More Super Bowl litigation threat coverage

More newspapers are covering the story raised by our January 31 post about the NFL forbidding Super Bowl parties and promotions. Notwithstanding the NFL threats, my heavily-blogger-attended annual Super Bowl party is still going forward, complete with the title “Super Bowl” on the Evite. (Stephanie Simon, “No sanctuary for Super Bowl flock”, LA Times, Feb. 3 (churches); Liz Benston, “Casinos not best seat in house for big game”, Las Vegas Sun, Feb. 2 (casinos)). (OT personal note: the latter story quotes my friend “Steve Fezzik”, who I knew when he was just an actuary with a real name, and who almost convinced me to leave the law in 2001 to team up with him as a professional gambler.)


  • The NFL needs to lighten up on the “Super Bowl” trademark. I think everyone using the name just boosts the hype.

  • I will not watch the super bowl. Too much hype and I don’t care who wins. I will never watch another one because of the NFL threat to churches; however, the churches should not be showing them anyway whether big screen or 5 inch screen.

  • I missed the church thing, Ray, but what’s wrong with a bunch of like-minded folks getting together for a party at their club house, watching the game, and having some fellowship under the guise of their collective interests?