The NFL’s Miscalculated Globalist Push: The Bad Bunny Halftime Show and the Perils of Prioritizing Foreign Markets Over Domestic Loyalty

The NFL’s Miscalculated Globalist Push: The Bad Bunny Halftime Show and the Perils of Prioritizing Foreign Markets Over Domestic Loyalty serves as a stark warning about the dangers of corporate strategies that chase international appeal at the expense of core domestic audiences. In the wake of Super Bowl LX (played February 8, 2026, concluding the 2025 NFL season), the decision to feature Puerto Rican superstar Bad Bunny as the halftime headliner ignited widespread discussion. While the performance celebrated Puerto Rican heritage through vibrant choreography, family-themed elements (including a live on-stage wedding), and Spanish-language hits, it coincided with a measurable dip in traditional U.S. viewership during the slot—highlighting tensions between global expansion ambitions and the league’s foundational American fanbase.

Official Nielsen data confirms the Super Bowl averaged 124.9 million viewers across NBC, Peacock, Telemundo, NBC Sports Digital, and NFL+ platforms—a solid but slightly declining figure from the prior year’s record of 127.7 million. The game’s peak reached an all-time high of 137.8 million in the second quarter (7:45–8:00 p.m. ET). However, Bad Bunny’s halftime show (8:15–8:30 p.m. ET) averaged 128.2 million viewers, ranking it fourth all-time behind Kendrick Lamar (133.5 million in 2025), Michael Jackson (133.4 million in 1993), and Usher (129.3 million in 2024). Quarter-hour breakdowns reveal the issue: viewership fell approximately 7% from the game’s peak (to around 128.2 million from 137.9 million in the prior high quarter), with a 5.7% drop from the immediate pre-halftime segment. This translated to an estimated loss of 9–10 million viewers in some windows compared to game highs, particularly among non-Latino English-speaking audiences, as Telemundo’s share surged during the set.

The performance’s entirely Spanish-language format boosted international and Hispanic viewership—Telemundo hit record levels, and social media clips amassed over 4 billion views in 24 hours (with more than 55% from overseas markets, per NFL and Ripple Analytics). Yet domestically, the shift prompted channel changes, as evidenced by the drop-off. Critics argued this reflected Roger Goodell’s broader strategy: using the halftime platform as cultural promotion for Latin American growth, akin to a televised showcase for Puerto Rican vibrancy, family structures, and resilience amid issues like power outages.

In direct response, Turning Point USA (TPUSA) mounted the All-American Halftime Show, featuring patriotic performances by Kid Rock, Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice, Gabby Barrett, and others. Streamed on YouTube, Rumble, and allied platforms, it peaked at around 6.1 million concurrent viewers during overlap (with live estimates of 5–6.4 million across carriers). Post-event, the YouTube upload surpassed 21 million total views (some reports cited 19–25 million including Rumble). While dwarfed by the official show’s scale, it symbolized a bold conservative counter-narrative, drawing those alienated by perceived progressive undertones (e.g., immigration-related themes some interpreted in Bad Bunny’s presentation). TPUSA’s event amplified Charlie Kirk’s reach and positioned the group as a cultural alternative at a moment of peak visibility.

The real stakes lie in advertising revenue, where the Super Bowl’s value hinges on sustained high engagement. Thirty-second spots fetched $7–10 million in 2026, with advertisers expecting minimal churn during premium slots like halftime. The documented 7% drop during Bad Bunny’s set likely reduced effective impressions for those ads, potentially leading to under-delivery on promised audiences. Networks and the NFL may have faced pressure to justify rates amid the dip, even as overall game averages remained strong. The league’s bet on Bad Bunny—Spotify’s most-streamed artist in 2025—prioritized Latin market penetration over retaining every domestic viewer, but the cost showed in softer traditional metrics.

This mirrors the NFL’s aggressive international expansion. The league announced a record nine international games for 2026 across four continents, seven countries, and eight cities—including returns to Mexico City (at Estadio Banorte, with the San Francisco 49ers as a designated home team for a multiyear run), plus debuts or returns in Paris, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, Melbourne, Munich, and London. Mexico and Brazil rank among the NFL’s largest overseas fanbases (tens of millions each), and Goodell has openly discussed future possibilities like dedicated international teams or further Latin ties, including deeper Puerto Rico involvement. Bad Bunny’s show aligned perfectly as soft-power outreach, highlighting cultural affinity to build loyalty in these markets.

