Billy Corben Broke Analysis

Billy Corben states various reasons using first and second hand evidence in his documentary “Broke” to support his overall claim that there are many different factors that play in the role of how professional athletes are caused t o make money-draining decisions that lead them to losing all their money. Overall, Billy Corben effectively persuades his claim to the audience about how athletes lose all their money. He supports his claims with the majority use of quantities evidence, personal experience, and anecdotes. Corben starts out his argument with the broad claim that it is easy for professional athletes to lose all of their money. Billy Corben supports his claims with many pieces of quantitative evidence. Corben explains that by the time professional athletes have been retired for 2 years, 78% of …show more content…
In this section, Corben claims that the athletes are, primarily, only playing professional sports because of the huge checks. Corben spoke through a credible source saying that people were freaking out when they got the money and how the players called the money received “loot”. Corben uses quantitative evidence, andecotes, and personal experiences to support his claim. The use of personal experiences used in this claim make his support strong, because it shows firsthand the reason to why some players played, not just with statistics. The use of all three of these types of evidence fit very well together because of Corben then avoids any fallacies that may have come up. The purpose of this claim was to explain to the audience that the professional players that go broke play only to get rich, so, they become addicted to just spending their money. These players either lose their contract with the team they are in because of them not caring about the sport anymore, or, with NFL players, they get cut and don’t receive all the money they think they are getting because of how the NFL contracts