Saudi Aramco has just taken delivery of one of its largest offshore platforms for oil and gas. Photo: CFOTO / Getty Images
In April 2024, FIFA announced its most lucrative sponsorship to date – a sponsorship by petrochemical company Aramco understood to be worth 100 million US dollars per year.
The deal came only months after FIFA de facto awarded the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia, which owns Aramco.
Saudi Arabia had plans to bid to host the 2030 World Cup, but the plan was abandoned in April 2023 and the focus moved to 2034. There were allegations that FIFA had expedited the World Cup bidding process to favour Saudi Arabia, and on 25 April 2024, Saudi Arabian petrochemical company Aramco signed a four-year deal to sponsor FIFA.
The deal has been agreed upon despite warnings to Aramco from the UN about its expanding fossil fuel extraction, and even though it appears to collide with FIFA’s requirements its partners must comply with the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Et opslag delt af Gianni Infantino – FIFA President (@gianni_infantino)
Neither Aramco nor FIFA announced the value of the sponsorship but it is understood to be around 100 million US dollars every year. This is the same as the total amount of bribes the FBI suspected FIFA executives of taking back in 2015.
“This deal is unprecedented in FIFA’s history,” says Freddie Daley of the University of Sussex and the Cool Down Sport for Climate Action network.
“They even created a new category, Major Worldwide Partner, giving Aramco exclusive rights in the energy category, including sponsorship of the 2026 World Cup and 2027 Women’s World Cup.”
While the men’s game has been strangely silent, FIFA’s deal has not gone unnoticed by the women’s game.
“As the largest state-owned oil and gas company in the world, Saudi Aramco is one of the corporations which is most responsible for burning football’s future”, reads a letter signed by 100 professional female players from 24 countries, who have called on FIFA to end the Aramco sponsorship.
Danish football player Sofie Junge Pedersen of FC Internazionale is one of the organisers behind a petition by female football players calling on FIFA to end the sponsorship agreement with Aramco. Photo: Francesco Scaccianoce, Inter / Getty Images.
Play the Game could only find one promotional video relating to Aramco’s sponsorship of FIFA and its tournaments, raising questions as to the true purpose of the deal. The answer perhaps lies in the close links between Aramco, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and its ambitions to host the 2034 World Cup.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia owns over 97 per cent of Aramco, and its primary business is the extraction and refining of fossil fuels into oil and gas. It is understood to be one of the world’s biggest companies measured by market capitalisation, and the deal with FIFA came shortly after it reported profits of more than 121 billion US dollars, its second highest ever.
Partnering up with Aramco, FIFA appears to be promoting a major polluter as its energy partner, in contradiction of its own Sustainable Sourcing Code, which requires its partners to comply with the 2016 Paris Agreement on Climate Change that commits to holding the global increase in average temperature to “well below 2°c above pre-industrial levels.”
In a video on FIFA’s website, president Gianni Infantino outlines FIFA’s bidding requirements for hosting FIFA’s tournaments which include the implementation of climate protection programmes.
However, Aramco’s production of oil and gas and the resultant emissions, have been expanding. In fact, Aramco is estimated to have been responsible for over 4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1965. Aramco ranks third after China and the former Soviet Union in terms of emissions generated through fossil fuels, according to Carbon Majors.
Yet, FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, maintains in a video that FIFA’s “new bidding requirements mean that those countries considered for hosting must ensure they have stringent, robust measures in place to prioritise sustainability.”
This includes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Aramco’s website also states that it aims to comply with the terms of the Paris Agreement. But as table 1 shows, Aramco is increasing its production of hydrocarbons. Put simply, the more oil and gas it refines, the more it pollutes.
*mmbpd = Million barrels of oil per day
EBIT = Earnings Before Interest and Tax
MtCO2e = Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
Sources: https://www.aramco.com/en/investors/reports-and-presentations
https://www.aramco.com/en/search?query=sustainability+reports
Aramco’s claims of green credentials are based on a combination of carbon offsetting and carbon capture technology.
