Across the global sports landscape, attitudes toward cannabis have shifted dramatically over the past decade. Major North American leagues such as the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL have softened testing protocols, reduced penalties, or removed marijuana from their banned substance lists entirely. Yet professional soccer—despite its global reach and reputation for progressive social values—continues to lag behind other major sports when it comes to cannabis reform.

One of the primary reasons lies in soccer’s uniquely fragmented governance structure. Unlike U.S. leagues that operate under centralized collective bargaining agreements, professional soccer is governed by a complex web of international, regional, and domestic authorities. FIFA, continental bodies like UEFA and CONCACAF, national federations, and individual leagues all exert regulatory control. Anti-doping policies are largely aligned with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which still classifies THC as a prohibited substance during competition. This global framework leaves individual leagues with far less flexibility to adapt policies to shifting cultural norms or regional laws.

Cultural conservatism within the sport also plays a role. Soccer has long marketed itself as a “pure” game, emphasizing discipline, endurance, and tradition. While leagues like the NBA have embraced player individuality and open conversations around wellness, soccer institutions have historically been slower to acknowledge off-field lifestyle issues. Cannabis, regardless of its legal status or medical use, continues to carry stigma in many soccer-playing nations, particularly in Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia where drug laws remain strict.

Another key factor is the absence of strong, unified player advocacy on the issue. In North American sports, player unions have been instrumental in pushing cannabis reform by reframing it as a health, recovery, and pain-management issue. Soccer players, especially at the international level, lack comparable collective leverage. While domestic leagues like Major League Soccer have modernized some aspects of their policies, they still defer heavily to international standards, limiting meaningful reform.

There is also concern over consistency and enforcement. Soccer’s global nature means players frequently compete across borders where cannabis legality varies widely. League officials argue that maintaining a strict anti-THC policy avoids confusion and ensures uniform compliance, particularly during international tournaments. Critics counter that this approach prioritizes administrative simplicity over evolving science and athlete welfare.

Scientific understanding further highlights the disconnect. Research increasingly distinguishes cannabis from performance-enhancing drugs, with many experts noting its limited ergogenic benefit and potential therapeutic value. Other leagues have acknowledged this distinction. Soccer’s regulatory bodies, however, have been cautious, often citing a lack of consensus rather than adapting to emerging evidence.

Still, pressure is building. As legal cannabis markets expand and younger generations of players become more vocal about mental health, recovery, and quality of life, soccer’s rigid stance may become harder to defend. For a sport that prides itself on being global and forward-thinking, continued resistance to cannabis reform risks appearing increasingly out of step with both science and society.