Yet American football’s appeal—strategic individualism, decisive big plays—contrasts sharply with soccer’s more fluid, defense-heavy style, which some parallel to collectivist systems. Exporting the product risks dilution when overly customized for foreign preferences, potentially alienating the tailgating, weather-defying U.S. core that sustains the league financially.

Hollywood’s trajectory offers the clearest cautionary parallel. In the 2000s–2010s, studios chased China’s exploding box office, often prioritizing global totals in announcements and altering content to appease censors (e.g., removing sensitive themes). Blockbusters drew $100–200 million+ from China, sometimes rivaling or exceeding domestic hauls, offsetting ballooning U.S. union production costs. But over-reliance eroded trust: audiences sensed “watered-down” American essence, “woke” shifts alienated segments, and China’s domestic films surged to dominate 80–90% of its market. Hollywood’s U.S. theatrical revenue declined, theaters closed, streaming fragmented the model, and independents (e.g., Angel Studios) rose to fill voids. The pivot neglected the domestic foundation that once made global appeal possible.

The NFL treads similar ground. By assuming domestic loyalty while expanding abroad, it risks betraying advertisers targeting that base. Progressive framing in the show—perceived accommodations to immigration debates—further polarized, turning off viewers and dollars. Sustainable growth strengthens the home market first; overextension without it invites erosion.

Weeks after the event, data confirms the patterns: strong but not record-breaking U.S. numbers, explosive international/social metrics, yet a clear domestic halftime dip. Future Super Bowls could see trend lines worsen if bad choices persist. The league must recalibrate—honor the American essence that built its empire—or face permanent damage akin to Hollywood’s decline.  While I watched both shows to see how the stories would unfold, and Bad Bunny stayed on good behavior during the halftime show, the damage was done before the show ever started.  It was a bad decision to have Bad Bunny sell family values when advertisers bought viewer appeal, not a progressive rebellion.  And picking Bad Bunny with all the baggage was a letdown to the advertisers, and it will hurt the NFL product going into next year.  The betting problem of rigged games is already having an impact.  And this whole problem certainly didn’t help. 

Footnotes

1.  Nielsen, “Super Bowl LX Delivers 125.6 Million Viewers,” February 10, 2026. (Official averages and halftime figures.)

2.  ESPN, “Super Bowl LX, Bad Bunny’s halftime fall shy of ratings records,” February 10, 2026. (Peak and ranking details.)

3.  Front Office Sports, “Bad Bunny Halftime Viewership Fell 7% From Super Bowl Peak,” February 11, 2026. (Quarter-hour drop analysis.)

4.  The Athletic / New York Times, “Super Bowl LX draws 124.9 million viewers, Bad Bunny 128.2 million,” February 11, 2026. (Comparative declines.)

5.  Fox News / various outlets, coverage of TPUSA All-American Halftime Show (e.g., peaks at 6.1 million concurrent, 21+ million total views on YouTube).

6.  NFL.com announcements on 2026 international schedule (nine games, Mexico City return, etc.).

7.  Reuters / The Guardian, reports on Hollywood’s China market shift and subsequent domestic erosion (contextual parallels from industry analyses).

8.  Launchmetrics / Forbes, media impact value tied to Bad Bunny’s performance (e.g., $942M+ MIV for the event, heavy international skew).

Bibliography / Further Reading

•  Nielsen Big Data + Panel reports (February 2026).

•  ESPN, The Athletic, Front Office Sports, and Variety articles on ratings (February 10–13, 2026).

•  NFL.com international games announcements (February 2026).

•  Historical Hollywood analyses (e.g., Reuters, The Economist on China box office dynamics).

•  TPUSA and YouTube metrics for All-American Halftime Show.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The Problem in Puerto Rico: No monster trucks or bass boats there to save Democrats

 

I’m all for making Puerto Rico the 51st state, but as we’ve talked about here on several occasions, their $73 billion dollars of debt that have bankrupted that very small United States territory of only 3 million people was a major problem before Hurricane Maria destroyed the island as a catastrophic category 4 storm.  It was the third major hurricane to hit the United States just in 2017.  Previously all of Florida had been hit by a major storm, and before that Texas.  Trump dealt with both of those crises so well that the hungry media looking for criticism had nothing to say in both cases, even though the personal damage was in many cases much more extensive in dollar value. But when Puerto Rico happened something was very different.  The reason for the mountainous debt, and the cause of so much devastation was that the island was ran by Democrats and they were ill prepared for the disaster—as they always are.  Trump’s FEMA supplies came to the San Juan docks but there was nobody there to take the supplies inland causing the media to criticize the federal efforts.  But behind their criticisms were something else, a fear they wished to hide from the public about the politics of the situation and it is quite telling to explore the cause of that fear.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/investing/puerto-rico-debt-who-owns-trump/index.html