Carbon offsetting is a mechanism that allows companies to compensate for pollution they create by purchasing carbon credits from projects that reduce or remove emissions elsewhere. One carbon credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one metric tonne of carbon dioxide.
Amin Nasser, CEO of Saudi Aramco (center), took part in the UNFCC COP28 Climate Conference in 2023 where scientists, political leaders, environmentalists, activists, and business leaders met to discuss measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. Photo: Sean Gallup / Getty Images.
However, there are several problems with the carbon offsetting strategies employed by Aramco.
First, Aramco is the largest customer in a regional voluntary carbon market launched in 2023. This Regional Voluntary Carbon Market Company (RVCMC) was established by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) and the PIF-owned Tadawul Group, and there are significant overlaps between the owners and directors of PIF, Aramco, and the RVCMC.
The governor of Saudi Arabia’s PIF is Yasir Othman Al-Rumayyan, who is also chairman of Aramco. Riham ElGizy, CEO of the RVCMC, also worked for PIF and was Head of Investments Valuation and Structuring at Aramco, following a 16-year career at the rival petrochemical company BP.
Rania Nashar, chairwoman of the RVCMC, joined the PIF in 2021 as an advisor to Al-Rumayyan and is also a board member of Tadawul Group. Three of the eight Tadawul Group board members also work for the PIF.
On 14 June 2023, RVCMC organised the world’s largest-ever voluntary carbon credit auction in Nairobi, Kenya. 16 companies took part and over 2.2 million tonnes of carbon credits were sold at a total price of just under 14 million US dollars. The biggest customer? Aramco. It was also the biggest customer in a similar auction held in 2022, and a third auction will take place soon.
15 of the 16 companies that bought carbon credits in the 2023 auction were Saudi. The companies flew to Kenya with ElGizy of the RVCMC, buying credits at the auction in an attempt to offset the additional pollution that this flight caused.
The reason for Aramco’s massive purchase of carbon credits was not to offset current emissions. It was to allow the company to ship even more oil.
“The company delivered its first independently-verified carbon offset crude cargo through a pilot shipment of two million barrels of Arabian Light crude oil,” reads Aramco’s financial results for the second quarter of 2024.
“Contributing to the lower carbon intensity of the shipment were emissions reduction initiatives across relevant facilities and the use of offsets for residual emissions sourced from the Saudi-based Regional Voluntary Carbon Market,” they continue.
Aramco’s huge purchase to expand its oil shipments deprives other companies who might wish to use the purchased carbon credits to reduce emissions. Another issue is the evidence that many carbon credits sold at the 14 June 2023 auction do not even provide the reductions claimed.
Carbon offsetting is a mechanism that allows companies to compensate for pollution they create by purchasing carbon credits from projects that reduce or remove emissions elsewhere. One carbon credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one metric tonne of carbon dioxide.
Carbon compliance markets are generally regulated under mandatory international, national, or regional carbon reduction schemes. They are usually aimed at energy-intensive emitters, such as Aramco. Voluntary carbon markets exist outside of this structure and do not have any formal regulatory oversight.
There’s scepticism about whether carbon credits are effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. A criticism is that carbon credits allow the purchaser to buy their way out of pollution without changing their activities.
The RVCMC published a breakdown of which environmental projects had sold carbon credits at the June 2023 auction. According to a statement from 2023 18 projects participated, but a list published by the RVCMC reveals that only 13 different projects were involved.
Play the Game partnered with intelligence and data analysts Aria to assess the credibility of these projects in providing the carbon reductions claimed. We found that the majority of carbon credits purchased by Aramco to offset its emissions are connected to projects in which the effectiveness of carbon removal was overstated or discredited.
Three of the projects involved the supply of cookstoves to communities; three involved large-scale wind power projects; two involved large-scale solar power projects; and five involved projects in other areas. Of the total, nine of the projects appear to be state or government-driven.
