The Name of the Game . . .

. . . is the Super Bowl™®. It's played every year, at the end of the NFL season, the Super Bowl™®, that is. But increasingly, bars and other venues that are holding a party or a buffet or a hoedown because, y'know, it's the Super Bowl™®, are unable to advertise it as a "Super Bowl Party" or "Super Bowl Buffet" or "Super Bowl Hoedown." My local "alternative newsweekly" featured the following circumlocutions from businesses staging events on the evening of February 1, as the Super Bowl™® was being played:

"Watch the Big Game at . . ."

"The Big Game on the Big Screen"

"Super Sunday Party"

"Super Sunday Game"

Now, years ago, these establishments would have stated, directly, that they were showing the Super Bowl on a big honking screen, but within the past decade, the NFL began insisting that it owned the trademark "Super Bowl™®" and that these establishments would have to pay for the privilege of using it or find another way to lure patrons.

Now, one could easily second-guess this approach as a strategy. The sports bars and venues showing the game arguably contribute to the texture of the NFL and enhance the value of the franchises. They reinforce fans' relationships and identifications with their teams. They extend the viewing audience for not just the Super Bowl™®, but for any of a number of games. But the NFL doesn't see it that way. In fact, they swooped down on Vegas, days before the Super Bowl™® and threatened to sue all of the Casinos hosting "Super Bowl" parties.

Suddenly, the NFL is apparently intent on enforcing that announcement: "This broadcast is for private home viewing . . ." and is unwilling to allow the venues to place this over-the-air broadcast on their big screens. Admittedly, some of the casinos were charging a big chunk of change for the foodstuffs attendant to the viewing of the Super Bowl™® but this seems a perfect example of a case where the law might technically be on the NFL's side but common sense is obviously not.

For starters, the NFL should be aware that it is in a symbiotic relationship with Vegas. Without gambling, legal and otherwise, the number of viewers will drop precipitiously. Vegas is, as gambling enterprises go, a reasonably good citizen, delivering more eyes for each game and contributing to the NFL's ability to secure mammoth TV contracts.

But beyond the apparent anti-pragmatism of the NFL's threats is a larger question.

Ought we tolerate a culture in which a widely publicized national event cannot be referred to directly by name without permission and/or payment? Must we really reconcile ourselves to awkward euphemistic inferential references to the fact that a sports bar will indeed be showing the Super Bowl™® on the same big screen TV it used all season long for "Chicago vs. Green Bay," and the like.

NFL, you've won. Roughly half of America watches the Super Bowl™®. I think it would be mighty sporting of you to allow us to acknowledge that directly. Then again, I really don't think we ought to have to ask you for permission.