No Superbowl in Church

3113

Hello Summer!
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
13,823
Emphasis mine:
No sanctuary for Super Bowl flock
They were expecting a big crowd this Sunday at Farmland Friends Church in rural Indiana. The sanctuary would be decked in blue and white streamers, the card tables groaning with sloppy-Joe fixings and bowls of chips. Best of all, the pews would be packed with scores of the faithful: men, women and children, shoulder to shoulder, hooting at a jumbo screen as their beloved Indianapolis Colts coasted — God willing — to victory over the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI.

It was to have been a wholesome evening of fellowship and football.

And it would have been illegal.

Farmland Friends on Friday joined churches nationwide in abruptly canceling its Super Bowl party for fear of violating a federal copyright law that prohibits public venues from showing NFL games on big-screen TVs.

Sports bars are specifically exempted. Churches are not.

The law has been widely ignored for years. Churches routinely draw hundreds of fans to annual Super Bowl parties; some denominations openly use the events as tools for evangelism. The Christian magazine Sports Spectrum even markets a Super Bowl party kit for churches. This year, however, a celebration sponsored by Falls Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis caught the attention of a National Football League attorney, Rachel L. Margolies.

She ordered the church to cancel its party and remove the trademarked Super Bowl name from its website. The Indianapolis Star picked up the story Thursday — and by Friday, pastors across Indiana and beyond were scrambling to yank down their Super Bowl banners and give away their trays of burgers.

"We want to obey the laws of the land," said Jennifer Lee, the office manager at Farmland Friends Church in Farmland, Ind., about 110 miles northwest of Indianapolis. "But, golly! We were going to have fun."

The intent of the law, which dates to the 1960s, is to protect the NFL's television ratings by preventing large crowds from gathering to watch games in public places — where their viewing habits aren't measured by the Nielsen ratings. (The ratings only measure viewership at home.) Sports bars and other businesses that rely on televised sports to draw patrons are exempt.

Under NFL guidelines — and federal law — churches, schools and other public venues can hold football-viewing parties only if they use a single, living-room-size TV, no bigger than 55 inches. When they project the game onto 12-foot screens or set up banks of TVs, they cross the line, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy.

Jumbo screens "have the potential to draw thousands of people, and if we had that going on across the country, it would eventually erode the television ratings," McCarthy said.

That's why the NFL denied a recent request from the Chicago Park District to broadcast the game at Soldier Field. It's why the league blocked the New England Aquarium from showing the AFC Championship game on its Imax screen in 2004. And it's why the league has in the past sent investigators to prowl casinos in Detroit, Las Vegas and even Biloxi, Miss., looking for suspiciously large screens.

NFL investigators will also be out this year, but "we're not … barging into churches, by any means," McCarthy said. "We're just trying to make churches aware of what the policy is."

Once aware, many pastors felt that — as Christians — they had no choice but to cancel their parties. "It's a shame we have to disappoint so many people. We don't agree with it. But it is the rule," said Dian Foreman, youth ministry director at Northside New Era Missionary Baptist Church in Indianapolis, which counts Colts head coach Tony Dungy among its congregation.

Instead of cheering Dungy in a loud, proud crowd of 300, Foreman plans to watch the game at home with a few friends. ("I have a 52-inch TV," she joked. "I'm within the guidelines.")

This Super Bowl is especially meaningful not only for Northside New Era Missionary, but for churches nationwide. Both Dungy and Chicago Bears head coach Lovie Smith are deeply faithful Christians; both have credited their successful seasons to the Lord. "We're giving all the glory to God," Colts owner Jim Irsay said last month.

Some pastors planned to make the most of the Christian subtext to the game by using their Super Bowl parties to show videos of Dungy and Smith testifying about their faith. Others had prepared brief halftime sermons about character. "It's used as a vehicle to open up conversations about faith," said Joseph Price, a professor of religious studies at Whittier College who teaches about sports and faith.

