FIS Ski’s mission is “To be the inspiration and catalyst which drives the appeal of competitive and recreational snowsports in a more sustainable manner”. At the same time the Alpine World Cup organized by FIS is responsible for huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions each year. Other structural concerns also negatively impact the sport’s sustainability by harming athletes’ physical and mental health, providing an unfair advantage to athletes with lucrative sponsor deals, and leaving national teams from smaller countries in financial difficulties.

The most effective way for FIS to address all of these problems at once is to create a World Cup calendar which creates predictability in income and costs, protects the welfare of athletes and staff, and minimizes greenhouse gas emissions from travelling while making it possible for individual teams and athletes to make their own further remissions reducing decisions.

The calendars proposed below are set up to minimize travel needs, have a higher likelihood of natural snow, promote athlete welfare and staff working conditions, and maintain high public interest in alpine skiing as long as possible throughout the season.

In order to measure emission reductions from the proposed new calendars, KPMG has calculated emissions from both the actual calendar from the 22/23-season and the newly proposed calendar. To be able to sufficiently compare the two calendars, KPMG has created a hypothetical scenario where one athlete travels to all competitions (regardless of them being cancelled) alongside a coach and a service man. Additionally, the athlete only travels by plane, diesel car or transporter (to transport equipment).

KPMG’s analysis has shown that the proposed calendars for the men- and women teams would have the potential to make significant reductions to the climate emissions from travelling and transport for the Norwegian national teams. The men’s team’s emissions could be reduced by as much as 29% of the total travel emissions, per year, while the women’s teams emissions could be cut by approximately 14%. Further explanation of methodology of calculations and comments on results can be found in Appendix.

Emissions reduction – Postponing the start of the World Cup and moving the opening to North America has the potential to lead to significant emissions reductions, as the season opening may even be combined with training trips to Chile. Additional effects might also be achieved through reduce emissions due to a reduced need for artificial snow creation.

Cost and economic impact – The direct costs of delaying the World Cup opening and moving it to North America are small. For many teams the potential synergies between training and competition in North America might even reduce costs. However, the World Cup opening is an important marketing event and either delaying or moving its location could lead to resistance from organizers and equipment manufacturers that may experience decreased revenues.

Collaboration – This would require significant collaboration involving many different entities. Changing the World Cup calendar is determined by FIS, which themselves needs to consider a range of important stakeholders like sponsors, TV rights holders, organizers, national teams, etc.

Quality and competitiveness – Delaying the World Cup start will not reduce the competitiveness of any athletes, as they will all be impacted equally. On the other hand, the Norwegian men’s and women’s national teams indicated that delaying the World Cup start would improve their experience, as they would prefer more training time and more natural snow than they get now.

Safety and working conditions – Delaying the World Cup opening will not have a direct effect on athlete safety. However, it could result in fewer cancellations and thus fewer closely scheduled competitions which would reduce the physical load placed on athletes. This is uncertain, however, as there could still be cancellations in an updated calendar.

Weather and climate – This measure is considered possible given weather and climate conditions. In fact, it would make the competition calendar more resilient to the expected coming climate change, as a delayed start will mean colder weather and moving the opening to locations in North America which typically have snow early will compound this effect.

Emissions reduction – This measure does not directly reduce emissions, but makes it more likely that FIS will be able to set up a calendar with lower travel emissions.

Cost and economic impact – In the long term, this measure is likely to reduce costs due to operational and travel efficiencies. There will, however, likely be some upfront costs to set up the process. On the other hand, the measure will improve the predictability of revenue and economic stability for organizers and national teams as they will know long in advance which years they will hold World Cup events.

Collaboration – Implementing this measure would require significant collaboration with FIS and the national ski organizations.

Quality and competitiveness – Assuming this measure is implemented along with measure 3, it is expected to lead to a more balanced calendar which will improve the athlete experience. Additionally, planning the calendar 4 years in advance will lead to more stability and make it easier for organizers to plan high quality events.

Safety and working conditions – This measure will make it easier for FIS to plan a calendar that both secure and promote athlete welfare and is therefore expected, if implemented along with measure 3, to improve safety and working conditions.

Weather and climate – This measure is not dependent on any weather conditions nor climate. It is also expected to increase the extent to which weather and climate are taken into account in setting the World Cup calendar.

Emissions reduction – This measure, if implemented as suggested, will lead to significant emissions reductions as it will mean a calendar setting process that explicitly aims to schedule events near each other and limit travel needs.

Cost and economic impact – In the long term this measure is expected to reduce costs due to travel and operational costs. However, in the short term, there will be some upfront costs due to the calendar setting process becoming more extensive. There will also be some costs to event organizers who will likely have to increase their environmental monitoring and possibly even engage external experts.

