During the 2026 FIFA World Cup across the USA, Canada, and Mexico, football fans experienced a “constant bombardment” of junk food and drink advertising. According to a joint study by researchers at the University of Bristol and University of Oxford, AI tools tracking pitchside boards and stadium displays recorded 65,722 promotions for products defined by the UK government as being high in fat, salt or sugar over 104 matches.
Fantasy & Market Impact
The AI Audit: Unprecedented Exposure on the International Feed
Researchers deployed a specialized artificial intelligence tool to analyze the international feed of matches during live play. They tracked every visible advertisement on pitchside boards and stadium surroundings across all 104 fixtures.
The resulting data paints a picture of relentless brand saturation. Adverts for items defined by the UK government as high in fat, salt, or sugar appeared 65,722 times. Combined, these logos remained visible for 28.1 hours of match time, accounting for just over 16% of total active play across the tournament. On average, television viewers were subjected to 576 visible junk food and drink ads during every single match.
Crucially, this data covers only live play. It excludes commercial breaks during pre-match coverage, half-time shows, and the heavily scrutinized in-match hydration breaks. Because the feed is distributed globally, every viewer tuning in from any broadcasting nation was exposed to the exact same visual loop.
Fifa’s Official Partners Dominate the Count
The study highlights how deeply intertwined tournament finances are with major food and beverage corporations. Four official FIFA partners accounted for the overwhelming majority of the recorded impressions. Coca-Cola led the charts with 21,893 recorded appearances, followed by McDonald’s at 13,915. Powerade, an energy drink brand owned by the Coca-Cola Company, notched 12,777 appearances, while Lay’s—known as Walkers in the UK and owned by PepsiCo—registered 12,087.
| Brand | Parent Company | Recorded Ad Impressions |
|---|---|---|
| Coca-Cola | The Coca-Cola Company | 21,893 |
| McDonald’s | 13,915 | |
| Powerade | The Coca-Cola Company | 12,777 |
| Lay’s (Walkers) | PepsiCo | 12,087 |
Fifa defended its commercial portfolio when confronted with the findings. A governing body spokesperson emphasized that the vast majority of its revenue flows back into the game. According to FIFA, funds support grassroots projects and health initiatives, pointing to campaigns like “Be Active” that delivered messages of unity and wellbeing to global audiences. BBC Sport contacted Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and PepsiCo for comment but received no reply.
The Regulatory Loophole and the Public Health Response
The volume of junk food marketing drastically overshadowed other regulated categories. The study revealed that HFSS promotions appeared roughly seven times more often than alcohol and prediction market brands. They outpaced gambling firms by a factor of 10 and eclipsed cryptocurrency logos by nearly 25 times.
Researchers argue that repeatedly linking unhealthy food and drink brands with the emotional high of elite football normalizes their consumption and builds deep brand familiarity among young audiences. This dynamic exposes a glaring regulatory gap. While the UK implemented a ban on TV junk food advertising before 9pm in October 2025—covering burgers, chips, crisps, and sugary drinks—international tournament hoardings bypass domestic legislation entirely.
“It is definitely a loophole,” Greg Fell, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, told BBC Sport. Pointing to the widespread global push to curb obesity, Fell warned that advertising remains a primary mechanism driving public health harms. “There is acres of evidence demonstrating that governments around the world are legislating very hard at the moment to limit advertising of junk food. It requires worldwide collaboration because obesity is a problem everywhere. Advertising is one of the key mechanisms by which harm from obesity happens. Obesity is almost the new tobacco – there isn’t much difference with the methods the tobacco industry used before they were excluded.”
