Rhetorical Analysis of Taronish Elavia’s
“A Football Opinion Piece for People Who Hate Football Opinion Pieces”
Taronish Elavia, in his article, “A Football Opinion Pieces for People Who Hate Football Opinion Pieces” published in December 26, 2016 talking about big transfers in football world and how they not making any changes in club. His article is divided in 2 pieces, first piece is a lot of quotes from 90s, that in my opinion is not really related to his article, and in second piece he is all about football, and how transfers might be good and bad. His tone is aggressive, but it’s probably his personality.
He is starting his article with a lot of quotes, which in my point is pointless, I don’t understand connection between his main theme …show more content…
Pathos - is vaguely including in the rhetorical aspects of this article in that it possibly wouldn’t apply to people which are fans of other sports or that haven’t a football team they cheer for, or have never gone to a professional football game and lived the stunning experience of witnessing one of the best teams in the world playing right in front of their noses. Adding to his pathos appeals, he is saying “That jersey you bought probably fed a family of ten in Thailand their Christmas dinner. Well, done you.” When I just read it, I was thinking he meant that when I’m buying a jersey, better would be if this money will go to the families in Thailand, but he means that when someone is buying a jersey, it goes to those families (but that’s not true). This information is wrong, where did he get that from? Of course, this big teams do a lot charity, but when you are buying a jersey it goes to the club, this is very popular process how clubs making money. Not long ago, at the end of the summer happened biggest transfer in football world, or probably it’s the biggest in the history of sports. Neymar moved from Barcelona to PSG for 222.000.000 million. Incredible, just for a person. This player for sure will get a lot of wins for the PSG, and from big wins they will get a lot of money, but one of the most important things is that they will get a lot of money from selling jerseys too. Just in one day they sold 10,000 jerseys, it is almost 2 million (Richardson, 2017). Also, he is talking about people smoking while watching movies and he said, “they’re either a psychopath… or an European.” This refers to pathos appeal, what got me is that he is saying that Europeans is psychopaths? And at the end of the paragraph he is saying “Thank you for smoking”, the same ending as last paragraph when he was talking about jersey, and saying at the end
“A Football Opinion Piece for People Who Hate Football Opinion Pieces”
Taronish Elavia, in his article, “A Football Opinion Pieces for People Who Hate Football Opinion Pieces” published in December 26, 2016 talking about big transfers in football world and how they not making any changes in club. His article is divided in 2 pieces, first piece is a lot of quotes from 90s, that in my opinion is not really related to his article, and in second piece he is all about football, and how transfers might be good and bad. His tone is aggressive, but it’s probably his personality.
He is starting his article with a lot of quotes, which in my point is pointless, I don’t understand connection between his main theme …show more content…
Pathos - is vaguely including in the rhetorical aspects of this article in that it possibly wouldn’t apply to people which are fans of other sports or that haven’t a football team they cheer for, or have never gone to a professional football game and lived the stunning experience of witnessing one of the best teams in the world playing right in front of their noses. Adding to his pathos appeals, he is saying “That jersey you bought probably fed a family of ten in Thailand their Christmas dinner. Well, done you.” When I just read it, I was thinking he meant that when I’m buying a jersey, better would be if this money will go to the families in Thailand, but he means that when someone is buying a jersey, it goes to those families (but that’s not true). This information is wrong, where did he get that from? Of course, this big teams do a lot charity, but when you are buying a jersey it goes to the club, this is very popular process how clubs making money. Not long ago, at the end of the summer happened biggest transfer in football world, or probably it’s the biggest in the history of sports. Neymar moved from Barcelona to PSG for 222.000.000 million. Incredible, just for a person. This player for sure will get a lot of wins for the PSG, and from big wins they will get a lot of money, but one of the most important things is that they will get a lot of money from selling jerseys too. Just in one day they sold 10,000 jerseys, it is almost 2 million (Richardson, 2017). Also, he is talking about people smoking while watching movies and he said, “they’re either a psychopath… or an European.” This refers to pathos appeal, what got me is that he is saying that Europeans is psychopaths? And at the end of the paragraph he is saying “Thank you for smoking”, the same ending as last paragraph when he was talking about jersey, and saying at the end