Nope. The First Amendment isn't a right to practice your religion. It's a restraint on government from passing laws regarding religion. (Congress shall pass no law ...)
I realize the Court disagrees with me on this issue, but I think the current interpretation actually gets it wrong. The point of the religion clause of the First Amendment was to prohibit government from dictating our religious practices. Many of America's first European immigrants were fleeing religious persecution at the hands of government and they wanted to ensure the US would have no state religion, and that government wouldn't be able to ban religions it didn't approve of.
The First Amendment is a limitation on federal power. It's not a "special rights for special people" kind of thing. It doesn't give a person the right to do whatever they want in the name of their religion. Murder, for example, is illegal. It doesn't matter whether your religion has a hallowed tradition of human sacrifice. You'll still be prosecuted if you kill someone. In this case, the state has banned gatherings. Whether that should be Constitutional is a valid question. But the laws prohibiting gatherings are not laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". They're not targeting religions or religious practice.
In my view, the ban on gatherings can be seen as a violation of the First, but not because of the religion clause. The portion that could validly apply is the clause protecting "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". But that applies to football games every bit as much as it applies to religious services.