Prohibiting church parties in the name of higher ratings is "ludicrous," Price said. "The NFL doesn't make enough money on the Super Bowl already? Excuse me."

As a matter of law, the NFL "has a pretty good case," said Marshall Leaffer, an Indiana University law professor who specializes in intellectual property. "But I'm a little puzzled as to why they're doing this, because it gives them a lot of bad press."

It's unclear how many churches scrapped their parties, but McCarthy said late Friday that the NFL had been fielding calls from concerned pastors all day. The Indianapolis Star got word of cancellations from congregations as far away as Houston.

That development pleased Bill Johnson, who crusades against immorality — such as risque halftime shows — as executive director of the American Decency Assn. Much as he likes football, the idea of a big-screen TV in a sanctuary appalls him. The commercials are crass enough, Johnson said — what if there's another "wardrobe malfunction" like the slip that exposed Janet Jackson's breast during the 2004 halftime show?

"Here's the football game and then, next thing you know, there's a commercial break and you've got some sort of illicit scene on the screen," Johnson said. "As Christians … we're to keep ourselves from that which is not honoring to God."

Out at Farmland Friends, Lee said she saw no harm in gathering to cheer the Colts as a church family. In fact, she was so angry at the party's cancellation that she returned a $20 Super Bowl T-shirt. "I'm not paying for anything from the NFL," she said.

If the Colts win, though, she may have to break down and buy another shirt. The church bought paper goods for 150, not to mention tons of blue and white balloons. And if they're not going to be used Sunday, well, Lee's hoping for a championship party in the sanctuary. "Or," she asked, voice dripping with sarcasm, "is that against the law?"
:rolleyes: Opinions?
 
3113 said:
:rolleyes: Opinions?
I think it's a stupid law. Nielsen ratings should have to suffer like the rest of the statistics world. Human populations ebb and flow. There's nothing black and white about it.
 
It is incredibly stupid. They've got the term "Superbowl" copyrighted. When a sports radio station runs a commercial about the game, they're not allowed to say the word. It's absolutely moronic. The term is a part of our lexicon (in America). It would be like Xerox or Coke saying people couldn't use the term anymore. It does nothing to hurt them, but they just feel the need to be assholes about it. Don't expect anything to change. Even bad publicity won't make them budge. They're just too big at this point to care.
 
I think it's quite silly. Personally I'd never go to a church to watch a game like that. But that's not to say others wouldn't. I can't imagine someone fighting them on it but then again, in this country? There's no telling. :rolleyes:
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
I thought God was a football fan.

:confused:

He is Sarah. He's a Green Bay Packers Fan of Course. That's why all this is happening this year. The packers didn't make the "Superbowl." :D

Scuse the copyright infringement pul-eese!

MJL
 
maybe God just can't decide between the Bears and the Colts. Afterall they're both God's creatures ....
 
mjl2010 said:
He is Sarah. He's a Green Bay Packers Fan of Course. That's why all this is happening this year. The packers didn't make the "Superbowl." :D

Scuse the copyright infringement pul-eese!

MJL

Of course. He's a big Cheesehead.

I think he has a summer home near Vince Lombardi Avenue.

(I love the Packers.)

:cathappy:
 
No Superbowl in church? It's fucking un-American! Call the army! Call the John Birch Society!

The law is an ass, and rarely more so than here, for this reason: The people will still see all the fucking commercials - and it's the advertiser's who are paying the bills for the NFL and the broadcasters! This is a classic example of special interest rent-seeking - buying a self-serving law from corrupt politicians - at the expense not only of the public, but of the special interest's own customers - the advertisers. (The special interest is the NFL, of course.)
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
The law is an ass, and rarely more so than here
I am a bit confused as to how there can be a law protecting Neilsen ratings...
 
In the past, the NFL has been fairly savvy when it comes to public relations. It'll be interesting to see if the new commissioner realizes a law that lets bars show the game while outlawing churches from doing the same is ludicrous and a PR disaster. What's more, there's at least a chance its arbitrary nature might make it unconstitutional.

