Supreme CBD faces backlash over Ricky Hatton tribute in wake of boxer's death

A tribute to Ricky Hatton has become the focal point of a backlash against Supreme CBD, with critics accusing the cannabis company of using the boxing legend’s death to promote its products. Hatton, 46, was found at his home over the weekend and his death is not being treated as suspicious. He had been an ambassador for Supreme CBD and regularly promoted the brand on social media alongside a roster of other high-profile figures that included Kerry Katona, Katie Price, Paul Merson, John Aldridge, John Hartson and Matt Le Tissier.

The controversy intensified after tributes posted by Hatton’s fellow ambassadors and a member of the company’s leadership drew criticism for intertwining a memorial with promotional content. In a video posted to Anthony Fowler’s Instagram page, Fowler—who also serves as the managing director and founder of Supreme CBD—reflected on his conversations with Hatton about CBD and mental health, and he highlighted perceived benefits of CBD products for skin conditions and overall well-being. Social media users questioned whether a tribute should reference the product, and some comments urged followers to separate mourning from marketing. A number of other posts from ambassadors, including former goalkeeper Mark Crossley, were subsequently removed or edited amid the backlash.

Supreme CBD’s official tribute on its X account also drew sharp reactions, with critics accusing the company of soft-selling its wares during a time of mourning. Critics characterized the posts as a naked attempt to monetize Hatton’s memory, while supporters argued that the brand’s ambassadors have long been open about using CBD and sharing personal experiences. The online debate extended across platforms, with commenters arguing that endorsing a product in the wake of a death is inappropriate and others defending the transparency of individual endorsements. Daily social-media commentators described the posts as “shameless” and “crass,” while others urged a respectful separation between bereavement and commerce. The Daily Mail Sport said it had reached out to Supreme CBD for comment and was awaiting a response.

Beyond the immediate backlash, the episode underscores ongoing scrutiny of influencer-driven marketing in the CBD sector. Supreme CBD has faced regulatory and reputational challenges in recent years, including a 2024 ruling by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that criticized endorsements by some ambassadors for insufficient disclosure of their connections to the brand. The company’s accounts show assets of about £3.7 million, highlighting the scale of the business at stake in these reputational problems. The latest controversy arrives amid broader questions about how CBD products are marketed and the reliability of health claims associated with them.

The controversy also comes with cautionary context about CBD disclosures and health claims. Public health guidance in the UK has emphasized that CBD may carry risks and that the quality and content of online-sold products are variable. The Mayo Clinic notes potential side effects such as diarrhea, reduced appetite, drowsiness and fatigue, while the NHS cautions that CBD’s medical benefits are not guaranteed and that some products may be illegal or unsafe. Doctors typically advise consultation with a medical professional before using CBD alongside other treatments, given possible interactions with medications and the need for careful monitoring of liver function in some cases. These considerations add a layer of complexity for brands that position CBD as a wellness solution and for the influencers who promote those products to a broad audience.

The timing of the backlash is notable given the industry’s ongoing regulatory scrutiny. Following the ASA ruling in February 2024, which criticized certain promotions by Le Tissier, Hartson and Fowler for not clearly disclosing their ties to Supreme CBD, the company has faced heightened expectations about responsible marketing practices. Critics argue that continuing to rely on high-profile endorsements without forthright disclosure risks consumer trust and regulatory attention. Supporters contend that influencers often share personal experiences with CBD; however, the line between authentic testimonial and promotional content remains under debate.

Hatton’s passing has prompted a broader reflection within the sports and wellness communities about how brands engage with grief and memorials in marketing. While some ambassadors have emphasized the personal, experiential nature of CBD use, others have urged brands to avoid leveraging a public figure’s death for commercial ends. The episode serves as a case study for investors, regulators and marketers about balancing authentic storytelling with ethical considerations and legal compliance in a rapidly evolving industry.

As the debate continues, the business implications for Supreme CBD hinge on both reputational resilience and regulatory compliance. Investors and industry observers will be watching closely to see whether the backlash translates into tangible risk for partnerships, sponsorships or future product endorsements. The company’s leadership has not publicly commented at length on the matter, and Daily Mail Sport said it had contacted Supreme CBD for a response and was awaiting comment at the time of reporting. The episode adds to a broader narrative about the responsibilities of wellness brands and the accountability of influencer-driven marketing in the UK.

Images accompanying the coverage show Hatton’s public profile and the kind of promotional material linked to the brand, illustrating how the context of a beloved sports figure intersects with business messaging.