Wouldn’t it be great to make millions of dollars a year simply to play a game? Other than running around playing children’s games like shooting balls into baskets, hitting a ball back and forth, and running around a field, what do professional athletes really do as their “job”? Overpaid athletes are a highly debated subject that has been discussed by many individuals in society. Two articles that analyze the significance of this topic are “Do Professional Athletes Get Paid Too Much Money?” by Minhir Bhagat and “Are professional athletes overpaid?” by Parker Reed and Kelsey O’Connor. Both articles utilize various writing devices to convey their perspective on whether or not professional athletes are overpaid.
One writing strategy that is evident within these articles is the use of literary devices. Mihir Bhagat’s article predominantly uses ethics as a method to establish personal credentials and get the audience to trust his argument. His persuasive tone convinces the audience that the value and importance of work in society should be taken into account when determining compensation. He voices how the system that permits professional athletes to simply float around in money is irrational and must be changed. Mihir Bhagat confidently states “Moreover, in my mind, if these athletes want to continue to be rewarded with the fame and fortune that is unfairly bestowed upon them, they must prove to the world that they are going to be positive role models for future athletes, and those who admire them.” Clearly, he is informing the readers about the unjust salaries athletes are receiving and how they can prove to society why they deserve it. Additionally, in Parker Reed and Kelsey O’Connor’s article, they rely on a more logical, rational, and emotional approach to justify their side of the controversial topic. Kelsey O’Connor enhances the value of other occupations, and that pay should be higher than what entertainment is given. She provides sensible reasoning about their salaries claiming that “Cristiano Ronaldo makes $56 million a year, Kobe Bryant made $250 million a year and Barack Obama made $400,000 a year during his presidency, according to Forbes Magazine.” Evidently, the use of numerical data demonstrates how society is unaware of the fact that the president, one of the most important people in our country, only earns $400,000 annually, despite the daily decisions he makes that have an impact on the entire world. Ultimately, these rhetorical devices help support the author’s standpoint to assist the audience in understanding the debate about overpaid athletes.
Another writing convention that is apparent in these two articles is the use of evidence. Mihir Bhagat’s article heavily relies on qualitative evidence to defend his argument about overpaid athletes. He makes numerous points that are interpretation-based and personal to his beliefs. For instance, “Finally, what really puzzles me, is how athletes get upset when athletes say that millions of dollars won’t be able to support him and his family, and that they need more. What puzzles me even more, is how after holding out for weeks, and sometimes months, the owners give in and pay them what they don’t deserve.” This piece of evidence helps the audience have a stronger connection with the author and openly see where his stance is about this feud. On the other hand, Parker Reed and Kelsey O’Connor’s article focuses on quantitative evidence to support their argument. He brings to the reader’s attention through his observations about sports franchises and how “Athletes aren’t overpaid, they are just chess pieces in one of the highest-grossing industries in the world.” In addition to this, he relies on statistical analysis to justify why athletes make millions of dollars. He proclaims that the athletes who make up the rosters for these professional sporting franchises are directly responsible for how much the team is worth and how much everyone else in the organization draws in. Through his research, he states, “The average athlete in these organizations makes about 10-15 percent of what the top athletes I described earlier do, according to the Huffington Post. So it only makes sense that the top athletes make so much.” Overall, these different methods to evidence emphasize the varying opinions the authors use for their argument about overpaid athletes.
The final writing strategy present in these articles is the structure and formatting. Mihir Bhagat’s article primarily covers only one side of the debated topic. His view is clear that professional athletes are overpaid. His perspective helps the reader discover a strong stand about the dispute and side with him. He effectively persuades the audience’s mindset by convincing them through small, impactful lines. He declares, “In order for these players to gain respect, they need to have a more significant impact on the community.” On the contrary, Parker Reed and Kelsey O’Connor’s article displays both sides of the debate, allowing readers to have an open mind about the topic. They format the article into two parts; one for yes and the other for no. This enables flexibility, allowing a better understanding of overpaid athletes. Moreover, the contrasting structures are expressive of the different strategies the authors take toward their side of the argument.
Conclusively, both articles convey numerous writing techniques that address the topic through each author’s perspective. Mihir Bhagat’s article has a more personal, persuasive, and opinionated approach while Parker Reed and Kelsey O’Connor’s article is logical, statistical, and open-minded. These writing strategies help readers appeal to their argument and understand the issue of whether or not athletes are overpaid. In short, such rhetorical devices evoke an emotional and rational response in the audience through the use of language, evidence, and format.
