On matters such as whether or not collegiate athletes should be compensated, you can be drawn in both directions by compelling and rational arguments, making it difficult for you to decide which side to pick or to support. In the article “Amateurism in College Sport Exploits the Players” Eric Nusbaum makes the case that college athletes ought to be compensated as doing so disparities, unfairness, and exploitation would put to an end and would emphasize the need for a fairer system. Eric Nusbaum does this by referencing data and numbers, inductive reasoning, and irony. However, Yankah, on the other side, argued against paying college players in the article “The Request for Paying College Athletes Misdiagnosed the Problem” because he claimed that monetization undermined the value of being a student-athlete through the use of implicit hypotheses, inference, and solutions-focused argumentation to support his ethos. It is up for debate here.
Logos
In his article “Amateurism in College Sports Exploits the Players”, Eric Nusbaum uses logos to support his arguments about the exploitation of student amateur athletes in the United States in college sports by presenting factual evidence and logical reasoning. Eric Nusbaum argues that amateur athletes in the United States should be paid for what they are worth. He highlights the financial disparity between college coaches and student-athletes, stating that coaches are the highest-paid public employees in their states. In contrast, athletes receive limited compensation, and yet they are the ones who struggle on the ground. He also mentions cases of academic exploitation and cheating, further emphasizing the unequal treatment of student-athletes. Cuban athletes are, on the one hand, disregarded for financial benefit to themselves and, on the other, taken advantage of by the country for political ends. In the US, amateur athletes are also abused and denied compensation for their efforts. Players are not allowed to receive any form of compensation for their athletic abilities despite the fact that their performances generate significant revenue and bring in millions of dollars for universities, TV networks, and merchandisers. They endure demanding travel and training schedules, but their compensation is limited to free tuition, room and board, and the supposed privilege of being a student-athlete. However, Eric Nusbaum claims that their only compensation is free lodging and board. This is very comparable to the predicament of Cuban athletes who saw minimal personal financial reward. Conversely, though, Cuban athletes were also elevated to a position of national pride, with being a Cuban athlete equated to protecting one’s own country and serving as a symbol of its might and ability.
Fidel Castro promoted amateur sports in Cuba with the goal of transforming the sporting economy into a single, comprehensive entity that aligned with the ongoing revolution. He believed that professional sports had become a business and a commodity, leading to exploitation. By emphasizing amateur sports, Castro aimed to promote socialist equality among athletes and create a sense of national pride. He viewed athletes as defenders of the homeland and wanted to display Cuba’s strength and prowess through their achievements. A similar abstract honour is bestowed to amateur athletes in the US, who are brainwashed into thinking that participating in student athletics is a prize in and of itself and does not require further funding. Amateur athletes in the US and athletes from Cuba are indeed both significantly misled and exploited. Nusbaum makes an appealing argument for paying amateur athletes in the US what their merit is. According to inductive analogical reasoning, two things are likely to be similar in other aspects if they are identical in one. According to the assessment above, the experiences of being taken advantage of by the two categories of athletes are comparable. Great athletes like Guillermo Rigondeaux, who fled to the US, prompted changes to the Cuban sports system.
Afterwards, Cuba began paying its baseball players bonuses and incentives based on performance. It is also acceptable for these athletes to sign with teams outside of Cuba (Nusbaum). The NCAA portrays being a student-athlete as its reward, but this narrative ignores the fact that sports do not exist in a vacuum. The NCAA claims that student-athletes have higher test scores and graduation rates. Still, they manipulate data by comparing student-athletes to a broad student body that includes part-time students. This inflated portrayal of success masks the exploitation of players. This means that in order to compensate its players, the NCAA ought to act in a like manner. If not, it can experience the same fate that Cuba did in the past—that is, the loss of talented athletes. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion, which states that in order to end exploitation, athletes should get compensation.
