Rhetorical Analysis

Different perspectives are important when analyzing the discussion of exploitation of

student athletes. Executive editor Dan Diamond believes that change begins at the top and the
leaders of the nation are going to be the ones to bring about that change. Sports writer Andrew
Sharp believes that what is happening to college athletes is rubbish. Professor Ellen J.
Staurowsky believes that there is a strong resemblance between college athletes and what most
would consider something that was a black mark on this nations history.
The viewpoints from these experts are shared by many involved with the issue of whether
or not college athletes are being exploited, but not by everyone. The approach of Forbes Dan
Diamond, the executive editor of the Advisory Boards daily briefing (a popular health care
newsletter) and writer for ESPNs TruHoop network, is that of one who is looking at the longterm health effects to which college athletes might be exposed. Diamond shares the same
perspective as President Obama and cites him in his article. He is arguing that the Government is
on his side. The perspective of the athletes is well represented by Andrew Sharp, a seasoned
chief editor of ESPNs sister website Grantland. His credibility comes from working with and
interviewing some of sports elite. As an editor and writer his interest is polarizing topics, like
the one at hand. His critical approach to potential solutions is unique. His position with
Grantland gives him access to research and interview where others might not have access. Ellen
J. Staurowsky might be the strongest expert of all three. She is a professor in Drexel Universitys
Department of Sports Management. She is a powerful expert because she is internationally
recognized as an expert on social justice issues in sport which includes exploitation of athletes.
Her comparison of the current system to the plantations is unique and justified according to her
evidence.

All three writers appeal to logic. All three writers cite information from other sources, including
Diamond who cites the President of the United Sates. One common figure that is cited when
discussing if student athletes should be able to partake in a larger slice of the money pie is
all of the information of the billions that college sports is bringing in, both Sharp and Staurowsky
make reference to this in their articles. Diamond on the other hand makes a logical appeal when
discussing that student athletes have very few protections and no guarantee to long-term
medical care in case of a head injury, it would only make sense to protect the ones helping to
bring in so much revenue. One of the strongest logical arguments comes from Staurowsky who
shares the amount of money that is paid to head coaches of these college athletes and their
athletic directors, wouldnt it only make sense to better compensate the ones that are actually on
the court or field?
In addition to appealing to logic, all three writers appeal to Kairos. Being that the
college sports world is quite different now than it was even twenty years ago provides
connections to appealing to a time and place unique to todays society. As cited earlier, Ellen
Staurowsky has the strongest appeal to time and place because of her comparison of college
sports to a plantation. This argument naturally appeals to the place aspect of Kairos, because the
level of how college sports are portrayed in the United States is very unique when compared to
other countries. All three writers rely on this aspect of the discussion. In addition, Dan
Diamonds argument is strongly supported by the development of science and research has also
shed some light on the impact of playing sports and the possible damaging effect that it may
have on the athletes future.
Impact of players health has become a hot topic when discussing sports and college
athletics. Much of the raised awareness is due to several cases that involved former athletes such

as Junior Seau and Jovan Belcher. Seau was former professional & collegiate football player
who committed suicide because of alleged mental side effects caused by playing football.
Similarly, Jovan Belcher, former collegiate and professional football player, also committed
suicide after killing his girlfriend. She was the mother of their three year daughter. If that does
not pull on the emotional appeals, I dont know what does. This information is important in the
development of Diamonds argument that student athletes best interests are not always the top
priority for the NCAA. Staurowsky knows that when claims are made that college athletics
resemble a plantation, that she is bound to pull on those emotional cords that are still sore for
some of this nations inhabitants. Sharp builds an emotional appeal on behalf of the student
athletes that construct an image of the NCAA and billionaire sponsors that depicts the student
athletes as chess pieces on a board that is run by said sponsors.

Synthesis
The different approaches of these experts all take a different perspective, yet seem to go
hand in hand. It is a comparison of aspects; health, financial, and moral. Dan Diamond believes
that the issue of exploitation of college athletes goes beyond the financial realm and maybe more
importantly crosses into the health of the collegiate athletes. Sharp and Staurowsky approach it
from more of a mainstream popular belief, collegiate athletes are being financially exploited. All
three experts touch on the aspect of morals. As a social expert on social justice issues in sports,
Staurowsky believes that all of the power lies with the system, or colleges, and not with the
athletes. She too briefly touches on the health aspect of the discussion and believes that it is
unfair to remove a scholarship due to injury. The experts believe the situation is out of hand and
needs to be resolved.