Almost half (42.1%) of the carbon credits sold in the 14 June auction involved cookstove projects. As a total of 2.2 million tonnes of carbon credits were sold, this means that these projects were held to avoid or remove 926,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide pollutants.
The idea behind carbon credits attached to cookstove projects is fairly simple. By supplying efficient cookstoves to poorer communities, pollution caused from cooking on open fires is removed from the atmosphere. But the effectiveness of cookstove projects has been called into question.
A woman preparing food on a cook stove in Rwanda. Photo: Wayne Hutchinson/Farm Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images.
In January 2024, Nature Sustainability published a study which outlined that nine out of ten of the 96 million certified cookstove credits don’t avoid the emissions they claim. The study was published after the June 2023 voluntary carbon market auction in Kenya, where Aramco bought the majority of credits, but before Aramco’s sponsorship deal with FIFA in April 2024.
Of the 2.2 million carbon credits sold at the June 2023 auction, 33.7% (741,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide) were related to the DelAgua Clean Cooking Grouped Project in Rwanda. This is the biggest cookstove project in the world, boosted by Aramco’s investment.
Verra is the world’s largest independent, not-for-profit verifier of voluntary carbon credits, and according to its monitoring report into the DelAgua Project, the project has a fraction of a non-renewable biomass (fNRB) value of 91%. The fNRB value represents the proportion of wood used for cooking that is harvested unsustainably. The idea behind cookstove projects is that if unsustainable wood supplies are replaced with gas as fuel for cooking, the levels of carbon emissions will fall.
But if the fNRB value is artificially inflated, it also inflates the effectiveness of a cookstove project, since an inflated figure argues that most of the wood harvested and burned for cooking is not renewable. Barbara Haya, the author of the Nature Sustainability study, told Play the Game that Rwanda’s fNRB value is actually 29% rather than the 91% claimed by Verra
Verra’s report also assumes that 100% of cookstoves were adopted and used. Haya argues that this is also unrealistic.
“The academic literature shows that adoption rates are, on average, 58%,” she says.
Neither Aramco, the Regional Voluntary Carbon Market Company nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia feature on DelAgua’s customer list. The company didn’t respond to questions from Play the Game, and its website doesn’t appear to mention the 14 June 2023 auction.
Carbon credits from large-scale wind and solar projects are associated with ‘additionality’ issues which means that any environmental gains associated with such projects would have taken place anyway, irrespective of whether the sale of carbon credits was attached to the project.
“A high‐quality carbon credit should, at a minimum, fit the criteria of additionality (i.e. the mitigation activity would not have happened without the incentive created by the carbon credit revenues) and permanence,” states the UN.
In 2023, a study by Corporate Accountability for the Guardian found that of the 50 carbon offset projects that have sold the most credits, 16 involved large-scale wind and solar projects. And 15 of those the study categorised as ‘junk.’
At the 14 June 2023 auction, large-scale renewable energy projects made up 34.9% of the carbon credits sold. Carbon credit verification agency Verra categorised all of these under its ‘Grid-connected’ category, which means that they were assessed using two methodologies that have recently been discredited by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM).
In August 2024, the ICVCM announced that carbon credits using these renewable energy methodologies will not be able to use its high integrity label.
“The Governing Board decided that eight methodologies used to design and implement renewable energy projects fail to meet the CCP Assessment Framework requirements on additionality because they are insufficiently rigorous in assessing whether the projects would have gone ahead without the incentive of carbon credit revenues,” read a statement from the ICVCM.
“These methodologies cover approximately 236 million unretired credits, making up 32% of the voluntary carbon market”.
All of the projects featured in the 14 June 2023 auction are registered under Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) programme. Verra is the world’s largest independent, not-for-profit verifier of voluntary carbon credits.
Since its launch in 2007, carbon offsetting projects verified by Verra have issued 1.04 billion carbon credits meaning that in principle, 1.04 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide have been removed from the atmosphere.