I’ve done hurricane relief before.  I remember very well how bad Hurricane Fran was when it hit Chapel Hill, North Carolina as a category 3 storm an hour inland from the coast.  The power was knocked out for two weeks and I was one of the guys there pulling trees off the homes and it was a real struggle just working in that environment let alone being a resident living in the heavy humidity trying to get insurance adjusters to come and give them back some normalcy to their lives.  The National Guard had to clear the highways so that those insurance adjusters could even get to town, and then the wait was extreme as everyone had something to put on a claim.  You learn really quick all the things we normally take for granted like running water, air conditioning, refrigeration—and an open and well stocked grocery story.   Maybe one of the weirdest things I’ve ever seen in my life was a grocery superstore completely empty because everyone had ransacked it and it hadn’t been restocked for weeks because delivery trucks couldn’t get to it.   And this was in a very conservative area where people were pretty smart, generally, and there weren’t a lot of people living off the federal government.  Many of the people I was dealing with lived in nice homes and had good jobs at either NCU or Duke University across town—so at least there was money as a foundation to all the misery.  It was a mess, and that was the United States mainland where military bases and a very advanced highway structure were there to provide the quickest relief possible.

Of course Puerto Rico is a different story, it’s an island to the southeast of Cuba so it’s not connected to the United States mainland in any way, nor is it even close. It’s nearly as remote as a territory as Hawaii or Guam is.  Getting to Puerto Rico isn’t easy under the most optimal conditions, let alone when all the infrastructure was wiped away by a major hurricane that touched 100% of the island.   Being so far in debt the power grid was in a poor state to begin with and the people living there had very little money.  Most of their homes were disgraceful places just a few steps out of a third world country.  The Democrat governor, Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares is a member of the New Progressive Party—which is just another name for Communist Party USA and points directly to why Puerto Rico had a debt problem to begin with.  The Governor seems like a pretty decent human being, but his politics are horrendously misguided—so he wasn’t prepared for a storm that completely destroyed the island leaving the 3 million residence completely vulnerable.  Then to make matters worse the mayor of San Juan, where the major port is located to get supplies to people inland was ran by Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto—an even bigger liberal than the governor.  Between them they had no plan of action or understanding of basic management skills which left them to not only ask for federal help by way of supplies like FEMA had conducted in Florida and Texas recently.  But they were asking for the infrastructure to deliver them as well—a considerably more difficult proposal given the remoteness of Puerto Rico.

With Texas and Florida being Republican lead states with governors who knew what they were doing federal help was able to bring in supplies and from there plenty of self-sufficient volunteers used their monster trucks and fishing boats to get those supplies to the people who needed them until the basic necessities of life could be somewhat resumed.  It will take many years to even hope to return to normalcy, but few people died and the people in those regions got back on their feet quickly.  They were success stories defying the tragedy due to the inherit self-reliance of the people most affected.  The people in those places were conservative minded which is how Republican governors were elected in those states to begin with.  Not so in Puerto Rico where I think the only Republican on the island will be President Trump when he visits to examine the extensive damage for himself.  In Puerto Rico the people who elected the progressive Democrats into office think much differently than those people in Texas and Florida.  They had no boats or monster trucks to help with the volunteer effort.  They were mostly poor people made worse by their addiction to government services and socialist local management of resources.  The people there didn’t rally to solve their problem, they sat on their porches waiting for someone to turn their power back on, and to bring them food and water.  The supplies were in the port at San Juan to distribute inland, but there was no effort to take those supplies to the people who needed them because nobody thought to do it for themselves—hence their tendency to vote for Democrats in office and to be poor, and in perpetual debt.

