Despite huge revenue generated on the field at Euro 2024, off it, UEFA’s climate funding is not scoring as many goals as it could. Yet, it’s leagues ahead of FIFA’s poor performance, explains global carbon markets policy expert Lindsay Otis Nilles
The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) recently announced that the final allocation from its €7-million Euro 2024 climate fund has been completed. This fund – one of the many sustainability initiatives planned by UEFA in the runup to this summer’s Euro 2024 in Germany – was created to address the supposedly unavoidable emissions generated by the football tournament.
The entire amount of the fund has been distributed to amateur football clubs and regional associations across Germany to support various climate-protection projects.
Moving away from “offsetting”
With the launch of its climate fund, UEFA has shifted from contentious and misleading ‘offsetting’ in favour of ‘beyond value chain mitigation’ (BVCM).
Under such a ‘contribution’ model, as it is otherwise known, organisations typically calculate their emissions footprint before applying an internal carbon price to their ‘unavoidable’ emissions. This money can then be allocated to initiatives outside their value chain, as demonstrated by UEFA’s climate fund.
The BVCM model solves many of the shortcomings of the fatally flawed notion that emissions can be magically “offset”, “neutralised” or “counterbalanced” through the purchase of carbon credits.
The problematic offsetting practice has been under intense scrutiny from civil society and other stakeholders due, in part, to the use of low-quality credits that fail to deliver the intended climate benefits. This applies to whether the credits are being used to underpin misleading “carbon neutrality” claims or whether they are used to meet corporate climate targets. As a result, organisations are increasingly looking for a viable alternative to offsetting. UEFA, like others before it, has shown that an operational model for financing climate action outside the value chain does exist.
Room for improvement
UEFA may well have steered clear of foul play by taking responsibility for its emissions without misleadingly claiming that these actions cancelled out its climate impact. This is in stark contrast with FIFA which claimed that the 2022 World Cup in Qatar was carbon neutral (since acknowledged as the dirtiest World Cup in history).
However, the European footballing administrators could still improve upon their principled starting position. First, the internal carbon price of €25 per tonne of CO2 selected by UEFA to cover its ‘unavoidable’ emissions appears to be much too low. This carbon price is far below the suggested social cost of carbon in Euro 2024 host country, Germany, where the Federal Environment Agency recommended this cost to be €237 per tonne of CO2 in 2022, and to increase to €286 in 2050 (see Carbon Market Watch’s explainer on BVCM finance).
The social cost of carbon can be defined as a measure of the harm caused to society over time from the emission of one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent units and can vary from country to country. Some organisations argue that they do not generate enough income to apply the social cost of carbon, but this does not hold true for UEFA considering the substantial revenues accrued from Euro 2024, expected to be in the ballpark of €2.5 bn.
Second, the entirety of the climate fund was distributed to entities based in Germany, one of the richest countries in the world. How does a money-making machine like UEFA completely exclude the least-developed countries from receiving anything at all at a time when many of these nations are shouting from the rooftops about their need for climate finance?
UEFA could have earmarked at least a portion of its fund to projects in these areas. If it was concerned that doing so would cut too much into the amount needed for German amateur football clubs, it could have increased its internal carbon price and channelled significant funding to both.
This was a missed opportunity that UEFA – and other organisations – can learn from in future. While organisations have the freedom to invest in the climate initiatives of their choice, they must also choose responsibly. This means undertaking proper due diligence and thinking about the bigger picture by directing climate finance to where it is needed the most.
Still better than FIFA
Even if it isn’t always hitting the target, UEFA’s actions are still far superior to FIFA’s greenwashed approach to the most recent World Cup. FIFA’s ‘offside’ carbon neutral claims received a barrage of global criticism from civil society, the public and even the Swiss advertising regulator. This was due to, amongst other factors, creative accounting practices with respect to their emissions.
At the time of writing, FIFA has still not included the actual outcome of the World Cup greenhouse gas emissions on its environmental impact landing page, despite there being an option to click on this specific outcome on its website. Anyone who attempts to access the GHG emissions report is redirected to an error page which aptly reads: “Oh no! You shot off target! We’re sorry! This page cannot be found”.
This is all after FIFA states that it is “committed to measuring, mitigating and offsetting the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ GHG emissions and aim[s] to set a benchmark for environmental stewardship by implementing leading sustainable building standards, waste and water management practices and low-emission solutions”.
Football organisations – who represent the world’s most popular sport – have an opportunity to be role models in executing impactful climate action. UEFA has got the ball rolling but can do much more, while ahead of the 2026 World Cup in North America FIFA must learn lessons from the dirtiest World Cup on record in Qatar.
