Why Cannabis Companies Can’t Break Into Soccer Advertising
For all the buzz about cannabis and sport, putting a cannabis logo on an MLS or English Premier League shirt is still far from straightforward. The core problem is that cannabis sits at the intersection of drug law, advertising codes, and league policies that were built long before legal markets emerged.
Start with the United States. Cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under federal law, even though most states now allow medical or adult-use sales. That federal illegality makes global brands, broadcast partners, and leagues risk-averse; they do not want prime-time games associated with a product Washington still treats like heroin. On top of that, state cannabis marketing rules are unusually strict. Many states only allow event sponsorship when the organizer can prove that roughly 80–90 percent of the audience is over the legal age, and some explicitly single out sports events. One recent Arizona law, for example, bars marijuana retailers from sponsoring sporting events unless at least 73.6 percent of attendees are expected to be 21 or older.
Major League Soccer also has its own guardrails. The league follows World Anti-Doping Agency standards, which still prohibit THC in competition while allowing CBD. In 2022, MLS quietly opened the door for CBD-only sponsorships that meet strict testing rules and contain no psychoactive THC, mirroring similar moves in MLB. That is a narrow carve-out, not a green light for dispensaries or high-THC brands. Any jersey patch or stadium deal still has to work for MLS’s global media partner, Apple, which markets MLS Season Pass to a large 18–34 audience and must keep regulators in multiple countries onside.
Across the Atlantic, the legal and regulatory picture is even tougher for full-scale cannabis brands. Recreational cannabis remains illegal in the UK; only tightly controlled medical products and certain CBD lines are permitted. Advertising codes enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice prohibit ads that promote illegal drug use and heavily restrict what CBD brands can claim, especially around health. That makes it hard for an EPL club to put a cannabis supplier on the front of its shirt without running afoul of regulators.
At the same time, English football is already under intense scrutiny for its relationship with another “vice” sponsor: gambling. Premier League clubs have agreed to remove betting brands from the front of shirts from the 2026–27 season after political pressure over youth exposure to gambling ads. With regulators and politicians watching sponsorship categories closely, clubs are cautious about swapping betting logos for cannabis leaves.
There is also a practical business issue: soccer is a global product. EPL and MLS matches are broadcast into countries where cannabis is still harshly criminalized. A kit deal with a THC brand might be acceptable in Colorado or parts of Canada but deeply problematic in Asia or the Middle East. Even CBD companies struggle to structure multi-territory deals because rules vary so much between jurisdictions.
Ironically, fan opinion is ahead of the regulations. Recent polling shows strong majorities of MLS fans view cannabis sponsorships—especially CBD deals—as acceptable. But until drug laws, advertising codes, and league commercial policies catch up, most cannabis brands will remain on the sidelines, limited to local activations, age-gated digital content, and carefully structured wellness partnerships rather than bold logos on MLS or EPL kits. For now, those bright green brand dreams have to be routed through compliance teams instead of kit designers.