Super Bowl Shock: John Fogerty SLAMS NFL for Picking Bad Bunny — “They’ve Declared War on America!”
The Super Bowl, long a cherished institution in American culture, has become more than just a game; it’s a global spectacle, a moment when millions gather to witness not only athletic greatness but the convergence of entertainment, politics, and culture. This year, however, the NFL’s decision to feature Latin music sensation Bad Bunny at the halftime show has sparked a firestorm of controversy — one that is now being stoked by rock icon John Fogerty.
Fogerty, best known for his work as the lead singer and songwriter of Creedence Clearwater Revival, has never been shy about his opinions. And now, the legendary musician is speaking out against the NFL’s choice to put Bad Bunny at the heart of the biggest televised event in America. According to Fogerty, this move signals a much larger issue — one of cultural and political significance.
The War on Tradition
In an impassioned statement, Fogerty did not mince words: “The NFL has declared war on America,” he said. “They’ve taken the one true American tradition — the Super Bowl — and turned it into a political stage. This isn’t about football anymore; it’s about promoting an agenda.”
For Fogerty, the issue isn’t simply the inclusion of Bad Bunny, who has become one of the most prominent figures in Latin music, but the broader cultural implications of such a decision. His comments underscore a deep concern among many fans that the NFL has veered away from its roots — focusing more on social and political messages than on the sport itself.
“It’s no longer just about celebrating the game,” Fogerty continued. “It’s about pushing a narrative that isn’t what millions of Americans tune in for. We want to watch football, not a political commentary disguised as entertainment.”
This sentiment resonates with many viewers, especially those who have grown up with the Super Bowl as an iconic and unifying event. To them, the halftime show should be a celebration of American culture, featuring artists who reflect the traditions and values that the game itself embodies. The choice of Bad Bunny, an artist whose music and persona are heavily intertwined with political themes and activism, feels to some like a deliberate departure from that tradition.
The Rise of Bad Bunny
Bad Bunny, whose real name is Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, has achieved unprecedented success in the Latin music world. Known for his reggaeton hits, bold fashion choices, and outspoken political views, he has amassed a massive fanbase — particularly among younger, more progressive audiences. His influence extends far beyond music, with Bad Bunny becoming a vocal advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, social justice, and Puerto Rican independence.
For many, his success represents the increasing importance of Latin culture in the global music scene. But for others, it raises questions about the NFL’s choice to feature an artist who has, at times, used his platform to criticize American institutions. Bad Bunny’s outspoken stance on political matters has rubbed some the wrong way, and this controversy is at the heart of Fogerty’s criticism.
The NFL’s Response
The NFL, as expected, has defended its choice, claiming that Bad Bunny’s inclusion in the halftime show is a celebration of the diversity that is part of the American experience. The league has long been known for trying to appeal to a wide array of audiences, and Bad Bunny’s addition to the Super Bowl lineup is seen as an effort to attract younger, more diverse fans.
“We are proud to feature a range of voices in our halftime show,” the NFL spokesperson stated. “Bad Bunny is a cultural force whose music has touched millions around the world. His presence on the Super Bowl stage represents the inclusivity and global reach of the NFL.”
But to Fogerty, this explanation rings hollow. “This isn’t about inclusivity,” he argues. “This is about turning the Super Bowl into a platform for a political agenda. What’s next? A halftime show featuring activists and politicians instead of musicians? Where does it end?”
A Nation Divided
The debate over Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance is part of a larger, ongoing conversation about the intersection of sports and politics. From athletes taking a knee during the national anthem to the growing presence of political commentary in televised events, the lines between entertainment, sports, and politics have become increasingly blurred.
For some, the inclusion of Bad Bunny is an opportunity to embrace diversity and recognize the contributions of Latinx artists to the cultural fabric of the United States. For others, it feels like another instance of a once beloved American institution being overtaken by the political and cultural forces of the moment.
As the Super Bowl approaches, the controversy is unlikely to fade. Social media is already abuzz with heated discussions, with fans both defending and criticizing the NFL’s decision. Some argue that the league is simply trying to stay relevant in an increasingly diverse and politically charged world, while others see it as a betrayal of what the Super Bowl has traditionally represented.
A Call for Reflection
In the end, the real question may be whether the NFL’s attempt to make the Super Bowl more inclusive is worth the cultural cost. Is the decision to feature an artist like Bad Bunny, with his polarizing views and activism, a step forward for the league, or is it a moment of overreach that risks alienating its core audience?
John Fogerty’s comments serve as a stark reminder that, for some, the Super Bowl is not just a game but a symbol of something larger — a reflection of American values and traditions. And for those who feel that the NFL has strayed too far from those values, the Super Bowl may no longer feel like the same event it once was.
As the Super Bowl draws near, one thing is certain: the fallout from this decision will be felt long after the final whistle blows. And whether it’s a moment of cultural awakening or a step too far will depend on who you ask.
