Despite the impressive revenue generated on the field during Euro 2024, UEFA’s efforts to address climate concerns off the pitch have not quite lived up to the same level of success. While UEFA has made some strides in terms of climate funding, experts argue that its initiatives fall short of the ambitious goals necessary to mitigate the environmental impact of such large-scale events. Lindsay Otis Nilles, a global expert on carbon markets policy, highlights that UEFA’s climate efforts are notable but leave room for improvement, particularly in translating the financial gains from these events into meaningful climate action.
Compared to FIFA, however, UEFA still comes out ahead. Nilles points out that FIFA has lagged significantly behind in its climate commitments, with minimal investment in carbon reduction or offset projects, despite the massive carbon footprint of global football events. UEFA, on the other hand, has taken steps to integrate sustainability into its tournaments, though these initiatives are still in their early stages and lack the scale needed to truly make a dent in the sport’s environmental impact. According to Nilles, UEFA’s climate funding is moving in the right direction, but to be a real game-changer, it needs to adopt more aggressive and impactful strategies for carbon reduction and sustainability.
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 their “unavoidable” emissions without misleadingly claiming that these actions cancelled out its climate impact. This is in complete opposition to 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. 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”.
About climate action
Climate action refers to the collective efforts to address and mitigate the effects of climate change. At its core, climate action involves reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are the primary drivers of global warming. These efforts are crucial for limiting the rise in global temperatures to well below 2°C, as outlined in the Paris Agreement. The main strategies for climate action include transitioning to renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and adopting sustainable agricultural practices. Governments, businesses, and communities must work together to develop policies and innovations that promote a low-carbon economy, helping to stabilize the climate and reduce the vulnerability of people and ecosystems to the adverse impacts of climate change.
Climate action also encompasses adaptation strategies that help communities and ecosystems cope with the inevitable consequences of a changing climate. As rising temperatures contribute to more frequent and intense natural disasters—such as floods, droughts, and storms—efforts to build climate resilience are increasingly important. This can involve upgrading infrastructure, improving water management, safeguarding biodiversity, and enhancing disaster preparedness. Adaptation is particularly critical in developing nations that are often the most affected by climate change, despite having contributed the least to the problem.
Additionally, climate action is linked to broader issues of social and environmental justice. Vulnerable communities, particularly in the Global South, bear a disproportionate burden of climate impacts, and efforts to mitigate these effects must also address inequalities. Inclusive policies that empower indigenous populations, women, and marginalized groups are essential in ensuring that climate action benefits all sectors of society equitably. This global effort emphasizes not just technical and economic solutions but also a moral responsibility to protect future generations from the worst impacts of climate change.
A successful climate action agenda is multi-dimensional, requiring global collaboration and leadership, innovative technology, and sustained public engagement. The challenge is immense, but the opportunities are significant—investing in climate action can lead to cleaner air, healthier ecosystems, and more resilient economies, contributing to sustainable development and improved quality of life worldwide.
