Bad Bunny, whose real name is Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, seized the opportunity during the Super Bowl LX halftime show to convey a political message. While it’s certainly his prerogative, the intriguing aspect lies in the NFL’s choice to embrace this, framing it as entertainment and broadcasting it to millions as if it were an agreed-upon part of the viewing experience.
At the halftime performance, Martinez Ocasio revealed himself to be a staunch Puerto Rican leftist, echoing a traditional narrative reminiscent of figures like Gricerio Torresola and Oscar Collazo from the 1950s, as well as the macheteros of the 1970s: figures often seen as disillusioned and problematic.
Some might argue, if the NFL positions itself as an advertising platform for political movements, shouldn’t the IRS reassess the tax breaks that allow the league to function almost as a monopoly?
Using hip-hop instead of weapons, Bad Bunny continues to promote a message filled with fervent indignation and revolutionary zeal, especially targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
What’s perhaps more irritating is the NFL itself. This organization claims to be distinctly American and, paradoxically, operates with substantial profit margins. It garners massive revenue under laws that effectively treat it like a protected entity, where businesses can splurge on luxury experiences and promptly write them off as expenses. It feels contradictory, to say the least, when statements about “shared sacrifice” are made alongside luxury suite tax breaks.
If the league confined itself to its sporting roots, that might be acceptable. We watch football for the excitement of the game while a cadre of billionaire players dash across the field, while the rest of us shout at the refs, pretending to grasp salary caps.
Instead, the NFL has taken on the role of a civics teacher, announcing that they don’t find the game enough on its own. Now, they feel the need to use catchy phrases—primarily in Spanish—targeting an audience that largely doesn’t speak the language but paid for tickets, subscriptions, and stadium access.
In recent years, the league has infused its messaging with political slogans like “Black Lives Matter,” “Justice,” “Equality,” and more. Bad Bunny’s performance added a few more:
- “They want my river and my beach / They want my neighborhood, and they want grandma gone.”
- “Aquí mataron gente por sacar la Bandera / Por eso es que ahora yo la llevo donde quiera.” (“They killed people here for raising the flag / So I carry it everywhere.”)
- “De aquí nadie me saca, de aquí yo no me muevo / Dile que es mi casa, donde nació mi abuelo.” (“Nobody’s kicking me out — I’m here to stay / Tell them this is my home, where my grandfather was born.”)
- “Fuelon, 5,000 que dejaron morir y eso nunca se nos va a olvidar.” (“They let 5,000 die, and we will never forget.”)
These lines don’t serve merely as “abstract art.” The NFL presented them as social commentary without seeking any feedback from the audience.
One must wonder why viewers are subjected to a surge of unsolicited political messages during a broadcast that was supposed to showcase a billionaire athlete skillfully maneuvering a ball. Surely, a few memorable hits or questionable calls would suffice without the added lectures. Is that asking too much?
If the NFL feels justified in allowing one team to freely broadcast political views, shouldn’t every other sports organization follow suit? “Halftime Tonight: The Coalition for Whatever” could be next, turning broadcasts into a charity auction for various ideologies.
Moreover, there seems to be a somewhat sacred notion surrounding athletes and performers who claim they’re on the “right side of history.”
It’s almost absurd for actors and athletes who have faced serious legal issues to adopt slogans advocating for social justice. Imagine a convicted dogfighting promoter sporting a “Say Her Name!” shirt. The NFL has certainly accumulated enough case studies over the years.
Adding further irony, many wealthy team owners publicly protest against oppression while their merchandise derives from supply chains linked to modern forced labor. Indeed, nothing shouts “freedom” quite like production managed under authoritarian regimes.
At this rate, those old Marxist-Leninist labels might transition from mere slogans to job descriptions.
Lenin might be termed a “useful fool,” a notion that resonates well in today’s context. It highlights how privileged individuals inadvertently propagate a movement that often opposes the very society that has afforded them their luxuries. The NFL appears to view this as not only acceptable but advantageous to its brand.
So, back to the original question: if the NFL is acting as a political advertising agency, shouldn’t tax authorities reevaluate the benefits that allow the league to function in such a lucrative manner?
Now seems like the perfect opportunity for such a review.
