Fwd: The toughest World Cup games
Loretta Lohman
| Read in browser | ||||||||||||||
The 2026 FIFA World Cup that kicks off June 11 will sprawl across the US, Canada and Mexico during what forecasters predict will be an unusually hot summer, setting players up to sprint, dribble and shoot their way through sweltering, humid afternoons and evenings. Today’s newsletter looks at what that means for individual teams and which ones will face harsher conditions than others. Plus, how the Trump administration’s proposal to vet federal grants could hinder scientific research. Subscribe to Bloomberg to get unlimited access to all our stories. Heated rivalryBy Emma Court, Elena Mejía, David Ingold and Joe Wertz Heat may prove to be one of the most formidable opponents at the 2026 World Cup. It will rise off the pitch in Miami, settle over the stadium in Philadelphia and creep into tired legs in Kansas City. It will evolve between cities and kickoffs, and test each of the 48 World Cup teams in different ways. Tunisia’s 26-player team is set to face the hottest schedule. “Their players may be more adapted to the heat than certain other countries, like here in Europe,” says Donal Mullan, a senior lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast in Northern Ireland who co-authored a 2025 study about the World Cup schedule’s heat risks. But even well-adapted teams will “almost definitely” take a hit as the 39-day tournament drags on, Mullan said. “That heat loop builds up over time, that fatigue.”  Bloomberg’s analysis is based on estimated wet-bulb globe temperatures (WBGT), which are widely used to assess heat stress because they account for the combined effects of temperature and humidity on the body. Wet-bulb extremes are becoming increasingly common as the planet’s average temperature continues to warm as a result of rising greenhouse gas emissions. The estimates for the World Cup incorporate stadium locations, scheduled kickoff times, weather conditions over the past decade and factors like air conditioning. The disparity extends beyond just how hot it could get. Some teams could experience sharp fluctuations between games, forcing players to adapt to dramatically different conditions. The Netherlands could face swings of up to 23F WBGT between matches, while Uzbekistan’s may vary by only 2F. Concerns about heat stress have led FIFA to mandate water breaks during games and prompted FIFPRO — the global union for professional football players — to recommend postponing play if WBGT levels climb above roughly 82F. (FIFA said in a statement that it’s also taking additional measures, including providing drinks, cold towels and shade to meet teams’ needs on match days.) The imbalance could become a bigger competitive factor as the tournament continues, with heat exposure quietly shaping performance, stamina and recovery.  The World Cup comes on the heels of a late-May heat wave in Europe that tested tennis players at the French Open and reignited the conversation about the sustainability of outdoor athletics in a warming climate. The world’s most famous football tournament is no stranger to temperature challenges. Concerns about heat pushed the 2022 Qatar games from the traditional summer season into winter, and at last year’s Club World Cup in the US, players and coaches complained of searing temperatures. When the US last hosted the men’s World Cup in 1994, the final was played in temperatures exceeding 90F, making it the hottest men’s World Cup final in the last 75 years, according to historic weather data from Open-Meteo. As the June 11 World Cup kickoff approaches, doctors, climate scientists and heat experts have warned about the potential for players suffering “worrying levels of heat stress” and said they’re concerned that FIFA’s current safeguards are insufficient. Read
more
Spread out16 Number of cities that will host World Cup 2026 games. Some teams could experience sharp temperature fluctuations between games, forcing players to adapt to dramatically different conditions. Performance drag“They just don’t play as well” Ollie Jay Director of the Heat and Health Research Centre at the University of Sydney. As temperatures rise, players tend to run slower, produce fewer explosive movements and generate fewer touches, passes and turnovers. Science under fireBy Eric Roston The Trump administration proposed sweeping changes last week to federal science funding, a move that would give agencies more power to align grantmaking with White House priorities. Climate experts say it would stymie research in the field. Michael Gerrard, an expert in climate change and law at Columbia Law School, called the proposal “a frontal assault on the scientific enterprise and an aggressive retreat from US scientific leadership.” “I would think that any kind of climate-related research, or renewable energy-related research, would be vulnerable,” Gerrard said, because the proposal “gives the White House a grab bag of rationales to cancel anything they don’t like.”  Office of
Management and Budget Director Russell Vought
Bloomberg via
Pete Kiehart
The proposal by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which appeared in the Federal Register on May 29, would put grant decisions — now largely determined by expert review panels — under more direct political control. Grants not in conformity with White House policies could be suspended or terminated, and funding for what OMB calls “issue advocacy” would be forbidden. OMB says in the 412-page document that reform is needed because under the Biden administration, funds were awarded “to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public.” Grantmaking was “politicized to promote a far-left agenda,” said Armen Tooloee, OMB press secretary, and the changes will bring more transparency and accountability. A public comment period lasts until July 13, after which the administration may move to finalize the rule. Democrats have pushed back on the plan, with Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, the ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, calling it a “crippling blow to science.” Science advocacy groups are encouraging the public to submit comments and pressing for a congressional review and hearings, according to Colette Delawalla, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Stand Up for Science. Read
more
This week’s ZeroIt’s been more than three months since the US attacked Iran, leading to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that carries 20% of the world’s oil and gas. The shock to energy markets has been so intense that some countries are taking longer-term measures to cope. This week on Zero, Akshat Rathi and Peter Guest explore the history of policy responses to energy shocks and what’s different in the 2020s. Listen now, and subscribe on Apple, Spotify or YouTube to get new episodes of Zero every Thursday. More from GreenMore from Bloomberg
Explore all Bloomberg newsletters. We’re improving your newsletter experience and we’d love your feedback. If something looks off, help us fine-tune your experience by reporting it here. Follow Us
You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg’s Green Daily newsletter. If a friend forwarded you this message, sign up here to get it in your inbox.
|
