A lesson from history: The warmer the climate, the better the World Cup
The 2026 World Cup draw has been made, and the schedule is set. Yet, there are still questions about how the tournament will unfold. This edition will be unique, with three nations hosting, a 48-team format, and the final four teams playing eight games each. The number of group fixtures will surpass any previous World Cup, and the physical demands on players will be unprecedented.
However, the climate is a significant concern. The focus isn't just on the players' well-being but also on the safety of fans and staff. Ensuring their safety should be a top priority, just as much as the players' health.
The primary worry, though, revolves around the potential temperatures in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. At the Club World Cup last summer, Chelsea midfielder Enzo Fernandez became unwell and had to lie down on the pitch during their match against Fluminense. Despite this, he emphasized the entertainment value over his health. The heat is indeed intense, and playing in such conditions is dangerous, affecting the game's pace and enjoyment for spectators.
To address this, later kick-off times are necessary, especially in venues like Miami and Monterrey, which are prone to extreme heat. Interestingly, the World Cup has a history with this issue, albeit in a literal sense. Mexico has hosted two editions, in 1970 and 1986, both of which are considered legendary.
The 1970 tournament, in particular, is relevant. There were initial fears that playing in such conditions could be disastrous, with several matches, including the final, scheduled for midday local time to cater to European TV viewers. This decision sparked concerns from legendary football writer Brian Glanville, who deemed it both ludicrous and potentially dangerous.
These fears led to a rule change, allowing teams to use substitutes for the first time in World Cup history. Despite the challenges, the 1970 tournament showcased exceptional football, with Brazil and Pele, followed by Argentina and Diego Maradona, producing memorable moments.
Mexico again hosted the World Cup 16 years later, and the heat and altitude were concerns. Argentina's manager, Carlos Bilardo, claimed the conditions were so oppressive that his team barely trained. Yet, Argentina delivered some remarkable football, thanks to Maradona, and the knockout stage matches were of high quality.
These examples suggest a pattern. Determining the 'best' World Cups is challenging, but a study by ESPN writers ranked all 21 editions. They found that the warmest climate tournaments tended to be the best, with the 1982 World Cup in Spain topping the list. Conversely, the coolest climate tournaments were ranked lower, with the 1930 World Cup in Uruguay at the bottom.
The tournaments played in proper winter conditions—1930 in Uruguay, 1962 in Chile, 1978 in Argentina, and 2010 in South Africa—were among the lowest-ranked. The six highest-ranked tournaments, including 1982 in Spain, 1970 in Mexico, 2006 in Germany, 1998 in France, 1986 in Mexico, and 1994 in the U.S., were held in warmer climates and in countries hosting the 2026 tournament.
While the modern game has more sprinting, pressing, and energy, the tempo of football elements has increased. This can make slower football challenging to watch. However, there's a risk that football has become too focused on tempo over technical quality. A tournament in conditions where constant pressing is impossible might offer a different, potentially more enjoyable style of play.
This doesn't imply that the 2026 World Cup will be a classic. The 48-team format may dilute the quality, travel logistics will be complex, and the high number of matches will lead to fatigue for players and viewers. Nevertheless, historical data suggests that warmer climates can enhance the tournament experience, despite the health concerns that must be addressed.
