How the MLSPA Shaped MLS Cannabis Policy
Major League Soccer’s relationship with cannabis looks very different from that of leagues like the NBA or MLB, and the MLS Players Association (MLSPA) has been central to shaping how drug rules apply to its athletes. Rather than negotiating a stand-alone “marijuana policy,” the union has bargained over the broader drug-testing and discipline framework that ultimately governs cannabis.
From its first collective bargaining agreement in 2004, the MLSPA insisted that any league-wide substance rules be collectively negotiated, not imposed unilaterally. That CBA established a jointly bargained substance-abuse policy and independent arbitration for disputes—critical protections whenever a player faces discipline tied to a positive test.
Today, MLS regulates drugs through its Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health (SABH) Program, which covers both performance-enhancing drugs and “drugs of abuse.” The SABH policy, amended in connection with later CBAs, incorporates four categories of prohibited substances and is built into the CBA itself, meaning changes must go through bargaining with the MLSPA.
On cannabis, MLS has taken a conservative approach. The league has incorporated the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list of prohibited substances, which still bans THC in competition. Public summaries of MLS policy and outside legal analyses consistently note that marijuana remains on the list of banned substances and that players are subject to random in-season and off-season testing. Reporting after the 2020 CBA confirmed that MLS kept its marijuana testing regime even as other North American leagues moved toward partial or full tolerance.
Within that restrictive framework, the MLSPA’s influence shows up in how cannabis violations are handled. The SABH program is not just a suspension system; it is explicitly framed as a health-and-treatment program, allowing players to voluntarily enter for assessment or counseling and, in some cases, to have discipline reduced when they comply with recommended treatment. Structuring the program this way, through collective bargaining, shifts cannabis cases toward medical and behavioral-health solutions rather than purely punitive outcomes.
Another key MLSPA priority has been due process. Because the substance-abuse policy is part of the CBA, players have contractually protected rights to notice, to challenge test results, and to appeal disciplinary decisions to neutral arbitrators. This makes it harder for the league to make an example of an individual player in a high-profile case without following agreed procedures, even when public pressure around cannabis use is intense.
The union has also used its position within FIFPRO, the global players’ association network, to monitor how other leagues modernize cannabis rules and to press MLS to keep pace with evolving best practices. As state-level legalization spreads across the United States and Canada, MLSPA representatives regularly field questions from members about medical use, off-season consumption, and potential conflicts with team travel or immigration rules, adding pressure to revisit cannabis provisions in future bargaining.
Finally, while MLS has not yet mirrored MLB’s removal of marijuana from its “drugs of abuse” list or the NBA’s end to cannabis testing, the MLSPA negotiates CBAs on multi-year cycles. Every new agreement provides an opportunity to revisit testing thresholds, the balance between fines and suspensions, and how state-legal medical cannabis is treated inside the SABH system. Even without headline-grabbing reforms, the union’s quiet work—embedding treatment, privacy, and independent review into the rules—has already reshaped how cannabis issues are managed for MLS athletes and positioned players to push for more change in future bargaining rounds.