Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE US SUPER Bowl halftime show, one of pop music’s most visible gigs, this year went from highly coveted to largely unwanted, leaving the NFL scrambling for takers as a cultural firestorm over social justice rages.
Prominent artists including Rihanna, P!nk and Cardi B reportedly turned down the offer to headline tonight’s championship game between the New England Patriots and Los Angeles Rams.
Their reported refusals came amid the controversy over racially charged police brutality protests spearheaded by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick.
When news broke that pop-rock band Maroon 5 would lead the marquee show, which reaches an audience that generally tops 100 million, loud calls to boycott in solidarity with Kaepernick resounded.
With its radio-friendly light songs about romance, the band seemed like a safe choice.
But a petition urging the band to back out amassed more than 100,000 signatures, saying “until the league changes their policy and supports players’ constitutional right to protest, no artists should agree to work with the NFL”.
Vic Oyedeji of North Carolina launched the petition, calling a boycott “the only way to affect the bottom line.”
“The NFL owners, they only see the bottom line. Let’s be frank,” he told AFP.
After Maroon 5 accepted, two black rappers, Travis Scott and Big Boi, signed on. The move appeared to be an attempt by the National Football League to soothe anger not only over Kaepernick but also at having a mostly white California pop band star in the southern city of Atlanta, the capital of hip hop innovation.
In another apparent bid to placate fans, the league booked Motown legend Gladys Knight, an Atlanta native, to sing the now-controversial Star Spangled Banner anthem before the game.
‘Throw money’ at problems
Since 2016 the NFL has seen its reputation increasingly challenged after Kaepernick began taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem, a bid to draw attention to racial injustice.
He has not played in the league since that year, and filed a grievance against the NFL and club owners claiming they have conspired not to hire him.
US President Donald Trump made the kneeling protest a major issue, calling anyone who did it a “son of a bitch” and saying they should be fired.
Rap royalty Jay-Z, a vocal Kaepernick backer, turned down top Super Bowl billing last year, which he referenced in his 2018 hit APES**T.
“I said no to the Superbowl/You need me, I don’t need you,” he raps in the song he co-performed with superstar wife Beyonce.
The rap mogul reportedly tried to convince Scott, a Grammy-nominated rapper, to scrap his partnership with the NFL.
A slew of rappers including Meek Mill and Common then voiced discontent that Scott would perform.
Civil rights activist Al Sharpton also reprimanded the artists on board with the NFL saying:
You can’t help people market something and then turn around and say but you agree with what people are protesting.
The league did not respond to AFP’s request for comment.
But the show will go on with Scott, who according to Billboard signed on only after the NFL agreed to make a joint donation of $500,000 to a social justice organization.
Maroon 5 partnered with the league and its label to give the same sum to an aid organisation for children.
Oyedeji scoffed at the move:
“This is how big businesses handle issues with race,” he said.
They throw money at the problem.
Bad publicity, still publicity
He also questioned the decision to perform by Big Boi – half of Atlanta’s legendary duo Outkast, whose eclectic brand of funk-infused hip hop took southern rap mainstream.
“I can see on the one hand he’s doing it for his city,” he said.
But a lot of people are upset because they don’t want to play second fiddle to a white artist in Atlanta, a black city.
Oyedeji added that Big Boi has lost some fans in the process.
“I know a lot of people who are very disappointed and surprised in Big Boi,” he said.
Despite the boycott efforts David Allan, a music marketing expert at Philadelphia’s Saint Joseph’s University, told AFP ratings would likely survive the controversy.
“It’s going to be pretty hard to boycott the Super Bowl – it’s such a big event,” he said.
Some of this plays into the idea that it’s better to have bad publicity than no publicity at all.
“Just about every artist that performs has a big next week,” Allan said.
Their sales explode, whether they did well or poorly.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I wonder if anybody has actually studied which countries actually pose or have posed the most serious threat to the US.
I won’t even ask if they know which countries actually carried out the largest terrorist attacks against the US and if they are on the list.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But Trump has businesses in those countries. He has no businesses in the countries he proposes to ban.
Even though they harbour and support terrorists?
Saudi Arabia -
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/what-we-know-about-saudi-arabias-role-in-911/amp/
The US have oil interests in Saudi, so unsurprisingly, not listed.
While undoubtedly a megalomaniac, the US defence contacts outweigh his personal interests, which is why these countries are off the list. His own families legacy and financial security is already set, and now that he has seen how he can raise military spending by tens of billions, he’ll start to grasping that power… even if it means Ivanka’s clothes don’t sell, her husband will still be at the heart of these new military contacts.