‘In principle’ because Verra has faced allegations that projects falling under its remit have overstated their effectiveness. In January 2023, a partnership between investigative journalists at SourceMaterial and the Guardian found that only 6% of Verra carbon credits originating from avoided deforestation projects are credible.
Verra responded by attacking the methodology of the investigation. However, SourceMaterial outlined that Verra earns ten cents in commission for every project it verifies, giving it a financial incentive to verify as many projects as possible.
There are also ‘additionality’ issues with carbon credits associated with large scale wind and solar projects, including those involved in the 14 June 2023 auction.
For example, the Ouarzazate III Concentrated Solar Power Project included in the 14 June 2023 auction, involves the world’s largest solar power facility. It is designed to supply 500 GWh per year in power to the Moroccan national grid.
The argument is that selling carbon credits associated to such a project creates no additional pollution savings and can actually make things worse. This is because it creates the illusion that the purchaser can carry on as normal rather than reduce emissions.
Nine out of 12 carbon credit projects at a 25 October 2022 auction involved renewables. Six of the 13 projects involved in the 14 June 2023 auction involved renewables.
Such concerns are not new.
“Most energy-related project types (wind, hydro, waste heat recovery, fossil fuel switch and efficient lighting) are unlikely to be additional, irrespective of whether they involve the increase of renewable energy, energy efficiency improvements or fossil fuel switch,’”reads a 2016 study into carbon offsetting mechanisms led by Germany’s Öko Institute for Applied Ecology.
It continues:
“Overall, our results suggest that 85% of the projects covered in this analysis and 73% of the potential 2013-2020 Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) supply have a low likelihood that emission reductions are additional and are not over-estimated. Only 2% of the projects and 7% of potential CER supply have a high likelihood of ensuring that emission reductions are additional and are not over-estimated.”
In Saudi Arabia’s bid book to host the 2034 FIFA World Cup, Aramco is promoted as an example of Saudi Arabia’s sustainability ambitions, due to the company’s development of “world-leading initiatives to address its carbon footprint, including flaring reduction, carbon capture and storage, detection of methane leaks, and investments in solar and wind projects.”
There are significant issues with all of these methods.
Flaring is the practice of burning off gas at the point of extracting oil. Photo: Eye Ubiquitous / Getty Images
Flaring occurs during oil production where gas is literally burned off if it is not possible to use or store it. Methane leaks occur during oil production – an issue that the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned in March 2024 must be tackled. The World Bank heads a partnership designed to eliminate both issues by 2030.
“Around 90% of Aramco’s emissions come from when their products are burned, not during extraction, production, or distribution,” Kelly Trout, research director at Oil Change International, says to Play the Game.
“Flaring reduction is critical, and since it can address only a portion of the company’s emissions, it must be coupled with fossil fuel phaseout to remotely match the scale of the crisis,” Trout continues.
However, Aramco is spending its money on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, and has recently invested in a CCS company based in Los Angeles.
While most experts agree that CCS is essential for combatting climate change, there is little financial incentive to invest in it. However, it is financially viable to use CCS to extract even more oil.
Oil Change International has published a new report which shows that while carbon capture projects are failing, they are being used to justify fossil fuel expansion and diverting public investment from existing alternatives like renewables, energy storage, and energy efficiency:
“Saudi Aramco’s only operating CCS plant, Hawiyah, is an ‘enhanced oil recovery’ scheme – pumping carbon dioxide underground to push more oil and gas out. What’s more, even if it operated at full capacity, it would sequester a minuscule fraction (less than 0.05%) of the company’s total emissions, based on estimates by Earthjustice,” says Trout.
An investigation by Bloomberg found that over the past 30 years, 83 billion US dollars have been invested in CCS technology designed to extract even more fossil fuels, rather than reduce emissions.
Bloomberg reported that in 2023, CCS has the capacity to remove 40 million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere. If all planned CCS technology facilities were built by 2030, this would result in the capture of 400 million tonnes of Co2. But CCS needs to capture 1,200 tonnes in order to meet net zero by 2030.