And that’s why the Democrats around the country are attacking Trump so viciously, because they have to hide the big difference in why Puerto Rico is so dissimilar from the major disasters that crippled Texas and Florida just weeks before.  Everyone can tell for themselves how differently the Puerto Ricans reacted to a major tragedy compared to the bass boats and monster trucks in Houston who fought bravely to restore order to their communities.  Liberals know what the problem is and they can’t let that become the story so they are attacking the Trump administration for essentially the same things they attacked President Bush for after Katrina wiped out New Orleans. But the problem was never the reaction of the Republican presidents; it was the type of people who were inflicted.  In Republican run states where the political bases were much more self-reliant the federal government and the people worked well together to manage the crises.  But in Democrat lead areas where liberal mayors and governors were in charge, everything was a disaster.  The FEMA people could bring the supplies, but the locals expected those supplies to literally be poured down their mouths because intellectually they are a too depended on government services to think for themselves.  That’s generally why they were poor to begin with.  Being poor isn’t just something that happens, it reflects the way people manage their lives.  Hard working people tend to have jobs and therefore money to work with.  They may even have a nice bass boat in their driveway to use if they find themselves flooded out. But poor people are usually those who are apathetic and always looking to do the minimum in life—which is why they don’t have many resources to work with when something bad happens. Puerto Rico had a lot of poor people by its demographic nature which is why they’re in terrible debt to begin with.

Trump’s tough talk about Puerto Rico is perfectly justified.  The federal government can’t just come along and bail them out of the $73 billion dollars in debt then pay for the complete rebuilding of the entire island.  The people there are going to have to change fundamentally into a more conservative base of philosophy otherwise they’ll be in trouble again during the next crises and they won’t bring anything to the table as an American state. The way to get Puerto Rico back on its feet is to create some free enterprise zones to make the island attractive to some of the high-tech businesses that are emerging in the new Trump economy—so that the place can become something like a new Silicone Valley.  But the nature of the people must change because even if Trump brings jobs back to Puerto Rico someone has to actually deliver on the effort.  They can’t sit in the port at San Juan and wait for someone to unload them.  Puerto Ricans need to learn from these crises and change their ways.  They must learn to help themselves—and to stop electing Democrats to run things so that prosperity can actually take root.  Democrats hope that nobody notices their failures in Puerto Rico and that they can hide their mistakes behind the other storms of the year and build a case that racism is somehow the problem.  But it’s not, the biggest difference is that Democrats are idiots who don’t understand basic economics and when pressed in life they always buckle—because their basic foundations of thought doesn’t prepare them for reality–leaving them always in need of a subsidy to fuel their political thoughts which have foundations of moral bankruptcy.  They only know how to just consume the resources thrown in their direction under every circumstance.  The problems in Puerto Rico are and have always been the failure of Democrats—and for that they can only blame themselves.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Puerto Rico Votes to Become a State: How Donald Trump could have several new states join the union under his administration

Context is everything and my reasons for supporting Donald Trump for president even after all the outrageous claims against him are that I have it–context.  Over the past couple of months I have stood in four of the places where great international events have taken place. I stood precisely where an Islamic lunatic plunged a knife at police in front of Notre Dame in Paris.  I was at the bridge near Parliament in London where another Islamic terrorist ran people down killing them for no reason at all—but to support a radical religious theory.  I was also on the same streets and locations as the London Bridge attack just a few weeks ago.  Additionally, I was at the Ecuadorian Embassy where Wikileaks is doing the good work of unleashing material our American media and intelligence agencies can’t be trusted to control.  So I’ve touched the face of history a lot this year and I was in those places before these big events occurred because I identified them as hot spots I wanted to see because of the currents in the world that are moving fast in dangerous directions.  So when I say that Puerto Rico should be the 51st state it is because of that same deductive reasoning.  Donald Trump is a great president that is unlocking much of what these global terrorists are set against—and fear.  Yet the net result will be a love of freedom that will expand under the Trump presidency which is really what these terrorists and liberal assassins in the American media fear.  Nobody does it like Trump, watch his speech from Miami, Florida where he undid the disaster that Obama had created in regards to Cuban relations.