Collaboration – Implementing this measure will require high levels of collaboration among FIS, all national teams involved, and event organizers.

Quality and competitiveness – This measure will lead to a more balanced calendar, taking into consideration athlete welfare, travel optimization, weather and snow conditions, balancing disciplines, and creating interest around the sport. It is therefore expected to improve the quality of the season for athletes.

Safety and working conditions – This measure will bring an explicit focus on athlete safety and mental health into the calendar setting process, which is expected to reduce the physical load they are placed under and improve their overall working conditions.

Weather and climate – This measure is not impacted by weather conditions or the climate and will lead to a competition calendar that is more aligned with the weather and more resilient to climate change.

Emissions reduction – Holding competitions in geographical clusters is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a several ways. Firstly, it will reduce the need for athletes and staff to fly long distances when travelling from one competition to another. It will also minimize the need to fly for others, including media, volunteers, FIS staff, those responsible for transporting athletes’ equipment. At the time of this report, the only available travel data was for the Norwegian Ski Federation’s own travel. Hence, it is not possible to calculate the potential emission reduction from implementing this measure, but they are expected to be significant. This measure is especially relevant for competitions in North America, as it would significantly reduce emissions by only travelling one time across the Atlantic Ocean.

Holding competitions in geographical clusters would also make it possible for individual teams and athletes to prioritize low greenhouse gas emissions in their decision making. Some athletes today, for example, travel by private helicopter and plane because it allows them more recovery time and provides a competitive advantage. A clustered calendar would limit this advantage and the felt need for it.

Cost and economic impact –This measure is expected to reduce travel costs for national teams, individuals, and FIS. At the same time, it will likely mean that some event organizers, or even entire regions, do not get World Cup events (or the corresponding income) every year. This loss of revenue in specific years would be somewhat mitigated by longer term revenue predictability due to the calendar being planned in 4-year blocks, if implemented along with measure 2.

Collaboration – This measure will require collaboration within FIS and event organizers. The measure is increasingly likely to succeed if it is adopted along with measure 2.

Quality and competitiveness – Based on insights from athletes in workshops, holding competitions in geographical clusters is expected to improve the quality for themselves. This is mainly due to improved recovery and overall experience through reduced travel time.

Holding competitions in geographic clusters for the para team, rather than holding many in the same place in a row, is also expected to greatly improve the quality for these athletes. This is because it would increase the variation of the ski runs in their season and reduce the advantage that certain athletes get when the calendar weighted towards their specialty.

Safety and working conditions – Holding the competitions in geographical clusters will mean that more time can be devoted to recovery, which will reduce the physical load the athletes are placed under and will likely reduce the risk of injury. This will also reduce the travel time, and thus improve the working conditions, for coaches and other staff.

Weather and climate – Weather and climate conditions will need to be considered when scheduling runs, but this measure is generally considered possible to adopt given weather and climatic conditions.

Emissions reduction – Moving the World Championship from early February to early March does not have any direct effect on emissions. It might indirectly reduce emissions because it would allow for specific runs that are currently held with bad snow conditions (and therefore using artificial snow) to be held in February, when there is more natural snow, reducing the total energy use by cutting artificial snow production.

Cost and economic impact –This measure is not expected to have an impact on the costs associated with the World Cup. It may, however, impact the revenue from World Cup runs. Stakeholders who were consulted during this project were optimistic that holding the World Cup in March would lead public interest in the sport lasting longer in the season, meaning the February World Cup runs have the potential to bring in more revenue than they would if they were held after the World Championships. It would also have a positive impact on athletes, who are paid more by sponsors for their performance before February 15, as it would allow them to fit in more World Cup runs before this date. However, events held after the World Championship are expected to generate lower income and interest, which would be a challenge in this measure.

Collaboration –Moving the World Championships to March would require the agreement of a long list of different actors in alpine skiing, and the practical side would need cooperation for an even longer list, including – for example – the media.

Quality and competitiveness – Moving the World Championship to early March is not expected to a have significant direct impact on the quality of the experience for athletes.

Safety and working conditions – Moving the World Championship to early March is not expected to have a significant impact on the safety or working conditions for athletes or staff. There would still be the same number of total competitions within the same timeframe, this measure only changes the order they occur in.

Weather and climate – There are locations that can host the World Championship at the beginning of March, so weather and climate are not likely to present problems for implementing this measure.

