grist.org28%

Workers are risking dangerous heat to keep the World Cup running 22%

By Emily Jones18%

7/10/2026, 1:45:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Optimism Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 14.4% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 779 faulty-reasoning hits from 862 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.6% and a BS Rank of 22% (17,158 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.40% of the article peer group.

Extreme heat continues to be a major concern throughout this year’s World Cup, and organizers of the tournament have built hydration breaks into games designed to help players stay safe. 
And some stadiums have air conditioning. 
But that doesn’t help all the people selling concessions, cleaning the stadium, or working security or parking lots outside. 
Lucia Gambino of the workers’ rights group Sur Legal Collaborative, which is offering shade, water, electrolytes, cooling towels, and other supplies and resources to stadium workers in Atlanta, said she’s seen people “visibly affected by the heat,” red in the face and reporting a lack of access to water or shade. 
“It’s just a little bit ironic that FIFA is recognizing that the athletes need water, shade, and breaks to stay safe and to be able to play, but we don’t see that recognized for the workers as well,” Gambino said. 
Several World Cup host cities fell under the heat dome that settled over eastern North America last week, with brutally hot temperatures and heat index values in Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Philadelphia, New York, and Toronto. 
This kind of heat isn’t just uncomfortable; it’s dangerous, putting workers at risk of heat exhaustion or heat stroke. 
Before the tournament began, a paper published in the journal Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism warned that these risks were coming. 
Climate change is making heat waves hotter, of course, so, the paper warned, those who travel to work the tournament or who are doing different work than they usually do may not be acclimatized to the heat and face increased risk. 
And unlike athletes in peak physical shape, workers are more likely to have underlying health issues, said study co-author Andrew Grundstein, a geography and atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Georgia. 
The workers also aren’t all employed by FIFA, or any single organization, he said, adding to the complexity of addressing the risks. 
Some may be employed directly by the stadiums, while others work for contractors or subcontractors, which must adhere to local, state, and federal safety regulations but may have different company policies and ways of communicating risks to employees. 
“So I think it’s a really challenging thing to come up with this uniform heat policy for all the different workers,” Grundstein said. 
This year’s far-flung tournament further complicates things, according to study co-author Maggie Morrissey of Providence College and the heat safety-focused Korey Stringer Institute. 
The games are taking place in three different countries, which have different laws around heat and worker protection. 
Those protections  or lack thereof  also vary by state within the United States. 
Read Next 
One year after the Texas floods, home feels further away than ever 
Laura Mallonee 
“It’s very much reliant on the organization or company themselves or the state regulation,” said Morrissey on the information and protections available to workers. 
“But I do think FIFA has a really important job to do to have people recognize that workers are at risk of heat injuries as well.” 
In a statement, FIFA laid out its “tiered heat mitigation model” for the tournament. 
When the forecast predicts elevated temperatures, venues add more cooling capacity, including shaded areas and water distribution, the organization said. 
“Work-rest cycles for staff and volunteers are adapted accordingly, and first-aid readiness is reinforced with clear triage and escalation pathways for suspected heat illness,” the statement read. 
“These measures scale dynamically based on real-time conditions before and during each event.” 
FIFA also said it has a heat illness mitigation task force. 
A spokesperson for AMB Sports and Entertainment, Atlanta’s stadium ownership group, said in an email that heat wasn’t affecting events there as much as other host cities because the stadium is enclosed. 
But during Tuesday’s knock-out round match between Argentina and Egypt, which kicked off at noon on a day when the temperature in Atlanta hit 93 degrees, “it was clear the heat was taking a toll,” Gambino said. 
She saw workers leaving the stadium drenched in sweat and said they were eager to accept the fan-shaped flyers her organization was handing out. 
Volunteers, too, expressed frustration at working in the hot weather, Gambino said. 
Atlanta will host one more World Cup game, the semifinal match on July 15th, when high temperatures are expected to be in the upper 80s. 
Stronger regulations to protect workers from the heat could help keep people safe, Gambino said. 
She also said formal collaborations with the stadium or the city could help boost worker assistance efforts like Play Fair ATL’s resource center  and she hopes that can happen for future big events. 
FIFA could also require worker protections in the agreements that the global organization signs with host cities, Morrissey said. 
“We wouldn’t have the World Cup happening if we didn’t have workers,” she said. 
“It’s sort of like a call to action for FIFA to say they need to elevate the protection for workers.” 
Frida Garza contributed reporting to this story. 
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Workers are risking dangerous heat to keep the World Cup running on Jul 10, 2026. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.8%Grist: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 1.0%Grist: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Emily Jones: 4.6%Grist: 3.0%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 3.7%Emily Jones: 0.4%Grist: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Emily Jones: 1.5%Grist: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias6.3%This article: 7.5%Emily Jones: 5.8%Grist: 5.0%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 1.9%Grist: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.7%Emily Jones: 0.5%Grist: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Emily Jones: 1.3%Grist: 3.1%Optimism Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 3.2%Grist: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Emily Jones: 5.6%Grist: 6.8%Negativity Bias9.9%This article: 1.6%Emily Jones: 0.9%Grist: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 3.7%Emily Jones: 0.7%Grist: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Emily Jones: 0.7%Grist: 1.0%Halo Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.1%Emily Jones: 2.8%Grist: 4.1%Appeal to Authority6.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 1.1%Grist: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.7%Grist: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 2.4%Grist: 3.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 4.8%Grist: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.8%Grist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.8%Emily Jones: 0.6%Grist: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.3%Grist: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.4%Grist: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.4%Emily Jones: 8.1%Grist: 2.0%Anecdotal14.4%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.6%Grist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.2%Grist: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.6%Emily Jones: 0.6%Grist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 1.1%Grist: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 3.9%Emily Jones: 1.6%Grist: 1.4%Indoctrination3.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Jones: 0.0%Grist: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

862 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers62%attributed speech329writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLucia Gambino • 51 words • 0.0% coverageLucia Gambino • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Grundstein • 32 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Grundstein • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Grundstein • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Morrissey • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Morrissey • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Morrissey • 26 words • 0.0% coverageFIFA • 14 words • 0.0% coverageFIFA • 20 words • 0.0% coverageFIFA • 27 words • 0.0% coverageFIFA • 13 words • 0.0% coverageFIFA • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAMB Sports and Entertainment • 32 words • 0.0% coverageLucia Gambino • 37 words • 0.0% coverageLucia Gambino • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLucia Gambino • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageLucia Gambino • 15 words • 0.0% coverageLucia Gambino • 34 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Morrissey • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Morrissey • 14 words • 100.0% coverageMaggie Morrissey • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lucia Gambino

100%flagged-word coverage
213 attributed words40% of attributed speech50% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Quote-first Misdirection+18.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lucia Gambino: 18.8%18.8%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.