To watch in that clip Luis Haza play the Star Spangled Banner on a violin after hearing the story of how he first came to do it as a young child is precisely what America means to people all around the world.  It is what the terrorists are trying to avoid by stopping the spread of capitalist sentiment.  It is why extreme leftists have sought to move Middle Eastern Marxists into Europe—to maintain their stranglehold on those economies globally with the last resort of religion to hide the evil behind the mask of eternity.  But it’s not working and with Trump, that spread will increase dramatically, including adding the 51st state in America to his list of achievements—yes, in case you haven’t yet heard dear reader, Puerto Rico has voted to become the 51st state in The United States.  They are ready and willing to officially become part of our country and that is a wonderful thing.  They want it for many of the same reasons that Cuba wants it—and as I write this I think Cuba will become the 52nd state and that might happen by the time Mike Pence is in the White House.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/12/news/economy/puerto-rico-june-11-statehood-vote/index.html

http://www.puertoricoreport.com/natural-resources-of-puerto-rico/#.WUZqa-vyuM8

The terrorists in the world—and I’d classify the American political left in that category based on their violent reactions to the Trump presidency—want to sell the joy that American capitalism unleashes around the world by calling it “imperialism” lumping it into the same heap as the British Empire was—or the Roman.  The biggest difference is that America isn’t exactly going out of its way to acquire new territory; new territory wants to join the team.  As things stand now that little 100 mile wide island down in the Caribbean, closer to Jamaica than Florida filed for bankruptcy protection in May.  They have no way out of their financial troubles unless something dramatically changes for them and as it stands now, they are like a state—they have American citizenship—but they aren’t technically a state which has crippled them as far as corporate investments. So they are in a current no man’s land economically.  Their legacy costs far exceed their GDP which is so small; it’s not even worth talking about.  But Puerto Rico is a very nice place and it could easily become a booming economy with a GDP similar to Florida which is about a trillion dollars a year.  Hawaii produces only about $87 billion but it brings much more than that to the entire Pacific in value, and of course Alaska only produces $50 billion.  But Puerto Rico with its gateway access to the Caribbean and the Atlantic shipping lanes has tremendous potential that could and should be utilized to advance industry and economic expansion in that region by taking away the haze of indifferent statehood from the decision-making process.  Once companies know that Puerto Rico is an American state–they could unleash their investments.

That brings us to Cuba—in the 1950s it was a country headed in the direction of American statehood and that’s what should have happened until the Castro regime attacked and took over with communism as the national offering.  People seem to forget or ignore that all those little countries south of The United States have their share of communism, Marxism and socialism in their equations somewhere—and that’s why they are all poor countries.   Most of Mexico’s problems come from the fact that they founded their current country on concepts of Marxism and that has turned them into a disaster currently being run by drug cartels.  So I wouldn’t be against Mexico becoming the 53rd state maybe letting it divide itself up into three more states.  Then of course Guatemala, Honduras and Panama—if they voted for statehood, then I’d be all for letting them become part of the United States.  Their lives would improve dramatically because even the very poor in The United States live better than most of the middle class in Mexico and throughout South America do.  Most of the poor in the United States live better than the rich do in all of Africa–so becoming states in America would be a great thing for everyone.  The big thing they’d gain from statehood would be creating stable governments that businesses could then invest in.  Nobody in their right mind is going to invest much money in Mexico and Cuba as far as business because they do not have stable political climates.  Only tremendously wealthy companies now can afford to do anything in Mexico because the labor exchange is that much more advantageous.  But part of the reason there isn’t any major industry south of the American border is because of the lack of political stability.  Once that occurred everything would improve for everyone.

Under the Trump presidency I would love to see America add at least two more American states—starting with Puerto Rico.  If they want to be in our tent then I’m all for it.  I might even buy a place there as a real estate investment. I wouldn’t dare do it now, because the country is bankrupt, but if it became a state with opportunities to become a satellite of the great state of Florida—I’d be all for it.  Of course the political left would be against such a thing just as open terrorists would because they don’t want to see the spread of capitalism to these regions—they want Marxism in America.  They certainly don’t want America to spread its influence around the world more than it already has.  But if the people in those places want to sign up to become Americans—no matter where they come from—why not?  They’d be better off, and so would the current 50 states.  There would be more taxable revenue and at least we’d all be working with the same founding documents.  And if it were voluntary it wouldn’t be like America ran around the world conquering everyone with a superior military.  All we’d be doing is saying yes. So why the hell not? Republicans will likely increase their numbers in the House and Senate so the timing is about as good as it will get.  It’s all about context isn’t it?  Do we really want to help people become better off under a capitalist system and contributing to our current $18 trillion-dollar a year GDP.  Or do we want to let terrorists both foreign and domestic use illegal aliens from impoverished areas to collapse our system in America with overwhelming force and changing voting patterns.  Or do we control the impact with harmless Electoral votes while increasing our taxable income and expansion of business opportunity?  The situation is pretty clear to me.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

cropped-img_0202.jpg