Sharps and Staurowskys views are similar in that they both feel that the financial
exploitation of collegiate athletes needs resolution. They recognize that the athletes
compensation does not match up with the amount of money that athletes produce for their
institutions. Staurowsky goes as far as to compare the situation to the Plantation. Comparing
the issue to slavery is a powerful and not a far off comparison. Adam Sharp does not come out as
bold as Staurowsky, but believe the compensation is unfair for student athletes. Sharp believes
that the $40,000 scholarship that these student athletes receive is, in reality, a voucher for
$40,000. This means that it actually does not cost the institutions $40,000 to educate the student
athletes. He believes it costs the schools nothing more to add another student to the already
populated classrooms.
Diamonds approach is different because he focuses much more on the health issues of
the student athletes. Although his approach is more strictly health related, it can be tied in with
what Staurowsky believes that the player should not lose his scholarship because of an injury. He
believes that these students are putting it all on the line for their respective institutions, but the
institution does not always have the best interest for the student in mind. He backs up his
argument with statements made by President Obama. He feels that the statements made by the
president can only go so far. He gives a couple of examples of how schools still do not have the
best interest in mind, even after rules had been put into place as result of a statement by President
Obama. In these examples he provides evidence of schools on two different accounts not
adhering to the said rules that were established for player safety. He says that these rules are
toothless, or worthless, if the schools do not abide by them. Both Sharp and Staurowsky would
agree with Diamond that the issue of the health of the players is just as big as the financial
aspect.

While they are of the opinion that the athletes need more power, the approaches for
resolve are somewhat unique to each writer. Sharp believes that the answer lies with allowing the
schools to compete for labor like they would in any other business. He adds that this is currently
how they compete for grad students. Essentially, he is saying that they can offer one player more
money, or another school could offer more exposure, or earlier chances to play. The solution for
Staurowsky lies within giving power to the students. She believes it needs to start with changing
the outdated rules. Student athletes should be able to obtain an agent who will have their best
interest in mind. Also, if a student wants to transfer it should be allowed. In addition, the schools
should no longer be allowed to sell the images of the athletes; it should be the athletes who could
sell their image.
Response
Collegiate athletes are being exploited because they are the source of the billions of
dollars, yet see none of it. This is an ongoing discussion that, as we have seen, goes all the way
from the President of the United States to some of the most poverty stricken teenage athletes.
Indeed college athletes are being exploited by risking their health and through unfair financial
compensation.
When it comes to the compensation aspect of the issue I definitely agree with Sharp. He
states, It costs the schools nothing. Its like cooking at a restaurant that clears hundreds of
millions of dollars every year, and they pay you by giving you free food for the year. I agree
with Sharp because a scholarship is not enough compensation. Especially when you consider that
the scholarship is actually a voucher and not real money. To add a student to an already existing
classroom does not cost the school that much more money. For some, a scholarship is very

valuable and the only means for which that person might be able to continue their higher
education. I do not disagree with that, but when you look at how much revenue these schools and
companies bring in from the performances and likenesses of these college athletes and the
compensation they get it does not seem fair. A student athlete should be able to promote himself
and his likeness. You might be asking, What do you mean by likeness? Consider for a
moment the college football and basketball video games. How do they decide which numbers to
put on the jerseys? Furthermore, the size and skill level of every athlete on that game is created
after a student athlete. What does the student athlete receive in return for allowing them to use
their likeness? The answer is nothing!
Those not familiar with this issue at hand might relate it to something that would be
considered a black mark on this nation- slavery. Now, before you get too riled up and start
cursing at the words on this paper or the screen in front of you, take a minute to look at the
situation before you draw a conclusion. As Staurowsky alluded to in her article, the NCAA has
an unmistakable whiff of the plantation. The plantations she is referring to are the plantations
located in the south during times of slavery. On these plantations slaves would work the fields
for amenities such as food and a place to sleep. The owners of the plantation would later sell the
products farmed and created by the slaves for profit. Much like today, colleges feed their athletes
and provide dorms for which they can sleep and sell the product which the student athletes
provide at a premium price. Sure, you can argue that these student athletes chose to go to that
school and participate in extracurricular activities, but you cant ignore the resemblance of the
plantation.
Much like the suppression of the slaves, the student athletes of today also suffer from
suppression. When an athlete is courted and offered a scholarship to attend that school, the offer

is weighted heavily in favor of the college. As Staurowsky states in her article, student athletes
may be dismissed and their scholarships forfeited if their performance is unsatisfactory or for
injury. This is something that needs to be remedied. Dan Diamond agrees with me. He reported
that schools do not always put the safety of the players as their primary concern. He supplied two
examples from the most recent college football season in which two separate institutions
displayed poor judgment and did not follow NCAA requirements for player safety. This is an
issue because these sports are being ran like a business and not like an extracurricular activity. If
it is a business, then they need to pay the players like a business.