Madonna is no stranger to controversy, but this time, it is not because of her crazy fashion or shocking song lyrics; this is quite a different situation. After the singer was chosen to perform at the Super Bowl 2012 halftime show, many not only disagreed with the choice, but football fans in fact seem outraged. Why is this choice so controversial? Is the singer simply a has-been that people are tired of?
The announcement came on Sunday that Madonna would perform at the Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis for Super Bowl XLVI in 2012, and the overall reaction has been quite negative. The Facebook page for one news station in Indianapolis displayed a poster that exclaimed, "The first Super Bowl we get to host. They pick her? They should have gotten someone from Indiana." Some say that a good choice would have been John Mellencamp, Guns N' Roses lead singer Axl Rose, or even Janet Jackson, who grew up in Gary, Indiana.
Madonna is a superstar of such iconic status--up there with Cher and Tina Turner--that it is hard to think of anyone reacting negatively to seeing her perform. But perhaps her poppy, girlish songs are not...well, manly enough for football? Previous performers for the show include Tom Petty, The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and U2. (Of course, the NFL broke the classic rock tradition by bringing the Black Eyed Peas in last year.) Another angered fan wrote of this year's choice: "Leave it to the NFL to screw up a good thing."
Does Madonna deserve such heavy criticism? Do you think that people will actually boo her during the halftime show, or do you think that people will be pleasantly surprised by her performance?
Photo courtesy of Annodam/Rocco.