Sir, – As the World Cup reaches its climax, one question deserves to be asked before the final whistle: who will really have won?
One team will lift the trophy. Fifa, broadcasters, sponsors, airlines and hotels will celebrate, while millions of supporters will have enjoyed a magnificent tournament.
But what of ourselves and our descendants?
An independent analysis estimates the tournament generated seven-eight million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, overwhelmingly from travel – roughly equivalent to burning the cargoes of nine of the world’s largest oil tankers.
READ MORE
Yet remarkably little attention has been given to whether international football could be organised differently. Prof Dermot Hodson’s timely reminder (“Italia 90 changed Ireland, but the untold story of that year was the women’s game”, Opinion, July 17th) of the remarkable progress of Irish women’s football prompts a wider question: can the continued growth of the game be reconciled with the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Spain and Portugal recently played each other thousands of kilometres from home, requiring tens of thousands of supporters to cross the Atlantic to watch two neighbouring countries contest a match that could have been staged almost anywhere in western Europe at a fraction of the carbon cost.
Ireland’s women now face a World Cup play-off against Kazakhstan, with another long-distance trip if successful. Their rise deserves celebration. It would be unfortunate, however, if equality on the pitch also meant equality in the emissions generated by the sport.
The men’s World Cup has already expanded from 32 to 48 teams, and Fifa president Gianni Infantino now proposes 64. Has anyone calculated the additional emissions?
Ireland may already offer a more sustainable model. Every summer, the GAA fills Croke Park and county grounds with passionate supporters, creating world-class occasions with comparatively little air travel.
When the trophy has been presented, supporters will remember who won. We, our children and grandchildren will live with the environmental consequences. – Yours, etc,
PAUL O’SHEA,
Planet Before Profit CLG,
Shankill,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – It was 1976. I was a trainee hotel manager working at what was then the Great Southern Hotel, Parknasilla. I was working in the kitchen along with another trainee, Terry McCoy, from Skerries. All the senior chefs were German, including the head chef. We all watched the Germany-England match in the staff room.
My friend and I felt we should support England. We did that, with lots of shouting from both sides. England won.
The German chefs were very disappointed.
Super memories. – Yours, etc,
TOM MYTHEN,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Unlike most, sports stars have to face two deaths. Their first death normally comes in their late 30s. At 39 years old, Lionel Messi’s football career should be approaching the end, on life support. But it isn’t.
He continues to rage against the dying light in this World Cup. His athletic prowess may be diminishing but his influence on the pitch and desire to win are most certainly not. His vision, touch and spatial awareness are unparalleled.
England can attest to these facts after his their 2-1 defeat in the World Cup semi-final. His contribution of two assists breathed life into Argentina’s World Cup hopes.
Unlike Ronaldo, Messi ages with dignity and grace. Undoubtedly, it is difficult for a star’s power to wane, but where Ronaldo chases records Messi uses his other set of skills to help his country to the verge of another World Cup success. He is an antibiotic to petulance and arrogance. If only Ronaldo had the same prescription. Enjoy him before we mourn his passing from the game. – Yours, etc,
CHRISTOPHER CALLAGHAN,
Ramelton,
Co Donegal.
