In Light of Looming Super Bowl Ad, Should Tebow Cover NCAA ’11?

Florida Gator All American quarterback Tim Tebow will appear in a pair of commercials airing during this year’s Super Bowl that were paid for by a conservative Christian group.

According to the Huffington Post, the 30-second spots will feature Tebow and his mother Pam attempting to convey their belief, in so many words, that abortion is wrong. It’s expected that the ads will tell the story of Pam falling ill during a missionary trip to the Philippines while pregnant. Ignoring the advice of doctors to abort her pregnancy, Mrs. Tebow eventually gave birth to her 5th child, the eventual 2007 Heisman Trophy winner, Tim.

Tebow on the ads:

I’ve always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it.

Focus on the Family is the group paying for the commercials.

To be fair, Tebow has never tried to hide his religious beliefs and he has done an incredible amount of missionary work on behalf of the disadvantaged, much of it in the Philippines (where he was born).

How does this jibe with videogames? Tebow has been rumored to be in negotiations with Electronic Arts to become the cover athlete for NCAA Football 2011, a natural progression for perhaps college football’s most well-known current player.

The question for our readers is—do you think Tebow’s public anti-abortion stance should preclude EA from signing him as the poster boy for the next NCAA Football game? Or, is it not that big of a deal?

|Image via Tampa Bay Online|

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. sharpshooterbabe says:

    It’s not a big deal! 🙂 He is standing up for his beliefs. Just like everyone else celebrity or not stands up for their beliefs.



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  2. nightwng2000 says:

    Another lie and deceit to smoke screen the issue of abortion.  At no point was the very specific reason for abortion brought up.  So, at no point were very specific reasons for abortion discussed.

    Therefore, your claim is false and fraudulent.  You’ve proven you have no facts to back up your stance, so you make false and fraudulent claims.  BTW, fraud includes lying and deceiving to deprive an individual of a Right.  Not just deprive an individual of property, financial or otherwise.

    The issue was abortion.  The sides are Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion.  Now, YOU deal with it.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  3. Craig R. says:

    "If you want to throw a smoke screen over the issue by using broad terms, that’s your problem."

    My problem? You’re the one changing the terms to whatever fits your narrow definition of the situtation. So, to use your logic, you are pro-force-a-woman-to-have-a-baby-even-if-she’s-been-raped.

    Deal with it and have a nice day.


    And shouldn’t the issue be why have Tebow on the next cover when he’s graduated? I don’t play the NCAA games, so is this a normal thing to do?

  4. Weatherlight says:

    This is the same issue I was having with Dennis’s GP articles at the end.

    Why the hell is this on GP? If you want to know what we think, or want to share your opinion, post it as a question to the readers of the Forums not as a news article.This is another knee jerking article that really should not be here. Now if it was brought up by another news outlet, then I could understand. But this is trying to invent a story out of BS.


  5. whiston532 says:

    IF ! He was in a comercial that was him saying that anyone who supports abortion is a serial killing monster that should be killed by an angry mob id be against it. But if this is simply him and his mom sitting there saying that they are against abortion because they think its wrong and she is glad she didnt get one, id be open, its their opinion. We need to realize that living in a contry where opinions are allowed were gonna hear ones we think are: wrong/ stupid/ etc… But we need to learn to deal with it, because someone could be thinking the same about you.


    Although, honestly. Id prefer to watch the Superbowl without any of these Current Issue ads, i just want Football and scantidly clad women selling things that i have no interest in buying. I dont wanna think, its FOOTBALL !!!

  6. whiston532 says:

    I have to agree. Im against people jumping in others faces and cramming their opinions in their face and forcing them to join, i think that people should simply have open discussions with those who are different and let them make their choice freely.

    But it just seems that those who are religious cant even talk about their opinions without beeing called preachy. From what ive seen it sounds like people are saying that people can be free to talk about their beliefs openly, unless your part of a religion, then your not allowed because your telling us what we should do.

  7. Valdearg says:

    I have to say, though.. As a Green Bay fan, I wasn’t exactly impressed with the Saint’s blatantly obvious gameplan of "Try to injure Favre." Some of those hits were not only uncalled for, they were downright unsportsmanlike. I don’t like watching dirty play, even if it’s against a traitor.

