounced for the 2026 World Cup, which will feature an expanded format of 48 teams playing across 16 cities in the United States, Canada and Mexico, with more than one million international spectators expected to attend.

According to recent assessments by climate researchers, the tournament is projected to become one of the most carbon-intensive editions in World Cup history due to extensive travel demands and the scale of operations.

Campaigners have also drawn attention to Aramco’s environmental footprint. Critics describe the company as one of the world’s largest producers of oil and among the highest historical contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

For campaigners, visibility during the World Cup raises wider questions about the relationship between sport and industries linked to climate change.

FIFA has defended its position, stating that commercial partnerships are essential to supporting football development globally. In public statements, the organisation has highlighted its commitment to reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2040.

FIFA has also stated that approximately 90 percent of tournament revenues are reinvested into football development programmes worldwide, helping expand access to the sport across more than 100 countries.

At the same time, concerns about extreme heat during the tournament continue to grow.

Researchers from Queen’s University Belfast have warned that several scheduled matches may occur under potentially dangerous heat conditions, increasing health risks for players and spectators.

In response, FIFA says it has introduced a heat mitigation strategy that includes avoiding matches during peak daytime temperatures, introducing hydration breaks, creating shaded areas and misting stations inside venues, and allowing additional player substitutions.

However, a coalition of 21 doctors and scientists has argued these measures do not go far enough.

In an open letter released ahead of the tournament, medical experts called for stronger heat-protection protocols, including mandatory cooling periods and lower temperature thresholds for delaying or postponing matches.

Among those supporting the appeal is Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Green argued that while sport delivers substantial public health benefits, industries driving climate change are increasingly threatening the conditions that allow sport to thrive.

Campaigners also argue that sponsorship itself creates a contradiction between promoting health and supporting industries associated with rising global temperatures.

Athletes have begun adding their voices to the debate.

Dutch footballer Tessel Middag is among more than 130 professional women football players who signed an open letter in 2024 opposing FIFA’s partnership with Aramco.

Middag said women’s football has historically been shaped by advocacy and collective action and argued that sponsorship decisions should reflect the values players have fought to promote.

She also raised concerns extending beyond climate issues, pointing to criticism of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, including restrictions affecting women and LGBTQ communities.

Players, she argued, should have greater influence over sponsorship arrangements because they ultimately represent the sport on the field and compete in venues carrying sponsor branding.

As preparations for the 2026 World Cup continue, the debate has evolved into a broader conversation about the role of sport in an era of climate change.

For advocates, the issue extends beyond one tournament or one sponsor. It raises a larger question facing global sport: whether football’s biggest stage should continue to promote industries linked to the environmental pressures increasingly shaping the future of the game.