Ten months before the FIFA deal was signed, the United Nations questioned whether Aramco and Saudi Arabia are complying with the Paris Agreement, and whether Aramco’s ‘net zero’ claims are credible.
Three years before the FIFA deal, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN OHCHR) handled a 74 page complaint filed by ClientEarth in 2021. It sought clarification from Aramco, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and financial institutions on allegations that the company was ramping up oil and gas production, contrary to the Paris Agreement, while presenting misleading information suggesting that sustainability is a core concern within its business.
In a letter, the OHCHR asked for clarification on the allegation that Aramaco’s “greenwashing subverts the Paris Agreement in multiple ways, such as stimulating demand for fossil fuels, undermining public understanding of climate change, normalising fossil fuel activity, and reducing consumer actions to reduce emissions.”
The letter from the OHCHR also voiced concerns that the ongoing business activities of Aramco were undermining the ability of Saudi Arabia to discharge its duties under international law and its commitments in the context of the Paris Agreement.
The OHCHR did not receive any replies from Aramco or Saudi Arabia.
“In this case, neither Saudi Aramco nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia responded, but we did receive replies from other actors, mainly financial institutions,” an OHCHR spokesperson told Play the Game.
An archive of the replies reveals that the OHCHR received replies from three nation-states and six financial institutions, but not from Aramco or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called for a complete stop to fossil fuel advertising. Photo: Sean Gallup / Getty Images.
The UN has also called for nation-states to ban fossil fuel advertising and for non-state actors to stop accepting such advertising.
“Fossil fuels are not only poisoning our planet – they’re toxic for your brand,” said António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, in his 2024 World Environment Day address.
“I urge every country to ban advertising from fossil fuel companies. And I urge news media and tech companies to stop taking fossil fuel advertising.”
It appears FIFA wasn’t listening.
‘Saudi Aramco is not winding down its production of crude oil, and is presently working to increase production levels,’ reads Client Earth’s 74 page complaint.
“The 2023 Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL) update shows Aramco ranking first in the world for short-term expansion plans,” Kelly Trout, Research Director at Oil Change International told Play the Game.
“While they paused a 13 mb/d oil production target earlier this year, they’ve raised their target for increasing gas production and continue to pursue new expansion projects. By the company’s own estimates, at least 90% of their capital investment will go to fossil fuels in 2024, and at least 85% over the next decade (potentially more depending on how they define ‘new energies’).”
Concerns about Aramco’s environmental impact are far from new. In 2019, ten environmental protection organisations wrote to banks warning them against supporting Aramco’s Initial Public Offering (IPO) on environmental protection grounds.
Play the Game asked FIFA seven questions about how it had ensured that Aramco complied with its sustainability rules, including whether it had performed due diligence on the deal.
FIFA is a founding signatory of the United Nations Sports for Climate Action Framework. FIFA’s 2034 Hosting Requirements commit to sustainable event management, but also reference FIFA’s Sustainable Sourcing Code. This Code includes the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which encompasses the 2016 Paris Agreement. FIFA was the first international sporting federation to commit to the UNFCCC.
At the 2021 United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, FIFA pledged to halve its carbon emissions by 2030 and to reach ‘net zero’ by 2040 as part of its Climate Strategy. Its partner, Aramco, has also pledged to be ‘net zero’ but by 2050, ten years after FIFA.
Aramco’s pledge doesn’t include Scope 3 emissions, but FIFA’s does. This is significant because Scope 3 emissions include an organisation’s entire supply chain, and Aramco is both a FIFA sponsor and is involved in the 2034 World Cup infrastructure.
FIFA didn’t answer the questions, but sent the following statement:
“FIFA’s partnership with Aramco was established on the shared values of innovation, development and social enterprise. As is the case with all FIFA’s commercial partnerships, revenues generated are invested back into global football development via the FIFA Forward fund – and make a tangible, visible and meaningful impact on the lives of millions around the world.”