The seven countries on the list were identified by the Obama administration as the most likely sources of future terrorist attacks on US soil.
@Jason Culligan:
Great idea to forget the past and the schools and those that are financing them, that are bringing up new generations of terrorists and extremists.
Jason: How can they think pakistan poses no threat when they are using drones to kill terrorists in pakistan as we speak?
And an aggressive ban such as this will only serve to cause more terrorists to radicalise.
This ban is only to appease Trumps xenophobic followers, and won’t prevent any terrorism
@Jason Culligan: Lets talk about Iran ? What changes to the current visa programme will make America safer ? Thanks.
PS.Have the Homeland Security come out with a statement regards an imminent threat from these 7 countries ?
@Dave Harris What a lazy comparision to make : Well if the ban “serve to cause more terrorists to radicalise” Good . More drones to take them out then . So they must have been on the edge anyway
@Brian Lilly: There is some sort of policing in these countries, some control at least.
Any comment on the fact that Israeli Jews are banned from entering any of the countries on Trump’s proposed travel ban, and in most of these countries an Irish citizen would be banned from entering if they so much as have an Israeli exit / entry stamp on their Irish passport ? This has been the case for years and we’ve all been extremely quiet about it..
Well two wrongs do make a right I suppose.
@Karen Wellington: For the record Karen I don’t agree with any travel ban that is based on nationality or race – the concept of singling out people based on the colour of their passport is disgusting to me. However, I do recognise the hypocrisy in social media commentary in this country, where being anti-Israeli seems to be acceptable but being anti Iranian is horribly racist..
Countries can decide who comes in, or not – for any reason.
How is it wrong to impose restrictions on visas from countries you’re not friendly with. Israel have been known to assassinate individuals in other countries. They done so not too long ago using fake Irish passports. While you won’t stop that it seems silly to just let them wonder in.
Maybe because israel is doing pretty evil shit
@Awkward Seal: For the same reason that the UK didn’t impose a blanket ban on Irish citizens entering their country during the ’60s, ’70s & ’80s – they knew that we weren’t all intent on bombing their pubs and that most of us are law abiding and sensible people, so they allowed entry but carried out security checks. Blanket bans based on nationality is racist, uncivilised and downright unfair.
Unfair, maybe – but security and safety are more information than fairness. Every state has the right to dictate who visits, or doesn’t – do you actually think otherwise?
@willypearson: I agree, as are Syria, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Sudan, Somalia – and don’t forget UK, Russia, Japan, Australia, France, USA, Korea, China… My point is that the Irish seem to be blinkered and single out Jewish Israel over all others.
Every country develops such policies based on the standards of the country. In the US this ban had previously been argued against as unconstitutional. If you have a constitution you pass laws that are not in conflict with it.
A blanket ban on a nation isn’t racist as it doesn’t specifically target race. If the UK were to impose a blanket ban on Irish travelling to the UK they would have been justified as it would have cut down on the number of terrorists attacks. However there is a cost-benefit analysis to such a move that would make it not worth it in most cases. If it’s unfair so what. No country is obliged to be fair to the citizens of other countries. If they don’t want to be discriminated against because of the passport they hold they should try to reform their counties so that the state doesn’t sponsor terrorism. Civilisation is based on rules. Every country in the world limits the number of people that are allowed to enter and citizens of different countries are treated differently. Some can enter for as long as they wish, some may only apply for certain visas and stay a limited amount of time and the number of visas allocated to different countries varies too. So basically every country in the world is unfairly discriminating based on nationality. So your whole argument is nonsense unless you’re advocating for open borders worldwide.
This is for s h i t s ville but seems to have posted to the wrong place
Trump is right.
@John Henry: Trump is infallible and all seeing. Trump is God. Bow down and worship our great leader. Let him rule the planet and the skies. His wisdom is infinite.
@Tony Daly: Hes not that great Tony but we get your point. Long live King Trump!
There’s a lot more scrutiny of major decisions – in the US – than here…
@Fank Pulman: you raise a very interesting but provocative point.
Politicians around the world are loving this Trump circus – all sorts of crafty shenanigans can be done under the distractions
It sounds like they have no legal leg to stand on. If Trump said the sky was blue there’d be protests on the street calling him racist against the sky.
Except that trumps is more likely to say that the sky is green.
The usual Democrat state’s running in to court going nowhere on this occasion
Trump is such a unifying President. He is coherent the US nation. He should be made honorary Chairman of FG.
Your second sentence is gibberish, and your point is childish…
@Fank Pulman: cohering the US nation.
Just being facetious.
Trump brings out that unworthy quality in me but fair criticism which I accept.
@Jason Culligan: Red herring
have your say