He began his article with a very neutral opening, just talking about what the argument is. The author brings up that the discussion begins with the college athletes being mentioned in the video games without any payment then they get angered about how they don’t get paid for anything. I valued this because I’m getting a background for the argument and why people would go on each side. As he beings to talk about the side that they shouldn’t be paid, I feel he is siding with that opinion. He isn’t backing it up with facts, but with points that anyone could agree with. The author then goes into the business’s point of view and we understand why it may be hard to make the decision to pay these athletes. He is very vague in this argument. We then get the athlete’s point of view. We understand what it’s like living as a college athlete. One part I did not understand was he canceled his opinions out. In the beginning he states that the college athletes have a choice and they chose to be in the programs. When he shares his side, he states that we should feel sorry for them because they practice so often and they are underpaid with their scholarships. I wasn’t sure how he felt about that issue because he had not confirmed that …show more content…
He tried to relate it to us about as much as he could. He told the reader the imagine what it would be like to live on the athletes wage given to them. The author also explained the time commitment. Walch explained the amount of hours spent by various sports practicing, on top of the time commitment college itself it. One last personal appeal he brought was talking about a player personally. He brought up when Johnny Manziel was suspended for selling his own merchandise with his own autograph. The author described how the athletes themselves cannot make money off their name, but if it’s regulated by the NCAA, it doesn’t break any rules or