The NFL and Criminal History (Current Event)

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/01/should-character-matter-in-pro-sports/criminal-players-put-the-entire-nfl-at-risk

www.debate.org

       I think the NFL should allow players with criminal history to continue to play.  The past is the past and just because a player did some shady things in his past doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to do what he loves.  The player has probably did or is doing some type of punishment for his actions and to say he can't play after he finished his punishment is throwing salt in he wound.  Everyone needs to be given a sound chance to prove them self, no one knows what the person is going to do after their punishment they might have learned their lesson. Even criminals need a way back in society, how can they do that if you take their jobs away after one slip up.
     The news article talked a lot about the and cons about letting NFL players play if they had a criminal history. Some of the cons were that football is already under criticism over criminal conduct by the players and allowing the players to continue to play and receive high pay it shines a bad light on the organization.  The article also referred players with criminal records as "thugs" and continued to say that the NFL doesn't need thugs, they define thugs as "a poorly adjusted person whose anger issues are unresolved, such that he lacks the maturity to subjugate his selfish desires". Thugs destroy teams and are not needed in the NFL. The article clearly states that if you are a felon you should not be abel to play in the NFL "Fans are tired of explaining police records to their kids".
    When I first read the article, I was shaking my head at everything the author said.  I don't agree with most of the things he said, I think he just forcing his opinion on us and really has no evidence to back his clam up.  He puts down people with criminal records by giving them the name thugs, he goes on to say that thugs cannot handle the responsibility of a long-term contract. The author states this without having evidence to back it up it sounds like he is just stating an opinion and trying to make it sound like a fact. The author also wrote that "fans are tired of explaining criminal records to their kids". I really don't agree with that because thats just an assumptions, you can't generalize that everyone has kids and they all are tired of explaining criminal records to their kids. Even if you do have to explain it to your kids, who is to say they didn't hear the word at school, or with their friends, what are the chances that they would ask you to explain criminal records because they heard the NFL say it. When I watch the NFL the words criminal record never comes up, fans like me just care about the game and he announcers don't want to make things awkward and bring up the past of some player.
   The article was slanted in many different ways, the author generalized many people and categorized them as one. When the article brought up the point of parents having to talk to their children about criminal history because they heard the announcer say it. That is a slant because the author of the article had no evidence that anyone did that, I know that I never once heard the NFL announcers talk about a players past criminal record. The article was also slanted in the way because he calls football players with criminal records 'thugs' and the label thug doesn't sound so good, even when he tells his definition you can tell he is trying to degrade players with criminal records. Another thing that I saw slanted was when the article talked about how the NLF are already critizied about its allowing the players with criminal record to play. The NFL has been around for many of years, people love football, something as small as this won't take the NFL off the map.

Football All Boys? (Satirical Piece)

   Is football an all guys sport? Ohh no, I bet most guys just love to hit a girl on the football field. I mean who wouldn't? Not saying that girls are soft or anything but guys are raised to not hit physical, but I guess this doesn't apply to girls who wear padding and are playing football. What is this teaching kids as they grow up? A woman doesn't need to be in the NFL, men are already nearly killing each other already just hitting on each other, they don't need to throw a woman in there. That woman is someones daughter, sister, a mom, no kid needs to see their mom get carried off on a stretcher because a guy hit her to hard. No man in his right mind would wan to hit a lady, that not how guys are raised.
   To have women play football we should make it 2-hand touch for them. So if your a girl/woman playing football, the men are going to 2-hand touch you and not tackle you.  No worry we figured out a full proof solution to this problem, case close have girls/women start playing football tomorrow, if we just enforce the rule what could possibly go wrong? We can just keep making men like Ray Rice! Man is he someone to look up to, the way he knocked his wife out and dragged her body out the elevator, wow I want to be just like him. Having guys 2-hand touch girls just lets girls play without getting hurt. #problemsolved
   I mean domestic violence is already on the rise, why not just give it more reason to climb even higher? If guys can hit women in football, they will get it out of their system and won't hit them outside of football. Duhh, if you let young men tackle and hit young women in football, they will learn not to do it outside of football. Why haven't we started letting more girls/women start playing football? Have more of them sign up! If your a guy, and you tackle a girl/woman you just hit a girl, and if you don't she will probably score a touchdown and everyone will look at you asking why you didn't tackle her. Its a lose lose situation.

