It has been proposed that FIFA and music stars offer discounts to their fans to help reduce the climate impact of mega-events

This article proposes a methodology based on cost-benefit analysis and welfare economics to assess the social and environmental viability of mega-events, applying it to the Coldplay concert (2024) and the FIFA World Cup (2026). The economic benefit is calculated using users’ willingness to pay, as reflected in the resale of tickets, whilst the environmental impact is measured by the carbon footprint across the entire life cycle. To avoid double-counting, everyday domestic and food consumption is excluded, but attendees’ travel is included, as this is the largest source of emissions. Finally, the study introduces a shared responsibility framework that commits organisers to promoting more sustainable travel among attendees, such as by offering discounts for choosing lower-emission transport options.

These findings aim to guide decision-making to improve sustainability within the sector. As an innovation, the method quantifies the impact of various measures; for example, internalising the costs of direct and indirect emissions into ticket prices, which would increase ticket prices. It is worth noting that, under severe carbon constraints, the World Cup could generate a negative social impact, rendering its current format unviable. In any case, although factoring in carbon costs reduces the high net benefits of both events, it does not entirely negate them. The research provides sufficient evidence to challenge current trends in the music industry, such as the famous single-city residencies that force millions of people to travel, recommending instead that concerts be held more frequently and spread out geographically to limit long-distance travel.

This study is well-grounded in the evidence and brings together two previously separate fields: the environmental impact of events and the economics of entertainment (Rockonomics). However, the following limitations of the study could be noted: the use of assumptions to measure consumer welfare; the assumption that the resale price reflects willingness to pay; and the uncertainty in calculating the social cost of carbon.

It should be noted that its conclusions are based on robust empirical data and reliable methodologies, combining the greenhouse gas protocol with cost-benefit analysis and data from the secondary ticket market.

Finally, I would like to note that the framework proposed by the article can be applied to other industries, such as theatre, conferences or even tourism, and it further rounds out the ideas by mentioning shared responsibility and the adoption of more sustainable public policies.

This study reinforces one of the fundamental principles of eco-design: the environmental impacts of a product, service or event must be addressed at the design stage, whilst it is still possible to modify the decisions that will determine its environmental footprint.

In the case of events, the largest share of emissions stems from indirect impacts, primarily from audience travel. Therefore, if the aim is to reduce an event’s environmental footprint, it is essential to consider the location, the number of venues, the duration, the schedule, accessibility by public transport and the expected origin of attendees.

The article shows that measures such as encouraging rail or shared transport, selecting more accessible locations, concentrating events, or rethinking their scale and format, can significantly reduce emissions.

However, the effective implementation of the measures suggested in the article will most likely require significant changes to the way in which certain large-scale events are designed and organised. The responsibility for reducing an event’s environmental footprint should not fall solely on attendees, but particularly on organisers, who have the capacity to incorporate these criteria from the outset and to create the necessary conditions so that the low-impact alternatives are also the easiest and most attractive options.