For those looking for how much Rihanna got paid for the halftime show
Like many, I’ve always assumed that artists got paid for performing at the National Football League’s (NFL’s) Super Bowl Halftime Show. The clickbait article headlines were correct – the amount some performers get paid for halftime did surprise me.
In fact, they only get paid union scale which translates to not-too-much by their (and the NFL’s) standards. Of course, the NFL pays expenses for the show and the artist’s and performers’ travel, which the NFL has shared with The Independent. Now this isn’t new with Rihanna, it’s “always been this way.”
It’s basically the age-old ask many people in the creative field are accustomed to – I won’t pay you, but will you work for the exposure? In this case, the Super Bowl actually is a lot of exposure – with 113 million viewers in 2023. In fact, an extra 5.7 million viewers tuned in just for Rihanna. Per CNN Business, Super Bowl LVII is the number three most watched television program ever.
…but does that make it better?
The NFL and the Super Bowl are setting a bad example that artists can be paid in exposure for their work. Sure, Rihanna may sell more albums because of this, but if you take a step back – this is America devaluing arts in favor of sports. America has a long history of not valuing artists’ time, skills, and expertise, or seeing it as less than athletics – from high school to the Super Bowl. An argument can be made that the NFL benefits from strong halftime artists in the Super Bowl – as mentioned, 5.7 million viewers tuned in just for halftime. That’s money the NFL is making because of Rihanna, the headliner artist that it is not paying.
People spins it positively with, “Artists often see a boost in sales immediately after the show, as well as the chance to increase their social media followings.” There is a major problem with the words “often” and “the chance” – none of this is a sure thing.
To make money, the artists must push advertising or a side hustle to capitalize on said exposure. Exposure alone is not a paycheck and it doesn’t just rain money – it still requires the artist (or their team if they are lucky enough to have one, like Rihanna) to take action to distill this precious exposure into something livable.
If the NFL can get away with “paying” stars with exposure, so can a chain bar or a company in need of graphic design or cheap copywriting get away with “paying” a less famous creator with exposure. These tasks require skill, artistry, and time. Those artists or professionals likely don’t have the same resources as Rihanna. For many, exposure amounts to nothing.
Is what we do any less valuable because it is art?
We still put time and effort to ensure the best quality. Love me some Rihanna, but they can’t seriously think she performed that 13-minute set for the first time during halftime.
Significant time goes into rehearsing dance moves and stunts. Exercise was happening on that field! Those aerial platforms were incredible and Rihanna doubtless had to sign her life – and her unborn baby’s – away to perform that show. All for exposure and no money. Rihanna deserves more.
The NFL can argue that she doesn’t need the money, but that’s beside the point – the point is that Rihanna and other artists work hard for the halftime show and they should get paid in equal measure.
Large corporations should not set the example that you can pay art-based fields in exposure – no matter how certain the guarantee of supplemental profits based on said exposure.
Art brings value and beauty to the world and deserves to be celebrated for and on its own merit.
photo and watercolor courtesy of the author and family