Not a single match at the 2026 FIFA World Cup has triggered FIFA’s extreme heat protocol. Zero out of 94 games played exceeded the governing body’s Wet Bulb Globe Temperature threshold of 32°C (89.6°F), according to a Reuters analysis published July 10.

That sounds like good news. Here’s the thing: it depends entirely on whose thermometer you trust.

While FIFA’s bar remained untouched, the global players’ union FIFPRO uses a considerably lower threshold for concern. And by their standard, 35 matches exceeded the temperature at which cooling breaks should be mandatory, while 27 breached the level where games should be delayed or postponed altogether. That’s roughly a third of the tournament playing in conditions the union considers dangerous.

Two organizations, two very different definitions of danger

FIFA’s extreme heat protocol kicks in when WBGT, a composite measure that accounts for temperature, humidity, wind, and solar radiation, crosses 32°C. At that point, mandatory cooling breaks and potential schedule changes become necessary. Below that line, the governing body treats conditions as manageable.

FIFPRO sees things differently. The union recommends cooling breaks at a WBGT of 26°C (78.8°F) and advocates for delays or full postponements once readings hit 28°C (82.4°F).

The 2026 tournament, hosted across the United States, Canada, and Mexico through mid-July, was flagged before kickoff as a potential heat risk. Pre-tournament analyses warned that roughly 25% of matches could face dangerous heat conditions due to climate-related factors. The Reuters data suggests the most extreme scenarios haven’t materialized, but the moderate-risk scenarios absolutely have.

The measurement question nobody’s talking about

There’s an important asterisk on the entire analysis. The WBGT readings were derived from satellite data rather than direct on-field measurements taken inside the stadiums. That distinction matters more than it might seem.

Several venues in the tournament feature climate-controlled environments. Satellite readings around those stadiums may have flagged high temperatures that don’t reflect the actual conditions players experienced on the pitch. Conversely, satellite data could miss localized heat effects like radiant heat from artificial turf or enclosed stadium bowls that trap warm air.

Why this matters beyond soccer

The fact that pre-tournament models predicted elevated heat risk for about a quarter of matches, and that roughly 37% of games exceeded FIFPRO’s cooling threshold, suggests the models weren’t wildly off. They were just measuring against a different standard than the one FIFA chose to enforce.