NBA Lockout (Editorial Cartoon)

-google images

The cartoon was from the NBA players lock-out when the players thought they were getting paid less than they should from the owners. The players decided to do a lock-out and start the season until they get the pay they think they deserve.  A player is leaning out his window telling what seems to be a news reporter that if the owners don't pay them more money, he is going to have to fire his chauffeur.  They are trying to say that NBA players already get paid lots of money and are making them seem selfish to demand more money because he needs his chauffeur to drive him around rather him having to drive himself. The cartoon jokes about the players and selfish they sound demanding more money on top of the money they already have.
   I think the cartoon is effective, it really opens the eyes of the public to see how much money the
NBA players actually make,  and it makes people open their eyes to see how much money NBA players need to play.  It also is noneffective in some ways, for NBA fans who wants to see all 80 games in a season, this cartoon might make them mad, they could argue that the owners have the money to pay the player what they want. They might switch the blame onto the owners and say that they are being hard to deal with.  They might bring in the fact that players have a faimly to look after and they need the money to pay for the houses they bought. They could argue the fact that playing basketball is their job, and if they feel that they need more money to play it is their right to demand it.

Do Athletes get Paid too Much? (Editorial)

72.3 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, that is how much the NBA star LeBron James gets paid.72.3 is way more money than one person needs to live off. LeBron isn't even the number 1 paid athlete, number 1 is Floyd Mayweather with 105 MILLION. LeBron is making chump change to Floyd, LeBron isn't second ether, Cristiano Ronaldo is making 80 MILLION. LeBron is third on the list of highest paid athletes, so this brings up the question, do athletes get paid too much?

What do we pay athletes to do? We simply pay them to entertain us, because without the fans buying tickets the athletes would be nothing. This is why many athletes are kind to their fans because they know that fans are basically sighing their checks every year. 105, 80, and 72.3 million is way more than a human needs to live comfortably, being an athlete isn't even the hardest job to do. The athletes could do the same job for a little less pay, I'm saying this through the eyes of a non athlete, If you ask one of these millionaires if they need all this money I'm sure they will find a reason to keep their pay in the millions. Who would blame them, if I was getting paid millions and someone wanted to take it away I would find at least 1000 excuses to keep the pay. What makes being an athlete better than a surgeon, or pilot? A job witch lives are at risk, wouldn't we want them to be paid good because for the time we are with them they have our lives in their hands. I would want them to be happy with their pay and not depressed because someone who plays a sports makes their job look like its for kids.

Athletes do have to spend a lot of time on the road and not with their family. Players are on the road for more than half of their games, spending a lot of time away from kids, wife and family in general I would want to get paid allot. Athletes also don't get paid on the off season, what happens when your season isn't in and your just hanging out? Think about it like getting fired from your job for 5 mounts, you are going to need some money to keep you from going homeless. Also lots of training is involved in staying in shape and staying ahead of the competition, in the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc those athletes are always training hard to stay ahead of the pack. Another reason why to pay them the big bills, If you ask a random person on the street to go travel the world, train like there is no tomorrow, and even in the time your not playing you have to work all for a little over 50 million a year, you think that person would say yes?

I believe that they get paid just enough, not all athletes get paid millions, there is lots of athletes that get paid in the lower thousands. The higher paid athletes get paid that much not only because they play a sport, but because of other endorsements, LeBron's jersey is one of the most popular jerseys in sports history.  Athletes could also get endorsements from Nike or Adidas to advertise there product, you can't get mad at someone for making lots of money because of their job and outside sources. If LeBron was not as popular and he was making the same amount, there would be a problem, but again LeBron is one of the more popular known superstar.

A solution that both sides would agree on is, lower the pay but enough to accommodate all the missing time they have from their family. Time that the athletes are away is time that they can't watch their kids grow up. For the people who think they get payed too much, there not anymore so you can't use that argument anymore. People are always going to have a problem with how much an athlete gets paid, some people say that playing a sport is easy and overlook the tough side to being an athlete.  But if we keep the pay at a couple million then they can't really be mad at any athlete, even if you include endorsements an athlete would still only make 15-20 million a year. That is still way more enough for a family to live off of, even tho the players might be mad at the pay decrease, they will get over it because they should realize that you can't be mad when you are earning 20 million.

Do athletes get paid too much? No because us as the public know how much they make but that's only with endorsements included, you take all the money away from a athlete he will not want to play the sports again because he can't support his family anymore.  To keep both sides happy you would have to keep the pay in the millions, but have it in the low millions. No one needs to be paid high in the millions for the fans entertainment.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/366795-do-athletes-get-paid-too-much-money

http://www.westerngazette.ca/2011/09/23/are-athletes-paid-too-much/

http://phpagencyblog.com/2013/03/19/are-professional-athletes-paid-too-much/