Inside Soccer’s Sponsorship Roadblocks

Cannabis sponsorships in professional soccer are likely to arrive—selectively, unevenly, and far more slowly than many fans expect. The direction of travel is clear: legal markets are expanding, consumer stigma is fading, and sports business has a long history of turning “controversial categories” into normalized revenue streams. But soccer’s structure—global competitions layered over local laws—makes cannabis a uniquely complicated sponsor, even compared with alcohol or sports betting.

In the near term, the most realistic path is CBD-first, not THC. Anti-doping rules don’t directly govern sponsorship categories, but they shape how leagues think about “brand risk.” WADA has removed pure cannabidiol (CBD) from prohibition, while THC and most other cannabinoids remain prohibited in-competition, creating a constant compliance narrative around contamination, labeling, and athlete responsibility. That reality pushes rights-holders toward “safer” cannabinoids and tightly controlled claims, especially in leagues where player wellness messaging is central to the brand.

The second constraint is advertising regulation, which can be stricter than league rules. In the UK, for example, the Advertising Standards Authority has detailed guidance on CBD advertising and has enforced rules around disclosure and marketing claims—exactly the kind of scrutiny that makes clubs and leagues cautious about headline partnerships. Even if a club wants the money, the sponsor must survive a compliance gauntlet across broadcast, social, and stadium inventory.

Third, soccer’s biggest properties operate under tournament rules and host-country law. UEFA’s equipment regulations explicitly ban tobacco and “strong alcohol,” and they add a key catch-all: domestic legislation where a match is played applies. Cannabis legality varies dramatically across Europe, the U.S., and international markets, so a sponsorship that’s legal in one city can become a liability in another—especially for clubs regularly traveling for continental competition.

So will cannabis sponsorships be allowed in the future? In some leagues, yes—particularly where the commercial model is already comfortable with regulated categories and where legalization is stable. Fan sentiment also appears to be moving: studies and fan surveys in U.S. sports markets have shown majorities of fans view CBD sponsorships as acceptable, with meaningful acceptance even for THC sponsorships among some league fanbases. That gives executives cover to explore “adjacent” deals like CBD beverages, recovery products, or education-focused partnerships.

But if THC sponsorships remain rare in top soccer, it won’t be because soccer “hates cannabis.” It will be because the category is hard to standardize globally, easy to mis-market locally, and risky for broadcasters and family-facing brands that anchor most soccer sponsorship portfolios. Today’s reality—major league partner rosters still dominated by mainstream consumer and beverage brands—signals how far the category has to go before it’s treated like just another logo on a shirt.