My hunch is an amended version of the law will be on the books before the next Super Bowl(copyright).

Rumple Foreskin :cool:
 
Last edited:
First you hire a good lobbyist, then you make a lot of campaign contributions, and then, quietly late in the legislative season, usually late at night, a well-oiled influential member slips a little extra language into a 1,200 page committee substitute of the "Elimination of Crime and Cruelty to Puppies Act," a substitute that no normal human ever reads, and which given its title none of the honorables dare vote against.

(Multiply this by 10,000 and you have the typical congressional season.)

(And forget campaign finance reform as a remedy - the problem is that the scope of federal intrusions into all areas of life has just become so monumentally huge that no one can possibly keep up with it all. It's out of control by virtue of its size, and efforts to "reform" it (instead of shrink it) are as futile as squeezing a balloon to reduce it's volume - to do that you have to let air out of it.)
 
3113 said:
Sports bars are specifically exempted. Churches are not.

I don't think the author of that article understands either the law or the issue of the NFL refusing to grant permission for Churches and other venues to provide the games to large parties.

For starters, "Sports Bars" are NOT exempted -- there are just provisions for businesses to get blanket licensing agreements with the broadcasters instead of the idividual leagues.

A law dating from the 1960's would NOT have provisions for "Sports Bars" or a "55 inch" screen limitation because neither existed in the 60's. IIRC, the limtation is worded in terms of "a television model or size not availble to the general public for personal use"

The law also does NOT prevent churches, rich individuals, unions, or anyone else from hosting a huge party for any broadcast event, it prohibits anyone from making money by charging to view an event broadcast over the public airwaves.

The NFL is the only sports league that refuses to grant reasonable requests by non-profit gatherings for the required license and/or set reasonable licensing fees for "one time commercial use" licenses.
 
S-Des said:
It is incredibly stupid. They've got the term "Superbowl" copyrighted. When a sports radio station runs a commercial about the game, they're not allowed to say the word. It's absolutely moronic. The term is a part of our lexicon (in America). It would be like Xerox or Coke saying people couldn't use the term anymore. It does nothing to hurt them, but they just feel the need to be assholes about it. Don't expect anything to change. Even bad publicity won't make them budge. They're just too big at this point to care.


*raise hand*
But Xerox and Coke do say that people can't use those terms. And xerox is not allowed to be used as a verb, either.


:cool:
 
Remec said:
*raise hand*
But Xerox and Coke do say that people can't use those terms. And xerox is not allowed to be used as a verb, either.


:cool:
Weird, I've never heard that. I know most people fall into that trap (calling copies 'Xerox' as a generic title). I always ask for a 'Coke' when going through the drive-thru, without ever looking to see if it's Coke or Pepsi.

My sister is going to her Church to watch it, so not everyone is affected (or worried about the big, bad NFL). Harold, I thought charging admission was only a problem on PPV events? :confused: Bars were renting (or highjacking) Boxing, Wrestling, or other PPV events, then filling up with patrons who didn't want to spend the money. I know you can't tape an event, movie, whatever...and charge for people to watch it. That's expressly forbid in the copyright arrangement.
 
We have had Superbowl parties in my church before, and I have gone to them, although the last time this happened, the guys ended up watching the game and the women all ended up playing games and gossiping. Personally, I prefer the kind of party where Margaritas and beer flow. Although God forbid I should ever get as utterly blitzed as I did in 2004, when I ended up being hungover until almost 6:00 p.m., and had to work through it.

I don't remember ever being charged for it, so I don't see how the NFL could have seen fit to interefere. I might have been asked to bring chips or something.
 
I'm also a wee-bit confused at the connection here between God and football. If both coaches are religious, and both are dedicating the game to God....

:confused: One side has to lose. So does that mean that God doesn't like one coach as much as He likes the other? If a church is a fan of one team and it loses, does that mean God didn't like their prayers as those of the other team? And if God rewards religious coaches with successful seasons, does that mean the unsucessful religous coaches weren't religous enough?

