Whose winning the match, Pop?
Sportsfandom is a peculiar thing. For the most part, the die hard sports fan is the minority stakeholder in a vast sea of easy to manipulate fairweathered fans. That said, there is no sporting event more fairweathered than the Superbowl (except perhaps the Olympics, when shit like swimming all of a sudden becomes cool because of a lanky wigger with no personality. No one cared about swimming before, and then all of a sudden everyone was an expert? I don’t buy it).
Americans in general hold very, very few things sacred, but the Superbowl has at some point in recent history become the most sacred of them all. In itself, it’s become transcendant of the very sport it contains– bigger than anything going on on the actual field. The competitive quality of it has become diminished to about 50% actual sport and 50% media spectacle, and after a whirlwind media year in which we’ve seen a burning economy, a black president, and a girl selling her virginity online, the actual spectacle of the Superbowl this year is lacking the luster of years past.
For starters, last year’s Superbowl was, for all intents and purposes, as thrilling a spectacle as can be expected. Figuratively, it was David and Goliath’s battle re-enacted by the Giants and Patriots, with the Giants ironically playing the role of the underdog. Now, it goes without being said that Americans always fancy the underdog role (even though, in the worldly scheme of things, we’re far and above in Goliath territory). But all of that that is besides the point. Last year’s Superbowl not only provided more than its fair share entertainment than should reasonably be expected, iconic moments in sporting history (when a play can be named in three words or less, i.e. “The Helmet Catch”, then you know there’s something enduring about it), but it also solidified Eli Manning– the goofy, non-alpha male Manning– as a bonafied star and player. It was everything an audience could want and more.
As for this year’s Superbowl, we have two very non-descript (i.e. boring) identities playing a game that most fairweather fans wouldn’t identify with. Outside of Pittsburgh, no one really cares about the Steelers. Sure, their team reeks of blue-collar, working class swag– a team built on defense and overall toughness– but they’re really, really hard to root for. In fact, I’d say that most people would more easily villify them than anything (I blame it on the color scheme). They’re just not very likeable. The Arizona Cardinals (???) are negligeable– they have no mainstream identity for the fairweather fan to care about. You’re better off finding a Unicorn than you are finding a genuine Cardinal fan outside of Arizona, truth be told.
Does that take anything away from how well both teams have played, or how they’ve stepped up against teams that they should have lost to? No. No it doesn’t. Does it, however, contribute to making the Superbowl more exciting of an event than it really is? Nope. If 10 years from now someone asked you who played in 2009, I’m willing to bet 90% of the population would have a hard time remembering. The game itself could be really fun, if only because no one’s really going in with any expectations. Who knows? It could be the best game ever. But that potential alone is not big enough for the fairweather fan to care about. We’re finicky, but there’s nothing wrong about that.
Also, Bruce Springsteen gets on my nerves– he’s caricatured himself as the perennial, uber-leftist Bush bashing rockstar, and that’s really 2006ish. I’m much more excited about Arnel Pineda with Journey playing the pre-game. If Arnel belts out faithfully “Faithfully” and affectionately wins over mainstream America, I may find myself bathing in adobo sauce and tears of joy!
Other than that, the Superbowl’s gonna be a snoozefest, and Monday morning water cooler talk will probably hinge around that Beyonce commercial rather than those two teams that did something or other.
// Caspian De La Sanchez