Furthermore, the NCAA restricts players from profiting from their talents and prohibits them from signing with professional teams except those outside of the United States. This denies players the opportunity to capitalize on their skills and potential earning power. Meanwhile, coaches and universities profit immensely from the success of college sports, with coaches often being the highest-paid public employees in their states. Furthermore, it is robust due to the absence of any pertinent dissimilarities between the two categories of athletes. Conversely, Yankah makes the case why amateur athletes should not be compensated using a logical hypothetical syllogism. His syllogism goes like this: there is exploitation among college athletes, and it may be resolved by removing or splitting profits (central premise); minor premise). Therefore, sharing profits—that is, compensating college athletes will not stop exploitation; rather, it would destroy amateurism. Since the conclusion does not always flow from the premises, it is invalid. According to the premise’s reasoning, instances of exploitation of college athletes ought to be resolved by either splitting earnings or doing away with them entirely.
However, Yankah’s conclusion deviates from this reasoning. Rather than accepting profit sharing as a solution, it invalidates his conclusion. Furthermore, Yankah has shown a wealth of data to support the minor premise that the exploitation of athletes is actual. Students who are athletes, for example, are frequently so unprepared that they end up failing their classes. Occasionally, the schools jeopardize their scholarships. Some coaches even encourage cheating or empty classrooms for their kids. However, based on Yankah’s claim that amateurism has nothing to do with revenues, the central premise is false. According to him, amateurism is about the intrinsic worth of sports as a learning tool. Even though they devote hours to practising and competing, many student-athletes still need to have professional aspirations.
Furthermore, the bond between collegiate athletes and student spectators who have comparable experiences—such as the same classrooms, instructors, and midterms, is what makes the NCAA teams so popular. The relationship with onlookers will vanish if this value is made commercially available. The central premise is incorrect since, in Yankah’s opinion, profit sharing is never a solution. The exploitation is particularly pronounced for black athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds, who make up a significant portion of major football and men’s basketball programs. For many of these athletes, the NCAA is their only option, and they are often unprepared academically, leading to academic failure and a lack of opportunities beyond college sports. Overall, the current amateurism system in college sports exploits players by denying them fair compensation for their contributions, limiting their opportunities for professional advancement, and perpetuating a narrative that being a student-athlete is its reward. In terms of the use of logos, Nusbaum makes a stronger case, according to the analysis above.
Ethos
Eric Nusbaum incorporates ethos to support his claims about the exploitation of student-athletes in college sports by presenting his credentials and expertise. Eric Nusbaum is identified as the West Coast Editor of VICE Sports, which establishes him as a knowledgeable and credible source in the field of sports journalism. Additionally, he references specific examples and facts, for example, the NCAA’s inflated graduation rates and the disproportionate representation of black athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds, to further strengthen his argument. These appeals to ethos help to establish his credibility and expertise, lending support to his claims about the exploitation of student-athletes in college sports. He also cites the historical facts of the hypocrisy of the Cuban sports scheme and the consequences of losing excellent athletes. Cuba eventually decided to change such a scheme and shifted to incentive-based payments. His claim that we shouldn’t continue to follow the error if a country has demonstrated that the non-payment sports system is unfeasible is strengthened by these facts. In order to prove that the NCAA has exaggerated student-athlete graduation rates in order to promote amateurism, he also provides official documentation.
Football players in Division I had a graduation rate that was 18% lower than that of their contemporaries. He made a stronger case for collegiate athletes being exploited and the evident consequences of such exploitation with the help of these factual figures. However, Yankah’s ethos does not appear to be as solid as Nusbaum’s. He gives some suggestions to stop the exploitation after declining to compensate collegiate players. First, he recommends advancing a just environment through antitrust and commerce legislation. However, neither he nor any examples of potentially pertinent commercial legislation are provided for how precisely this may promote justice in amateurism. If amateurism receives no compensation, it is still being determined how the exploitation may be resolved. Second, and perhaps more realistically, he suggests creating minor-league programmers and doing away with the age limitations. Nevertheless, this seems to run counter to his assertion that physical education includes sports. High school kids miss the opportunity to attend college and obtain an education if the age limit is lifted, and they may choose pro-direction.