Emissions reduction – Holding more combined events for the men’s and women’s teams at the same locations, or at least in locations that are near each other, is expected to lead to a small reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – dependent on how the measure is implemented. The men’s and women’s teams largely have their own coaches and staff, but holding the events near each other or at the same place will reduce the amount of travel certain key staff members need to do. This is especially relevant for the smaller national teams, who are more likely to have coaches and staff members that are essential to both the men’s and women’s teams. These effects would be more pronounced if the competitions were held in the same locations and not just within the same region.

Holding combined men’s and women’s events may also reduce the total emissions from run preparation and artificial snow production.

Holding para competitions directly after the women’s competitions also has the potential to reduce total emissions, as the runs are already prepared and the equipment would already be in place. This may also lead to a reduction in artificial snow emissions.

Cost and economic impact –This measure is expected to lead to some minor cost savings, due to operational efficiencies. It may also lead to increased revenue as these combined events will likely draw more media attention and higher viewership. For the para-teams this might result in a moderate increase of travel costs during the season, but it could be argued that this is a cost-effective way to season/ competition quality.

Collaboration – This measure will require significant collaboration to implement, as holding more combined events will require approval from FIS, and the practical work will require coordination between the women’s, men’s and para’s staffs. Additionally, on the organizer side it will also require coordination between many different actors.

Quality and competitiveness – Holding more combined events is expected to improve the experience for athletes as it will likely result in a better competition quality as well as better atmosphere around the competitions. This is especially true for the para team, as the athletes have stated that their best organized competitions have been those that were held directly following the women’s competitions on the same courses. Competition quality could also be negatively impacted if combined events are arranged at venues where conditions are not appropriate for this.

Safety and working conditions – This method is not expected to have an impact on athlete or staff safety or working conditions.

Weather and climate – This measure is not directly related to weather or climate conditions, although it could make it easier to plan the calendar around weather conditions as FIS would only need to find one suitable location for multiple events.

Emissions reduction – Minimizing long distance travel and training sessions in the southern hemisphere is expected to significantly reduce the national teams’ emissions, with the level of emissions saved dependent on the reduction/restructuring of travelling.

The impact of this measure would be at its highest if European teams were able to completely eliminate long-distance training camps and train exclusively in Europe. This would, however, have other negative implications and seems less feasible today. A secondary option that will minimize emissions, is to coordinate timing and locations between fall training and season opening. This would be especially effective if measure 1 was implemented and the season opening was held in North America. The national teams could then train in North America (e.g. Copper Mountain) before the first competitions – which would limit travel needs to only two inter-continental flights per year. Alternatively, teams could train in Chile before heading to North America – which would involve three inter-continental flights. Both of these scenarios would represent a significant reduction in emissions.

Cost and economic impact – Minimizing long distance travel would reduce national team travel costs.

Collaboration – Reducing or eliminating long distance training camps is a decision that each individual team can make. However, it will require the agreement of many people including athletes and coaches so there is some collaboration required. Additionally, although it is technically possible to implement alone, it is unlikely that any individual team would be willing to do so. Thus, the full adoption of this measure would likely require significant collaboration between teams.

Quality and competitiveness – Based on the level of implementation for this measure, it may weaken the competitiveness of the national teams if they were to train in bad snow conditions in Europe while other teams travel to other parts of the world. The Norwegian para team already trains in Switzerland and Austria leading up to the World Cup, and some athletes have stated that they would be better prepared for the season if they could train in Chile or New Zealand.

To address this issue, the pre-season training trip can be combined with the potential season opening in North America, which would still allow athletes to train on real snow.

There can be no doubt that completely eliminating the training camps in Chile and New Zealand would negatively impact the athlete experience. Even if adequate snow conditions could be found in Europe before the season opening, athletes have indicated that these camps are important to them. However, limiting these longdistance training camps to training in Chile in August and in North America right before a World Cup opening in North America could be a potential compromise.

Safety and working conditions – If training camps in Chile and New Zealand were cancelled without finding adequate replacements, this measure would have a substantial negative impact on athlete safety. Alpine skiers are dependent on adequate preparation before the season begins to be able to safely compete, with some arguing that the injuries in the 2023-2024 season are partly due to lack of preparation. This risk would need to be addressed in the implementation of this measure, to ensure that athlete safety does not decline as a result of changing the training schedule.

Weather and climate – Climate and weather is highly relevant for this measure. Climate change is making it harder to find good training conditions in Europe in the fall, and this problem is only expected to get worse. Thus, it is uncertain from a climate perspective whether good alternatives for training camps can be found in Europe or North America.

Emissions reduction – This effectiveness of this measure is dependent on whether or not FIS creates a calendar with competitions organized in geographical clusters. If this were the case, and athletes and staff stayed it the area for the entire cluster rather than travelling home every time there was enough time to do so between events, this measure could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even a reduction in the number of annual trips home throughout the season would have an impact on emissions.

