After four long years of anticipation and excitement, the World Cup is back again and people from around the globe are buzzing like vuvuzelas with "Fútbol Fever." The confluence of teams and fans from around the globe to celebrate The World's Game is a spectacle in and of itself, and to boot, the social significance of South Africa being the first African host of the games just 16 years after the abolition of apartheid adds a special sentiment and cultural flavor to this year's tournament.

Nevertheless, the sobering truth of the matter is that along with all of the excitement and joy comes the tremendous environmental impact of preparing for and showcasing the games. In order to execute the tournament properly, new stadiums must be built, old ones must be retrofitted, transportation and tourist infrastructure must be expanded, electricity and water use will grow, and air travel will increase exponentially. According to the Center for American Progress, with games being held in South Africa, the additional energy use will largely be supplied by fossil-fuels, the majority of domestic travel will be done by buses and planes (rather than say, high-speed rail), and fans coming in to the country (the majority of whom are North American or European) will have very long air travel. In comparison to the 2006 Cup help in Germany, a country that boasts some of the best renewable energy infrastructure in the world and is more closely situated to Western travelers, the environmental footprint of this year's games is estimated to be at least eight times greater - even when excluding the impact of international travel.

While serious efforts have been made by soccer officials and the South African government to mitigate some of the ecological footprint of the 2010 Cup by implementing greener building practices, and planting thousands of trees to offset carbon emissions - it is clear that tournament organizers and fans can and should be doing a much better job. Many argue that further use of green design and public transportation would do the trick, but the fact of the matter is that for many host countries of the World Cup (and the Olympics, for that matter), the stadiums and tourist-oriented infrastructure are left largely unused once the show has packed up and moved - and so the cycle continues four years later. What many have argued, including Jonathan Hiskes of Grist, is that in order to truly limit the environmental footprint of events like the World Cup or the Olympics, a permanent home must be created with the proper infrastructure to be sustainable. Although the current system of constantly changing the games' host allows for a greater distribution of economic stimulation and cultural attention, it is also a pattern that puts unnecessary strain on our global environment. For now, let us cheer on and appreciate the spotlight that South Africa's evolving society has been given, but as we move forward, it may be time to reconsider how we choose to showcase our world's favorite game.

Below is a video from ESPN explaining the lasting environmental and economic impact of South Africa's World Cup: