Blistering Battles: Europe’s Heat Dilemma at the Club World Cup and the Road to 2026
It’s been 31 years since the United States last played host to the Men’s World Cup, and while much has evolved, a few things have stayed the same. The U.S. still boasts a diverse population, easy air travel, and a strong turnout for international matches — as long as ticket prices don’t break the bank.
But one constant looms larger than ever: it gets brutally hot in the summer.
That wasn’t just true in 1994, and it’s certainly not changing before 2026, when the U.S. joins Canada and Mexico as hosts amid a worsening climate crisis. It’s also front and center during this summer’s Club World Cup, where the sweltering conditions have become a serious subplot.
Back in the 19th century, when a group of Englishmen penned the original Laws of the Game, they probably didn’t envision players being roasted alive under the American sun. But in the modern game, it’s simple math: Southern U.S. venue + midday kickoff = players melting on the pitch. Strangely, FIFA — the global authority organizing both the Club World Cup and next year’s World Cup — still hasn’t wrapped its head around the fact that extreme heat and high-performance football are a bad combo.
So, who’s gaining from this sun-scorched scheduling? And who’s sweating bullets? The answer is the same for both: Europe.
These early kickoffs — noon and 3PM local time on weekdays — aren’t made for fans stateside. They’re tailor-made for prime-time European viewing, even if that means players are slogging through 95°F (35°C) heat. Could games be pushed to 9PM local time? Sure. But that’s past midnight in Europe, which is a hard no for broadcasters, sponsors, and fans back home.
The irony? European teams hate it.
Just ask Chelsea, who had to cut short their training ahead of a game against Tunisia’s Espérance. Coming from London to Philadelphia — a city that sits 10 degrees closer to the equator — was a wake-up call. And remember, Philly is one of the more northern venues this summer.
To be fair, this kind of heat isn’t typical for Philly or New York, and the scorcher in Pasadena was an outlier. But in places like Orlando and Charlotte, these mid-30s°C/mid-90s°F temps are par for the course. While Atlanta teams catch a break under the Mercedes-Benz Stadium dome, others aren’t so lucky. Through Monday’s games, the median temperature hovered at 81°F (27°C), with the heat index hitting 87°F (31°C) and the dewpoint a sticky 68°F — not exactly optimal football weather.
The real kicker? Teams from Brazil — used to summer league play in the southern hemisphere — are thriving. Maybe there’s something to the old stereotype: Latin American sides play possession-heavy, energy-saving football, while Europeans run around frantically, like they’ll freeze if they stop moving.
Still, history shows that Europe doesn’t always crumble in the heat.
Back in USA 1994, seven of the eight quarter-finalists hailed from Europe. Sweden dismantled Saudi Arabia 3-1 under the blazing Dallas sun, and Romania and Switzerland ousted a hyped Colombian squad. In total, 10 out of 13 European teams made it past the group stage. In contrast, only two of four South American teams advanced, while Concacaf reps USA and Mexico both moved forward. Asia and Africa? Two out of five progressed.
Europe actually outperformed their showing from Italy 1990, where all four South American teams advanced to the knockouts, joined by Costa Rica and Cameroon. But even then, only Argentina made it to the quarters — alongside Cameroon, not exactly the heat-hardened continent’s coup.
And yet, when it comes to club matches, our dataset is thin. European sides often treat their U.S. preseason friendlies like glorified cash grabs — sweaty cosplay performances more than competitive contests.
So far in this Club World Cup, the upsets don’t seem heat-driven. Inter Miami beat Porto indoors in Atlanta. Botafogo stunned PSG on a cool night in Pasadena, where Monterrey also drew with Inter Milan. Even Auckland City held Boca Juniors — and it’s Argentina, not New Zealand, that’s more accustomed to steamy conditions.
The glaring exception? Chelsea’s 1-0 loss to Flamengo in hot and humid Philadelphia. But was that really about the weather? Or was Flamengo better prepared, more motivated — and Chelsea simply didn’t care as much?
Despite the heat, fans are showing up — and the goals keep flowing. PSG’s 4-goal show happened in front of 80,000+ at the Rose Bowl, during that notorious hot spell in Pasadena. Real Madrid drew 70,000+ in Charlotte, winning 3-1 over Pachuca in 95°F heat. If anything, attendance and goal count have increased with temperature. Turns out, people still pack stadiums for great matches, heat or no heat.
But let’s not be naïve — extreme heat is dangerous.
Just last year during the Copa América in the U.S., an assistant referee collapsed during a match in Kansas City’s oven-like conditions. And it limits how hard players can push. Think back to the 2008 Olympic final in Beijing — another midday scorcher where hydration breaks had to be introduced. That match featured a young Lionel Messi, his now-manager Javier Mascherano, and the lone goal-scorer Ángel Di María, who once again played in steaming Charlotte with Benfica this week.
At some point, southern heat outmuscles southern hospitality. And it’s not asking too much for FIFA to rethink these scorching afternoon kickoffs. Why schedule 3PM matches in Charlotte when cooler alternatives like Seattle, Vancouver, or San Francisco exist — even if climate change is turning up the thermostat there, too?
Still, despite the odds, players like those from Benfica and Bayern were pressing high and hard even in Charlotte’s oven. These days, top-tier athletes can tough it out — but that doesn’t mean they should have to.
With better scheduling, we could spare teams the unnecessary suffering. The talent is there, the fans are ready, and the solutions are obvious.