“As well as directly influencing football development opportunities for men, women, girls and boys across 211 FIFA Member Associations, these funds also help FIFA work with its Member Associations to deliver numerous Corporate Social Responsibility programmes and projects every year – as documented in the FIFA Annual Report – meaning such partnerships not only have a positive impact on the grassroots sporting infrastructure around the world but also on society, sustainability and social development.”
1. Does FIFA see any conflict of interest in accepting sponsorship money from Aramco, a petrochemical company, and FIFA’s sustainability aims?
2. Did FIFA seek any commitments from Aramco to reduce its environmental impact as part of the sponsorship deal?
3. Did FIFA carry out any due diligence on Aramco’s claim that it will be carbon neutral by 2050?
4. Has Aramco signed FIFA’s Sustainable Sourcing Code?
5. When FIFA signed the Aramco deal, was it aware of a 74 page claim filed by ClimateEarth in 2021, alleging failures to adhere to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, as well as allegations concerning misrepresentation of the company’s commitment to sustainability?
6. FIFA is a signatory of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Did FIFA inform the UNFCC about its Aramco deal before agreeing it?
7. A UN complaint alleges that Aramco has been expanding its oil and gas production in breach of the 2016 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Does this also mean that Aramco is in breach of FIFA’s Sustainable Sourcing Code, which requires FIFA’s partners to commit to the 2016 Paris Agreement on Climate Change?
FIFA did not respond to further emails from Play the Game asking for replies to the questions but its statement does provide a clue to its motivations. Gianni Infantino was elected after promising to more than double the development money paid to its 211 member associations who vote to elect the FIFA president at the FIFA congress.
At July’s International Summit on Sports for Sustainable Development ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympics, Infantino pledged to invest 2 billion US dollars in football development from 2023-26. The next FIFA Presidential election is scheduled for 2027.
Aramco also declined to comment on ten questions sent by Play the Game.
1. What is the benefit to Aramco in sponsoring FIFA?
2. Are you able to confirm the value of the FIFA sponsorship?
3. Was Aramco required to sign FIFA’s Sustainable Sourcing Code as part of the sponsorship agreement?
4. Is Aramco aware if FIFA performed due diligence on the deal?
5. How is Aramco financially supporting the 2034 Saudi Arabian World Cup bid?
6. Is Aramco committed to the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change, lowering emissions to below 2% above pre-industrial levels?
7. Given that Aramco is increasing its oil and gas operations, how does it plan to ensure that its activities are in line with the Paris Agreement?
https://www.ft.com/content/46149f12-d369-435d-8e2c-0b890fc57cfa
https://www.aramco.com/en/news-media/news/2022/aramco-jv-to-develop-major-refinery-and-petrochemical-complex-in-china
https://www.aramco.com/en/news-media/news/2024/aramcos-strategic-gas-expansion-progresses-with-25bn-contract-awards
8. Could you please provide a breakdown of how many carbon credits Aramco bought at the 14 June 2023 voluntary carbon auction in Nairobi, Kenya?
9. There are many connections between the Regional Voluntary Carbon Market Company (RVCMC), which organised the June 2023 carbon credit auction, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 16 companies that took part in the auction are Saudi. Is the RVCMC a state vehicle by which Saudi Arabia plans to buy up carbon credits so that Saudi companies can use them to offset emissions?
10. In June 2023, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) took up a compliant from ClientEarth alleging that Aramco was lying about its commitments to sustainability by increasing production of oil and gas, while at the same time saying that it was reducing its environmental impact. Why has Aramco not replied to this notification?
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TmSearch/RelCom?code=OTH%2079/2023
This article was developed with the support of Journalismfund Europe.
Frederiksgade 78B, 2.
8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
+45 3266 1030
info@playthegame.org
Find employee
Read more about us
Privacy policy
Certificate of accessibility (Danish)
Cookie declaration
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Newsletter