This measure has less of an impact however, if the World Cup calendar is not set up in clusters and the athletes and staff frequently need to fly long distances anyway.

Cost and economic impact – This measure is expected to reduce travel costs for individuals and national teams but may increase overall costs due to the cost of spending the night near competition locations.

Collaboration – This measure in and of itself would not require collaboration beyond coordination at the national team level to ensure athletes and staff have somewhere to stay between competitions.

Quality and competitiveness – This measure has the potential to worsen the World Cup experience for athletes who implement it and negatively impact their competitiveness.

Safety and working conditions – Reducing travel home between competitions is not expected to have an impact on athlete safety, although it is expected to negatively impact overall working conditions. Athletes have stated that it is much easier to relax at home than in hotels while on the road. This is a challenge that must be actively addressed.

Weather and climate – This measure is not impacted by weather and climate.

Emissions reduction – Using lower means of transport with lower emissions when possible, such as electric vehicles or train, could moderately reduce emissions. The impact of this measure will depend on the transportation method that would’ve otherwise been used and to which extent the electric vehicle, or train, is being used.

Cost and economic impact –This measure is not expected to have a significant economic impact. Currently, the national teams are sponsored by Audi. The car manufacturer has previously communicated that they would only produce electric vehicles from 2026 but later changed their ambition to also continue offering vehicles with internal combustion engines. However, it is possible that Audi would provide the team with electric vehicles when more infrastructure is in place, in order to reach their own climate ambitions. In that case, the economic impact is expected to be minor.

Collaboration – Implementation of this measure would require some collaboration at this point of time. This is mainly due to electric vehicles requiring more time used on charging due to lacking charging infrastructure, which would lead to loss of competitiveness for athletes if this wasn’t also followed by other national teams. If the necessary infrastructure is established throughout Europe, the level of required collaboration will be reduced.

Quality and competitiveness – If the World Cup calendar organized in clusters with shorter distances between competitions, this measure would not have a material impact on athlete competitiveness. With the World Cup calendar as it is today, athletes who chose to travel by using lower impact means of transportation, such as trains or electric vehicles, would be at a competitive disadvantage because of the required time used on charging. This limits recovery time between events, which weakens athletes competitiveness.

Safety and working conditions – As with quality and competitiveness, selecting lower impact means of transportation would not be expected to have an effect on safety and working conditions if the calendar was set up in geographic clusters. Similarly, it would negatively impact athlete safety and working conditions by reducing recovery time if it was implemented with the calendar as it is now.

Weather and climate – This measure is generally considered to be possible given weather and climate considerations. That being said, electric cars do not work optimally in very cold environments, which could be a problem. There would always have to be some gasoline or diesel powered cars in the vehicle fleet to ensure that athletes and staff can complete necessary travels through the season.

Emissions reduction – This measure is not expected to cause any direct emissions reductions but is aimed at creating a better knowledge base. It may indirectly reduce emissions, if the information allows the competition calendar to be created in a way that eliminates the need for artificial snow.

Cost and economic impact – This measure will have some costs, as FIS will have to engage external experts to conduct the analyses. However, it may save costs in the long run if it leads to fewer cancelled runs and lower production of artificial snow.

Collaboration – Some information may be required from organizers, but it is largely possible for a single actor (such as FIS) to decide to implement this measure and coordinate the work themselves.

Quality and competitiveness – This measure will make it possible for FIS to schedule a more predictable season with fewer cancellations, which will improve the athlete experience and have an overall positive impact on the sport.

Safety and working conditions – This measure is not expected to impact athlete safety or working conditions.

Weather and climate – The implementation of this measure is not dependent on the weather or climate. In fact, conducting the suggested assessments will lead to a World Cup calendar that explicitly considers the weather and climate.

Emissions reduction – Conducting partial or full greenhouse gas accounting for the national teams and competition organizers is not expected to have any direct effects on greenhouse gas emissions. The insight gained from this analysis will, however, make it possible to identify more important emissions sources and take action to reduce or eliminate them in the future.

Cost and economic impact – This measure will likely require hiring someone to conduct the greenhouse gas accounts, paying for a system which someone will have to learn how to use, or engaging external experts to do the work.

Collaboration – This measure does not require any collaboration and is a step that each individual team and organizer can take independently.

Quality and competitiveness – This measure is not expected to have any impact on event quality or athlete competitiveness.

Safety and working conditions – This measure is not expected to have any impact on safety or working conditions.

Weather and climate – This measure’s implementation is not expected to be impacted by weather or climate conditions.