Climate Change Increases Risk of Even Slower World Cup Games!

Every now and then I suspect there is a game played by bored elites to see which of them can get away with the most asinine “climate change” claim. There have been some doozies: lack of UFOs, “climate change” anxiety, increased sugar consumption, engineering short people. On and on and on ad infinitum.

Today we meet what could be the winner in the contest. Experts are claiming World Cup matches could be slower. Now instead of ninety-plus minutes running around ending in zero-zero ties and dramatic shootouts, we’ll get ninety-plus minutes of somewhat slower running around ending in zero-zero ties and dramatic shootouts. Because “climate change”.

Seems to me, though, that if we really wanted to save time, we could have all matches begin at the shootouts. The whole tournament could be over in a day. Take that, “climate change”!

Here’s the claim, appropriately announced on a PR site, a site whose specialty is juicing dull and dubious headlines: “Climate Central finds climate change has increased the likelihood of heat that could slow players for 97 of the 104 matches, threatening game speed and fan safety.”

What will happen to the other 7 matches they don’t say. Probably they will end in shootouts.

Details:

Previous research shows temperatures above 82.4°F can reduce sprint frequency, total distance covered, and recovery time, impacting not only player performance and safety, but also match tempo, tactics, and overall style of play.

Previous researchers discovered—and stay with me, here—that when it’s hot outside people outside in the heat act like people act when it’s hot out.

Where would we be without previous researchers?

Now this heat happens in summer, and, would you believe it, that’s the exact time of year Authorities decided the World Cup shootouts ought to happen. And not just in summer, but in quite a lot of southern cities in summer. So either these World Cup Authorities didn’t know about this stunning previous research, or they did and knew it would be summer and decided to run the risk of 82.5°F days when they scheduled their tournament in summer and in many southern cities.

So much for previous research. What about current research?

Nearly half of the matches have at least a 50% likelihood of experiencing heat that can impair performance. In 26 of those matches, climate change increases the likelihood by at least 10 percentage points.

Here’s their touted precise prediction for the highly anticipated (one supposes) Mexico – South Africa match:

Let’s suppose for a moment this should be taken seriously. “Climate change”, says the research, will increase the chance of an 82.5°F day by 8% for this match up. Let’s believe that.

Now what.

Should the World Cup be canceled? Will it be canceled? Is an extra 8% chance of an 82.5°F degree day worth the risk of slightly slower play? Aren’t Mexicans already used to heat? Should we not watch? Or watch only in air conditioned spaces? Ought players take a knee before each game, running the risk of dishonoring George “Thug-Drug” Floyd, to “raise awareness” of “climate change”?

Seriously, now. What exactly ought to be done with this stunning new research? What happens if awareness is raised? Will people wipe their brows and blame their moistened bandanas on “climate change”?

Even if this research is true, there is still a 11% chance of an 82.5°F game day (and similarly for other days). What can be done about that? Not a thing, short of canceling or postponing matches, which isn’t going to happen.

As you have surmised, we don’t have to believe any of this: the scenarios are all silly, proving that the stunning new research is purely performative, a way to signal the vices and predilections of the researchers. As proof, we oblige the PR site which asks us to quote this:

As global temperatures continue to rise, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, the 2026 World Cup could become another example of how climate change can disrupt sports and traditions people cherish, forcing a reevaluation of how the game is played.

This is all ridiculous, and only saved by the charge of falsity by adding that “could.” Meaning might, which also means might not.

They also provide this quote they ask us to re-quote:

Alex Jacobs, professional player formerly with the Jamaican Premier League: 
“Heat is not new. But extreme heat — made more likely by heat-trapping pollution driving climate change — might just be a difference maker in this summer’s edition of the biggest sporting event on the planet.”

Way these quotes work is that either the PR firm, or the organization employing the PR firm, write them for victims, who are sought out and asked to sign on. The people allowing their names to be used are, of course, fully responsible for the words used, and even often believe them. But there’s no mistaking that stilted prose of the manufactured quote. Nobody talks like this. This prose is not conclusive, but whenever you see it, it’s a darn good reason to dismiss the claims made.

HOW

How did they do it? Here’s their Method, which long-time readers will recognize:

Climate Central analyzed the dates and locations of all scheduled matches in the 2026 FIFA World Cup and calculated the likelihood of temperatures exceeding 82.4°F (28°C), a threshold associated with declines in soccer/football athlete performance. The analysis compared current climate conditions influenced by human-caused climate change with a counterfactual world without climate change to determine how global warming altered the likelihood of performance-impairing heat at each match.

There is no such counterfactual world without “climate change”. We only get the world we have. The move isn’t illogical, though, because we can calculate probabilities for any proposition we consider. But there are two problems. The first, and obvious, one is that we have no way to check whether the counterfactual world they imagined is correct. It’s pure guess.

But it is obviously envisioned as some kind of ideal world, in which the “climate” has never been touched by “man”. Such as thing can have happened, but it is always irrelevant. Because, of course, man exists. And all creatures, including man, and all things influence the actual climate. It is impossible not to influence the climate, however slight that influence might be. So this counterfactual world is pure fantasy.

The second, and more damning faault, is that it requires both models, the one of the world as it is and the second the imaginary world, to be well calibrated, sharp, predictive, skillful, and all that kind of thing we’re covering in the Class. If the models aren’t good in this sense then it’s just making up numbers. And the second model, the counterfactual one, has to be perfect

Which is exactly what they’re doing.

Those who want technical arguments, and more detail, can read these two papers on why you ought never to trust “attribution research”, like the kind advertised by the PR firm: paper one, paper two.

Video

Here are the various ways to support this work:

• Subscribe at Substack (paid or free)
• Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs
• Zelle: use email: matt@wmbriggs.com
• Buy me a coffee
• Paypal
• Other credit card subscription or single donations
• Hire me
• Subscribe at YouTube
• PASS POSTS ON TO OTHERS