The 2022 World Cup in Qatar generated enormous controversy and rightly so. A Guardian investigation estimated that at least 6,500 migrant workers died during the construction of World Cup venues and infrastructure, though the actual number linked specifically to stadium construction remains disputed. Qatar’s own Supreme Committee secretary-general admitted to “between 400 and 500” deaths connected to World Cup-related construction, while insisting official records showed only a handful of work-related fatalities on stadium sites a discrepancy that tells you something about how worker deaths were being classified.
Qatar counted deaths from heart attacks and respiratory failure as non-work-related, which is part of why the government’s official figure sat at approximately three people. Thousands of workers’ families received no compensation and, in many cases, no official notification when their relatives died. A FIFA-commissioned report later concluded that “severe human rights impacts did ultimately occur in Qatar from 2010 through 2022,” including deaths, injuries, unpaid wages and crippling debt and acknowledged that a credible argument exists that FIFA itself contributed to some of those outcomes.
The point wasn’t simply that a specific government had poor labour standards. It was that an event of this scale, procured at speed, with complex contractor chains and limited transparency, created conditions where abuse could persist undetected and unaddressed for years.
2026: Different country, different problems
The 2026 World Cup, hosted across the US, Canada and Mexico, is being presented as a cleaner model. No new stadiums built from scratch. Existing venues. More mature labour markets. And to be fair, the reuse of existing infrastructure represents a significant departure from Qatar 2022, which required the construction of seven new stadiums.
But the worker welfare questions haven’t disappeared. They’ve shifted.
The tournament spans 16 host cities, and thousands of workers are expected to work in conditions exceeding recommended heat-exposure limits, putting them at risk of heat exhaustion and other illnesses, according to a study published in June 2026. That includes delivery workers, law enforcement, EMTs, concession staff and security personnel many of whom begin shifts hours before kick-off, during the hottest part of the day.
Florida and Texas, both hosting matches, have enacted state laws that explicitly ban local municipalities from mandating heat protections for workers. Only seven US states have enforceable occupational heat safety standards. And with federal OSHA enforcement weakened under the current administration, many temporary and contract workers have limited legal recourse if those protections aren’t provided voluntarily.
FIFA’s own employment model assumes 40% of the event’s workforce consists of temporary, low-skilled workers earning below the national average wage. These workers are also less likely to speak up about unsafe conditions, particularly if they’re temporary hires without union representation, or if they fear losing the work.
There have been some positive developments. Food and beverage workers at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles reached a last-minute deal in June 2026 covering wages above $40 per hour, automation protections and premium pay for World Cup events. But that outcome required months of union pressure and an unfair labour practice complaint. Not every workforce has that leverage.
The carbon question
There’s a parallel sustainability story that’s harder to resolve neatly. Qatar was criticised heavily for its environmental footprint, the 2022 tournament falsely advertised itself as “carbon-neutral,” with FIFA’s own calculations putting emissions at 3.8 million metric tonnes, a figure watchdogs say was underestimated.
The 2026 tournament won’t repeat the construction problem. But it has introduced a different one. The 2026 World Cup is estimated to generate 7.8 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, more than double Qatar’s reported figure, with spectator travel accounting for 87.8% of the total. The geographical spread across three countries means fans and teams are travelling far longer distances between venues, almost entirely by air. Emissions linked to flights could rise by between 160% and 325% compared with previous tournaments.
Good Vision CEO Ivri Verbin put it plainly: “You cannot continue expanding tournaments, increasing air travel, and adding more host cities while simultaneously claiming a commitment to climate goals. At some point, the numbers simply stop adding up.”
What this means for supply chains
For businesses in sourcing, retail and manufacturing, these World Cups, Qatar and now 2026, function as something of a stress test for ideas that matter well beyond football.
The Qatar experience showed what happens when procurement moves fast, contractor chains are opaque, and the people doing the actual work are invisible to the organisations ultimately benefiting. Worker deaths went uncounted for years. Families went unnotified. Compensation was denied on the basis of how deaths were classified rather than how they occurred.
The 2026 experience is showing something different but related: that legal employment in a developed country doesn’t automatically mean adequate protection, particularly for temporary and contract workers in high-risk conditions. Heat exposure, misclassification, wage theft and limited grievance mechanisms are not problems confined to high-risk sourcing countries. They show up wherever workers are precarious, temporary and several layers removed from the organisations setting the standards.
For anyone running supplier programmes or ESG due diligence, the question both tournaments raise is the same one that comes up in audit work: how much do you actually know about the people producing what you’re procuring and how would you find out if something had gone wrong? They’re also questions that come up in supplier audit work every day, long before a tournament or a crisis brings them into view. The workers making global events possible deserve the same scrutiny, and the same protections, as those in any other supply chain.