I suppose God cares about everything, including a game where big guys pile up on each other over a ball and get tons of money for it. But it doesn't quite sound like sermon material to me....
 
3113 said:
I'm also a wee-bit confused at the connection here between God and football. If both coaches are religious, and both are dedicating the game to God....

:confused: One side has to lose. So does that mean that God doesn't like one coach as much as He likes the other? If a church is a fan of one team and it loses, does that mean God didn't like their prayers as those of the other team? And if God rewards religious coaches with successful seasons, does that mean the unsucessful religous coaches weren't religous enough?

I suppose God cares about everything, including a game where big guys pile up on each other over a ball and get tons of money for it. But it doesn't quite sound like sermon material to me....
People like Smith & Dungy don't pray to win, they pray that everyone does their best and no one gets hurt. It's pretty rare to meet someone so deluded that they think God takes one side or another in a sporting contest. When people say a prayer in the end zone, it's usually a demonstration of their gratitude for the gifts they've been given (i.e. talent and determination), as well as their health. For the Churches it's all about giving people a chance to have fellowship together. People spend too much time alone these days (I'm still considering watching the game at home instead of going to a bar with some friends), so the Churches do anything to get them together (although I'm sure some just see it as a way to pack the pews).

When I was growing up, it was pot luck dinners where everyone, young and old, hung out and had a fun afternoon. That just doesn't happen much anymore.
 
3113 said:
I'm also a wee-bit confused at the connection here between God and football. If both coaches are religious, and both are dedicating the game to God....

:confused: One side has to lose. So does that mean that God doesn't like one coach as much as He likes the other? If a church is a fan of one team and it loses, does that mean God didn't like their prayers as those of the other team? And if God rewards religious coaches with successful seasons, does that mean the unsucessful religous coaches weren't religous enough?

I suppose God cares about everything, including a game where big guys pile up on each other over a ball and get tons of money for it. But it doesn't quite sound like sermon material to me....
Gott mitt uns.
(Und die Bären.)

(Die Bären über alles?)
 
We didn't cancel

Our party is going on as planned. Of course, there's no charge for admission. There's a chili contest (yep I made a pot) and beer and soda. A buck a can for beer and 50 cents for soda. The costs will get covered and we'll make a few bucks from the raffles and squares too. Big deal.

The TV is only like 52 inches or something like that. Um. All six of them. :D

Kids games and card playing too.

MJL
 
S-Des said:
Harold, I thought charging admission was only a problem on PPV events? :confused: Bars were renting (or highjacking) Boxing, Wrestling, or other PPV events, then filling up with patrons who didn't want to spend the money. I know you can't tape an event, movie, whatever...and charge for people to watch it. That's expressly forbid in the copyright arrangement.

This issue was a big deal in the news around here (Las Vegas) when the NFL announced their intention to file suit for damages against any Casino, Bar, Restaurant, or (especialy) Sports Book. They waited until the Friday before the game to announce the the conditions under which they would sue -- i.e they withdrew their permission for any use other than "the private noncommercial use of the program"

They also bumped their royalty fees to something outrageous for any business located in Nevada.

Of course last year (and the year before) the NFL was doing everything they could think of to make sure that nobody in Las Vegas could watch the game where they could place legal bets :rolleyes: and banning LV Tourism Ads from being shown during the game.

Apparently this year they're warning selected churches and other venues all over the country so they don't have to settle the discrimination lawsuits that the City of Las Vegas, the Casino Owners Association, The LV Chamber of Commerce and several other Nevada organizations have brought against them the last two years.
 
Weird Harold said:
Apparently this year they're warning selected churches and other venues all over the country so they don't have to settle the discrimination lawsuits that the City of Las Vegas, the Casino Owners Association, The LV Chamber of Commerce and several other Nevada organizations have brought against them the last two years.
That makes sense (in a pathetic sort of way). Instead of just not being jerk-offs, they have to be jerk-offs to everyone...equally. Welcome to the world of big business. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top