  8. Queasy says:

    If Tebow or any other athlete were to make a pro-abortion/pro-choice ad should that preclude them from being a EA cover athlete?  If your answer is no, then your answer for this post should be the same.

  9. BearDogg-X says:

    Actually, Jedi, the last time the Vikings were in the NFC Title game before last Sunday, they were shut out 41-0 by the Giants in the 2000 season.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. "Pigs have flown! Hell has frozen over! The Saints are on their way to the Super Bowl!"

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  10. jedidethfreak says:

    Since the Saints won (by a field goal in overtime, just like the last NFC Championship game the Vikings went to, which I predicted would happen BECAUSE of the last NFC Championship game they went to), I don’t care who wins, either.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  11. jedidethfreak says:

    Yeah, because people are going to buy a sports game based solely on the political belief of the star on the cover, right?

    If that’s the case, Madden would have flopped a long time ago.  Hell, people don’t like EA and they STILL sell a shit-ton of games.  Just because the guy on the cover goes on TV and says he doesn’t like abortion and explains why, doesn’t mean that the game is going to flop.  You’re a fool if you think that people into college sports games are THAT deep.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  12. jedidethfreak says:

    Wait, the moment someone expresses their beliefs, no matter what they are, they’re preachy and annoying?

    I believe a cheese sandwich to be superior to all other sandwiches.

    How is that preachy?  I know it’s annoying, yeah, but preachy?

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  13. gellymatos says:

    Vald, weren’t you just complaining about people being preachy? The titles of the argument are based off of the beliefs of each group. The respectful and not annoying pro-life believers don’t call you"anti-life". Why? Because it isn’t a fair name, it doesn’t represent what your side believes in, and, as a title, is a stupid one, as is the one you are giving to those just because you lack any ability to see there point of view. Funny, after all the complaints on preaching that you would start to annoyingly and offensively give out yours. Not that it surprises me really.

  14. gellymatos says:

    "Yes. I’ve met a number of people who don’t believe in Abortion, but are not annoying or preachy about it."

    I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand what separates "annoying or preachy" from those who express their beliefs without annoyance in your eyes. The same for "holier-than-thou", a phrase you annoyingly attached to me once. Just because he’s spreading his belief, even in an a way that could debateably be called "annoying" doesn’t make him "holier-than-thou". He isn’t even trying to claim some sort of spiritual superiority, from what I have read.

  15. DarkSaber says:

    Gutter journalism GP? Shame on you.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  16. nightwng2000 says:

    See my other response regarding the broad terms of Choice and Life.  As you can see from your own comment, usage of the broad terms Choice and Life are nothing more than smoke screen deceptions to veer away from the facts (and yes, contrary to the arguments put forth by either side who fight on religious grounds, there ARE scientific facts that contradict the Pro-Abortion stances) of the more specific issue of abortion.

    And, yes, before some twit trys to claim that logical arguments would exclude emotional ones in specific abotion situations, the fact is that logic and emotion CAN co-exist.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  17. nightwng2000 says:

    The specific issue of abortion is what is referred to.  Choice is a broad term covering a great many issues.  Just as the issue of Life is a broad term covering a great many issues.

    So, yes, when dealing with the more specific issue of abortion, I will use the term "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion".  If you want to throw a smoke screen over the issue by using broad terms, that’s your problem.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  18. Magic says:

    I think Jehmu’s quote is more that sport at least brings people together for the purpose of watching it played out. People travel to other parts of a country they may not normally and may mingle with people they’d never usually meet.

    Of course, that’s not always the case with hooligans. I suppose there will always be divisions in any activity or pastime.

  19. Valdearg says:

    Lol, in fact, I KNOW of a few groups that are attempting to organize a boycott of the Super Bowl, due to this very issue. I think they are nuts, and you can count on me to be sitting my ass in front of the TV with a 12 pack of beer on one side and chips and salsa on the other. I personally have no preference on who wins, but football is football, and it’s always fun to watch.

  20. Valdearg says:

    But there are people who would "Vote with their wallets," essentially. Many people here would decide not to buy from EA based on the perception that EA is Anti-Choice, just like many people would decide not to buy if they were percieved as Pro-Choice. It’s up to EA to decide what the relative risk is, and ultimately, whether to give him the job.

  21. Valdearg says:

    I prefer "Anti-Choice" to describe the Anti-Abortion crowd. They are opposed to giving women the choice of what to do with their body. Rather, they’d prefer that all women suffer the "consequences" of pregnancy, whether or not the pregnancy would threaten the life or wellbeing of the woman in question.

