When it comes to hitting the nail on the head, Dr Oulmann Zerhouni could have a tidy sideline as a carpenter.
It takes someone with a doctorate in experimental and social psychology - and of course a name like Oulmann Zerhouni - to sum up a complex subject so eloquently.
"Our results suggest that alcohol advertising and sponsorship exposure may change attitudes in an automatic fashion, because it doesn't require an individual to cognitively process the advertising stimuli."
Dr Zerhouni came to this conclusion in a study titled "How alcohol advertising and sponsorship works - effects through indirect measures", published in April.
And his finding proves just as relevant to various other sport-related blights on our existence.
The good doctor was among a group of researchers from the Parisien Laboratory of Social Psychology, the University Grenoble of Alpes and Monash University that found a positive link between alcohol sponsorship and alcohol-related attitudes.
In a nutshell: repeated exposure to alcohol advertising in sport - either at venues or during media coverage of matches - can have long-term effects on drinking attitudes.
Despite evidence showing that alcohol sponsorship of sport is associated with more hazardous drinking and that large numbers of children are exposed to alcohol messages while watching sport, the alcohol industry accounts for about 20 per cent of all international sport sponsorships.
It can be reasonably assumed that individuals are not required to cognitively process various other stimuli frequently seen on televised sport.
Take gambling advertising for instance.
Of the 20 teams in this season's English Premier League, half are sponsored by gaming companies hailing from as far afield as Kenya, Malta, Vietnam and the Philippines.
Just to give them a bit more publicity, they are Ope Sports (Huddersfield), Dafabet (Fulham), FxPro (Watford), M88 (Bournemouth), LaBa360 (Burnley), W88 (Wolves), ManBetX (Crystal Palace), Fun88 (Newcastle), SportPesa (Everton) and Betway (West Ham).
Dale Thomas was not only offensive, he was wrong
So on average, in every game watched, viewers will be subjected to happy goalscorers pointing at shirts displaying a gambling company advert (not so happy if they play for Crystal Palace obviously).
And it's worth remembering that many of these viewers are young. I've been forcing the EPL down my son's impressionable throat since before it could deal with solid food.
Another regular sporting stimuli in no need of cognitive processing, is abuse of officialdom.
Clearly, some sports are worse than others but it's fair to say soccer and footy fall firmly in the former of those categories.
During the third quarter of his side's thumping to Greater Western Sydney last week, Carlton veteran Dale Thomas responded to boundary umpire Michael Barlow warning the Giants about a potential infringement with the observation: "You can't tell them that dickhead, you're a f***ing cheat."
A subsequent report landed Thomas before the tribunal which, commendably, hit him with a relatively hefty $7500 fine.
The former Collingwood pretty-boy's effort at contrition would have delighted Carlton's PR department, which doubtless wrote his speech.
"I'm extremely apologetic for the way in which I acted, the words I used and the way I spoke to umpire Barlow," Thomas was instructed to say. "I'm really disappointed in myself for doing that. Umpires are an amazing part of our game. Without them we wouldn't have a game, and for me to do that, as an experienced player, does not set a good example."
No Dale it doesn't. But well done on remembering your lines.
And fair play to The Age reporter Daniel Cherny who Tweeted: "Worth noting, because there has been plenty of discussion on social media, all umpires are supposed to issue a warning for 6-6-6 infringements before paying a free kick. So Dale Thomas was not only offensive, he was wrong."
If highly impressionable footy followers - particularly kids or Collingwood fans - observe such umpire abuse from inside the boundary is it any surprise they behave the same way outside it?
Back to Dr Zerhouni's study, which exposed students to 10 minutes of a rugby match featuring one of three sponsors: a globally renowned beer, a domestic beer or motor oil.
It discovered that the more popular the brand of alcohol, the greater the change to drinking attitudes.
Sadly, it did not say how many participants began binge drinking motor oil.
But whether it is exposure to vice advertising or the normalisation of abusing officials, when a human is being stimulated by sport, his or her cognitive process is seriously exposed.
To take advantage of somebody at such a vulnerable time would be extremely unsporting.
Sign up to our Sport email here.