The purpose of the movie was to attack the NCAA for being a corrupt and immoral organization withholding rights from the players the film views as laborers. This is a systematic attack exposing the hypocrisy in the NCAA, the backwards ideas spewing forth from the organization’s officials on why they can’t pay players. President Mark Emmert at one point argues against the joke that the NCAA has the best salary cap in sports by stating simply, “There are no salaries,” as if that’s the end of the conversation instead of precisely the problem. The film’s best evidence is systematically unraveling and debunking the now long-ridiculous myth of amateurism in college sports. Even the Greeks didn’t adhere to this idea of unpaid athletes, since ancient Olympians were compensated with land and women. Athletic ability is a marketable skill, but college athletes—specifically in the sports that would net the most money, are not only prevented from making money off their skill, but required to go through four years at college risking health and potential livelihood just so they might be able to get drafted.
The film started with a montage of colleges on a game day. It is used to show the environment at a college on game day. The film is filled with collegiate athlete's anecdotes that are used to show just how corrupt the NCAA is. Analysts were interviewed and explained how the athletes were trapped by the NCAA and forced to perform at outstanding levels of play and bring in boatloads of money for the NCAA. The unanimous decision is to have students get paid for the work they do for the college and the money they bring in for the NCAA.
Strongly persuasive opening because of your sentence construction and choice of words (however I think you mean "immoral" instead of "immortal").
ReplyDelete