Kuper's Rhetorical Analysis: Why Do We Still Watch The Olympics?

We just finished watching the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, Korea. I was inspired by watching people like Mikaela Shiffrin, Red Gerard, Sean White, and the United States Women’s Hockey Team represent our country and lead us to victory. I find it no small coincidence that we’ve been asked to examine Simon Kuper’s essay, where he asks the provocative question: “Why do we still watch the Olympics?” This article was published in the sports column of the Financial Times, and it was created for anyone who has ever watched the Olympics. Throughout this piece, Kuper writes about the unity that the Olympics brings to the world, the challenges that the Olympics face, and many scandals that occur during the Games. However, Kuper also speaks of the athletes outside the Olympics as if they are spoiled and snobbish. This characterization creates a hasty …show more content…
When explaining the difference between Olympians and other athletes, he says, “That’s the standard contrast: Olympians versus bad spoiled footballers or American major-league ballplayers. There’s a widespread feeling that the machine for allocating celebrity wealth is giving the wrong people outsize rewards.” I believe that it is morally wrong to classify all football players and baseball players as “spoiled”. Major league athletes are constantly training and most often deserve the respect and wealth they recieve. Kuper is a professional writer for a major company, and he should not stereotype other athletes. Since he is a sports writer, when he is not writing about The Olympics, he is often writing about these “spoiled major league athletes” in a different fashion. He mostly speaks of their careers and their achievements, not their snobbish nature. This creates much confusion in my brain. Because he is working for such a notable company, I think that his tone should be more respectful and