    It’s a shame, since I don’t hold a grudge against women who CHOOSE to have children. You’d think that they’d have the same respect, and not hold a grudge against women who CHOOSE not to have the child. But, no. Like I said, they are Anti-Choice.

  22. Valdearg says:

    "So there are pro-life people you don’t think are holier-than-thou"

    Yes. I’ve met a number of people who don’t believe in Abortion, but are not annoying or preachy about it. This guy, however, has the clear goal of influencing politics through his appearance on a commercial during the Super Bowl to tell his story.

    Now, let me be clear. It annoys me. I hate preachy evangelizing, ESPECIALLY if it happens to oppose my beliefs. However, his political beliefs shouldn’t automatically disqualify him for the EA Cover Job. If EA decides it would be more profitable or less controversial to put someone else on their cover, so be it, it’s their right. It would be hypocritical of me to say that someone can’t hold a private sector job due to their political beliefs, though.

  23. gellymatos says:

    "As much as I hate Holier than thou Anti-Abortion zealots"

    So there are pro-life people you don’t think are holier-than-thou? Or are you just labeling all pro-choice people that?

    "I mean, It’s kind of annoying and dishonest of CBS that as little as one or two years ago, they denied an ad for a Homosexual Friendly church, citing that they don’t air "Advocasy Ads," and all of a sudden, this Anti-Abortion message comes along and they are all for it."

    I actually agree with you here. It does show a lack of integrity.


  24. SpaceGhost2K says:

    If EA can stand by Tiger Woods because what he does outside of the game doesn’t matter, then they should keep Tebow because what he does outside of the game doesn’t matter.


    Plus, all he’s doing is offering an opinion, compared to Tiger fooling around on his wife.

  25. Seiena_Cyrus says:

    Why would him being on the cover even matter really? Does it make the game any less enjoyable? Does it change the game in someway if he’s on the cover or not? Doess having his face on the cover of a game some how make you different then who you are? I honestly think it’s kinda silly to make a choice to play a game or not simply because there’s a guy on the cover that you dislike. It’s just a picture…dun like it? Make your own and put it over it?

  26. Craig R. says:

    "The Pro-Abortion"

    It’s ‘pro-choice’. Yes, the distinction matters, or would you prefer to be called ‘pro-control’ rather than ‘pro-life’?

  27. nightwng2000 says:

    Thanks.  Found this:

    When I saw your reference, my initial thought was "convenent answer by CBS".  But, looking at the article, and knowing how TV has evolved over the decades (look as what is "acceptable" now versus what was just a couple of decades ago), it’s possible.  The article points out even the UCC ad would be allowed today where it wasn’t a few years ago.  Of course, we only have CBS’s CLAIM that they would.

    Of course, the last line was the most hilarious part of the article:

    ""An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together," said Jehmu Greene, president of the media center."

    Uh, sports DO divide… they divide the fans heavily.  Not to mention the teams aren’t united.  That’s the whole point to competition after all.  And get the right set of fans, and you’ll have a riot before, during, or after the game.  Wouldn’t be the first time criminal activity played a part with the fans of a sport.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  28. NecroSen says:

    Does it matter to me? Not in the slightest.
    Does it matter to EA? I’m sure there’s a board meeting happening over just this question.

    It’s not that abortion is right or wrong to them: it’s about the millions of people in this country who take very strong stances on either side of the issue. If EA keeps him as the cover boy for their upcoming game, someone’s going to have a problem with it.

    Don’t believe me? I personally know people who choose not to eat at certain fast food chains simply because their corporate owners have made contributions to one political party or another in the past. Yes, these people exist.

    I gaurantee that someone will try to organize a boycott of this game or EA’s products in general just because of this man’s beliefs. There’s no telling how much steam it could actually get – probably very little – but it will happen, and it will affect EA’s sales in some way.

    That being said, we all know how much EA loves money. So, if they get the slightest idea that this issue will cause them to lose money, they’ll pull the plug faster than Mass Effect 2‘s DLC got released.

  29. MechaTama31 says:

    Do I think he should be blacklisted because he holds some opinion that has diddly squat to do with sports?  Ummm, no.

