Over the past few years the issue of college athletes being paid has continued to grow in publicity and has become a widespread debate. While the NCAA and their affiliations have provided strong arguments supporting their philosophy of college athletes not getting paid during their college career; they have failed to address the issue that occurs after the student-athlete has graduated. Ed O‘Bannon, a former Division 1 basketball player filed a lawsuit in 2009 against the NCAA and the CLC for using the likeness and images of former athletes without providing compensation. The lawsuit addresses the controversy of using the “Likeness of athletes in rebroadcasts of games, DVD sales, photos, video games, etc, without compensation after an athlete graduate or stops playing in the NCAA” (Frontline). Through O’Bannon’s understanding of Toulmin’s Model of Argument and his effective use of Aristotle’s three proofs, he was able to tackle one of sport’s most controversial issues.
This lawsuit is ongoing and on October 13, 2012 the case was expanded to include Division 1 football as well as men’s basketball (McCann). O’Bannon’s success has motivated many other former athletes to join his cause and fight for the rights of all college athletes O‘Bannon argues that The NCAA is violating U.S, antitrust laws and infringing on the rights of college athletes. O’Bannon played Basketball at UCLA from 19914995 and during his senior year led his team to the National Championship, O‘Bannon argues that although he is no longer a collegiate athlete he does not receive any compensation for the revenue still being brought in, Licensing companies such as the CLC and NCAA sell DVD sets of O’Bannon’s championship season using his likeness and image without O’Bannon seeing any sort of payment O’Bannon has made it clear that he agrees that athletes should not be paid while they attend school, expressing that these athletes are being unfairly treated.
O’Bannon believes that the NCAA is taking advantage of these young athletes by requiring college athletes to sign mandatory forms before they participate in the sport without any real representation. The NCAA claims that college athletes are not entitled to any compensation because they sign forms agreeing to not violate amateur status rules. Before a college athlete can compete at the division 1 level they are required to sign Form 08-3a (NCAA Manual), which grants the athlete eligibility and grants the NCAA with rights to the athlete’s likeness and image. If an athlete refuses to sign these forms they are unable to compete in the sport and even practice with the team. These young athletes are vulnerable and can easily be manipulated. The NCAA uses lavage to pressure the athlete into signing the forms or else they are not eligible O’Bannon argues that the NCAA exploits these young athletes who are unaware of the underlying agreement.
127 our experts are availableright now
These forms given by the NCAA use vague language and do not include dates or information on how long the athlete is bound to the agreement. O’Bannon is able to create a strong argument by using Toulmin’s Model of Arguments. The grounds and reasoning for the claim is that these athletes are no longer bound by the agreements because they are no longer attending that college; therefore being the qualifier and his claim that former college athletes deserve to be compensated for the use of their likeness and image. The warrant is that once an athlete graduates, they are entitled to the rights The Backing is federal right of publicity and antitrust laws. The rebuttal would be The NCAA’S counter argument towards O’Bannon‘s argument.
O’Bannon creates a strong argument by effectively using all three ofAristotle’s rhetorical proofsr O‘Bannon first starts by using his own personal experience to build credibility with the audience. The audience is more willing to hear his argument since he is a former athlete who has gone through this process and still receives no compensation. He also builds ethos by agreeing that athletes should not get paid while attending college, By agreeing with the amateur rules he shows the audience that he is an ethical person who feels a moral obligation to fight for compensation for former athletesi He uses pathos by using illustrative words to create an emotional view towards college athletes and The NCAA. O’Bannon uses words like “vulnerable” and “young” when describing college athletes to illustrate them as naive and unaware.
He forces the audience [0 view The NCAA as an animal preying on these athletes by deliberately using vague language and forcing athletes to sign over their rights in exchange for eligibility. After O’Bannon has created the correct illustration of the athletes he uses logos to logically show why former athletes should be compensated. He references direct laws that The NCAA is violating by requiring the completion of these forms, O’Bannon specifically references antitrust laws that The NCAA and its affiliations are in direct violation of. By including financial statistics he strengthens his argument, one specific example is CLC’s “$4 billion in retail sales” (Ed O‘Bannon V, The NCAA); this large number allows the audience to see O’Bannon‘s argument as logical.