Pathos
In terms of pathos, Nusbaum uses his article to appeal to emotions and evoke empathy by highlighting the dedication and hard work of student-athletes who pour hours of training and competing into their sports with no hope of going pro. It emphasizes that these athletes are not just seeking athletic excellence, but they are also deeply connected to their schools and communities. Nusbaum also mentions the exploitation of student-athletes, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are often unprepared academically and face limited opportunities outside of the NCAA. This portrayal of student-athletes as individuals who sacrifice and face challenges creates an emotional connection and evokes empathy for their situation. Readers were moved to compassion and even rage by the ironic contrast between the benefits and sacrifices made by collegiate sports, which led many to concur with his contention that students should be compensated for their value. However, because Yankah’s use of implication may be too insulting to drive readers away, his approach is less practical than Nausbaum’s, even though it does promote his thesis in some way. Because sports are intrinsically linked to education and because a closer bond exists between college fans and athletes, Yankah believes that amateurism has merit.
However, valuable items may only sometimes need to be expensive. By stating this, Yankah is implying that people who disagree with him and favour paying amateurs are harmed by the damaging American notion that worth and cost are always equal. He suggests that paying collegiate athletes is problematic since this view is flawed and incomplete, which bolsters his claim that amateurs shouldn’t be compensated. However, readers question whether value equals price. They may take offence at this implication, which casts doubt on the morals of those who disagree with him. The fact that their enduring worth has been questioned may take offence at this implication, which casts doubt on the morals of those who disagree with him. The fact that their enduring value has been questioned may drive these readers to feel insulted and furious. This feeling might redirect opponents’ attention from the collegiate athletes’ compensation problem to the question of causing these readers to feel humiliated and angry. This feeling might divert opponents’ attention from the collegiate athletes’ compensation problem to the question of whether value equals price. Conversely, Nusbaum’s pathos merely elicits fundamental feelings in his readers, such as rage and pity, in order to press for reforms and convince detractors. Compared to Yankah’s pathos, these emotions are more easily evoked and have far fewer adverse effects.
Conclusion
“Amateurism in College Sports Exploits the Players”, Eric Nusbaum’s article, discusses the exploitation of student-athletes in college sports, drawing parallels to the exploitation of athletes in Cuba. This suggests that there is a perceived injustice in the treatment of student-athletes. Eric Nusbaum argues that the NCAA’s treatment of student-athletes is similar to how Fidel Castro exploited athletes in Cuba. This comparison appeals to logos (logic) by highlighting the similarities in the exploitation of athletes in both contexts. He criticizes the NCAA’s portrayal of being a student-athlete as its reward and questions the inflated graduation rates presented by the NCAA. This challenges the ethos (credibility) of the NCAA and suggests that their claims may need to be more accurate. It’s hoped that some critical evaluations like the above will help you readily figure out whose arguments are valid and sound, thus helping you to view complex issues more critically and avoiding being dragged between opposing views.
Work Cited
Nusbaum, Eric. “Amateurism in College Sports Exploits the Players.” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/FNRFLX857479250/OVIC?u=cclc_sacol&sid=OVIC&xid=80318e89. Accessed 19 Mar. 2019. Originally published as “The NCAA’s Exploitation of Student Athletes Would Make Fidel Castro Proud,” New Republic, 17 Mar. 2014. –
Yankah, Ekow N. “The Call to Pay College Athletes Misdiagnoses the Problem.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/DOPDKK665950770/OVIC?u=cclc_sacol&sid=OVIC&xid=bf5fcb0f. Accessed 20 Oct. 2019. Originally published as “Why NCAA Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid,” The New Yorker, 14 Oct. 2015.
write