  30. BearDogg-X says:

    Actually, CBS had said on Tuesday that they had changed their policy regarding advocacy ads, thus allowing the ad to air.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. "Pigs have flown! Hell has frozen over! The Saints are on their way to the Super Bowl!"

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  31. Cerabret100 says:

    well remember, while WE don’t see why it should exclude him from the cover, we also didn’t see why sponsors should drop Wood’s, but few of them did.

    Now because EA stood by tiger, saying it doesn’t affect his golfing, i imagine they’ll take the same stance here.

  32. Cerabret100 says:

    But it’s not him EA has to worry about making it political, it’s the opponents who will, and that’s something EA has to carefully consider.

  33. digdug says:

    Yes, I think it should preclude him.

    If I was EA I wouldn’t use him because thats a business decision and it could turn off a lot of potential customers. If they drop him that will be why. I know I wouldn’t buy the game with his face on the cover. 

  34. nightwng2000 says:

    The Pro-Abortion groups have been arguing that the ad on CBS is one-sided.  That their views are not being expressed in the ad.  And that is the problem with their stance.  As pointed out, and as Val pointed out to me earlier, CBS has that "No Advocacy Ad" Policy.  Had opponents of the ad merely stuck to arguing against the ad based solely on that policy, they more than likely would have found support from a great many directions.  But because the Choice being expressed in the ad isn’t the Choice Pro-Abortionists want expressed, that’s what they are arguing.

    But the EA issue is seperate.  Remember, EA is backing Tiger Woods, despite HIS controversy, because they are focusing solely on Tiger’s sporting ability.  Just as they should be doing with Tebow.  If, however, they had developed a policy that they won’t do business with sport stars who have controversial lives… well… they’d be out of the sports gaming business.

    Some are calling this a non-issue with EA.  But, I think in both cases (Tiger Woods AND Tebow), how the consumer population, and even the attempt to influence and manipulate the business by various organizations, might be interesting to keep a watch on.  In Tebow’s and CBS’s case, the organizations COULD have argued the issue of policy.  But what COULD they draw on in the case of EA?


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  35. thefremen says:

    To be honest, they could put Micheal Vick on the cover of Madden and I wouldn’t care. They could put Bin Laden on the cover of NCAA 11 and I wouldn’t notice. 

  36. Valdearg says:

    As much as I hate Holier than thou Anti-Abortion zealots, I can’t see why his political views should exclude him from the cover. I mean, It’s kind of annoying and dishonest of CBS that as little as one or two years ago, they denied an ad for a Homosexual Friendly church, citing that they don’t air "Advocasy Ads," and all of a sudden, this Anti-Abortion message comes along and they are all for it. But, hey, it’s their right, and it’s EA’s right to put whoever they want on the cover. If he’s excluded from the cover because of this, so be it, but it certainly wouldn’t be a political move, it would be a profit based move.

    So, yeah, as far as politics go, this is a non-issue.

  37. Cerabret100 says:

    Do i think it should? no, but the question does raise some interesting issues that i think some of the above fail to see.

    As with tiger woods, precendent does indeed exist that companies take public image and personal choice/action in to account when selecting their cover men/women, in theory are they related? no, in reality, as far as companies are concerned, they are.

    Abortion is a really heated issue, and it’s possible that EA may drop him, not because they are pro-life or pro-choice, but simply because they know somebody, somewhere, is going to make an issue out of this, trying to imply EA is attempting to spread a political messege, and EA may wish to opt for someone else just to prevent that possibility.

    Not to mention that if this commercial aires, it’s not longer just his personal belief, it becomes a part of his public image, therefore it isn’t as seperate as some may believe.

    Also, i don’t think those who say no, myself included until now, may realize the consequences of such a hasty decision. By taking the stance that personal belief and actions should not hamper someone’s ability to be chosen for such a publicity, we indirectly give our blessings to perhaps Micheal Vick to appear on the cover of madden, which i honestly would oppose given what he did.

    By saying no, we give those who don’t deserve the honor a undeserved second chance to become a public figure who little kids look up to.

    By saying yes, we condemn someone to fall from greathood because of something we subjectively call a mistake.

    Personally i see the former as the lesser evil to the latter, but then again i thought introducing my friend to video games was a good idea…and judging by her 2 year fail fest at FFX, i’m probably not the greatest authority on what constitues a great idea for all (ie: this is opinion, not fact, debate welcome, immature asses who flame are not.).

  38. DubiousKing says:

    It’s not really a job, but a way for EA to secure sales. I think it’s a valid question, mostly because a company might be afraid to lose money when their poster boy isn’t liked by the public as much (think back to when Michael Phelps was caught with a bong, Kellogg’s immediately stopped putting him on their boxes). I don’t think Tebow’s stance on abortion will affect his public image all that much, as long as the ad present pro-life beliefs rather than pushing them.


    Breathing Sucks: Not evil, not misunderstood, just angry

  39. jedidethfreak says:

    Actually, the title pretty much says exactly that.  The title asks us if he should have the "job" of being the cover person for NCAA 11, as though he shouldn’t because of his personal beliefs.  I don’t know if you know this, but here in America, preventing someone from having a job based solely on their political beliefs – especially those that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the job in question – is illegal.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  40. ZippyDSMlee says:

    BTW I was ranting at the whole haz to ware it on your sleve and speak of it in public bit, its fine if he wants to talk about his opioin,ect……

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people!

  41. thefremen says:

    How dare you compare our right to kill blacks on our property to their right to kill babies in their womb!


    One is approved specifically by Jesus in the bible and the other is not! 

  42. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Abortion like gun ownership is the right of the individual, you can not have one without the other, and talking about your faith in public is the same as  as talking about your sexuality….. stop wearing it on your sleeve and looking for approval already people…. its makes you as humble as a televangelist or that flamingly

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people!

  43. Brokenscope says:

    The pro choice groups are making a big deal out of it because CBS has a standing policy to no air controversial commercials.

    Many people wonder if CBS would air a pro choice ad.

  44. Seiena_Cyrus says:

    Unfortunately as much as I want to say that it won’t effect everything, that he has a right to his opinion, Pro-Choice groups are riding this ad hard. Which from everything I’ve been hearing on the news is just him and his mom recanting she made the choice to not kill him…which…is still technically pro-choice, and not really condeming anyone…I’ll make a clear decission on the stupid thing when I see it.


    That said, with the Pro-Choice groups trying to make a huge ass deal out of it…it really could affect EA’s decission. I hope it doesn’t because that’s really stupid, but it would depend on how much of a frenzy the Pro-choice guys can whip up and how the ad is recieved when viewed.

  45. Thomas McKenna says:

    Well, seeing how he’s a pro-football player, I’m going to guess that anyone would take a pamphlet from him if he showed up at their door simply because their intimidated by his "too big to be allowed" size.

  46. foolkiller79 says:

    Does his stance on abortion in anyway change the quality of his football playing?  If not, then I don’t care what his stance is when he is doing something directly related to football. 

    Now, if he shows up at my door with information pamphlets it might be a different story.

  47. Thad says:

    Nobody suggested he shouldn’t be allowed to have a job.  Your strawman is as absurd as the question GP poses.

  48. Zerodash says:

    I’m no fan of these anti-abortion folk (I hate religion, too) but damn it, he has a right to his opinion and the TV Network has the right to air this commercial. 

    And for GP to even pose the question over his appearance on a game cover is SICK.  Just because people have different opinions, it does not mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to have jobs.  Shame on you.

  49. Andrew Eisen says:

    "…do you think Tebow’s public anti-abortion stance should preclude EA from signing him as the poster boy for the next NCAA Football game?"

    As one has nothing to do with the other, no I do not.  However, if EA for whatever reason believes his opinion is going to negatively impact game sales, then they should sign someone else.


    Andrew Eisen

  50. Thad says:

    It shouldn’t preclude him appearing on the cover any more than it should a vocally pro-choice athlete.  Whether or not the ads should be shown during the Super Bowl (or the logical leap from "I chose not to get an abortion" to "nobody should be allowed to choose whether to have an abortion") is a separate debate.

  51. DorkmasterFlek says:

    Why would his stance on abortion dictate whether EA should sign him?  Maybe if they made abortion clinics instead of videogames.  😛  Seriously, is it a slow news day or something?  Who cares what his opinion on abortion is?  As long as he’s not preventing people who want one from getting one, he’s entitled to his own views.

    Also, I don’t think he’s going on TV because he needs approval.  He just wants to share his view with people and try to convince them to agree with him.  "I may not agree with what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that jazz.  🙂

Comments are closed.