A Rhetorical Analysis Of Shabazz Napier

In an interview, former University of Connecticut (UConn) basketball star Shabazz Napier voiced his opinion on student athletes not getting paid to play. The interview was conducted just after UConn won a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championship, in which Napier won the “most outstanding player” award. The interview, conducted by Fox News was only one minute and thirty-five seconds long, however in that short time frame Napier skillfully used rhetoric to support his claims. An analysis through the lens of Aristotle’s three proofs, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, reveals Napier’s aptitude to galvanize his audience to support his stance on student athletes getting paid to play.
Ethos was specifically important in Napier’s ability

He was able to create this perception by his ability to address each question, while also appearing to address the questions that may subsequently follow. At the beginning of the interview Napier states “At certain points we as student athletes get utilized for what we do so well, we’re blessed to get a scholarship, but at the end of the day that doesn’t cover everything, we do have hungry nights. We don’t have enough money to get food.” Napier was not only able to clearly convey that student athletes were having difficulties financially, forcing them to sleep hungry at night, but he also demonstrates that the “full-ride” scholarships that the audience may presumably believe that all student athletes earn, are not enough for the bare minimum necessities, such as food. Also, Napier was able to strategically shift the conversation towards one where he is not the only one suffering, but student athletes are suffering, thus influencing him to speak on the behalf of all student

He utilized simple speech at the beginning of the interview to demonstrate the issue. Napier states “At certain points we as student athletes get utilized for what we do so well, we’re blessed to get a scholarship, but at the end of the day that doesn’t cover everything, we do have hungry nights we don’t have enough money to get food.” Napier’s use of simple speech gets his point across to the audience easier, making them understand the situation that student athletes undergo. Napier also uses unannounced emotion by not telling the audience how to feel, but rather showcasing the injustice that is present. Napier concludes the interview with the statement “something can change, something should change, but if it doesn’t at the end of the day we been doing it for so long,” This statement strengthens his argument by bringing up the question “why aren’t student athletes getting paid to play?” when it is very much possible for students to get a fraction of the revenue they generate, as their team jerseys are being sold. An audience that may have been calm about the rules and policies of the NCAA, would thus feel sympathy or even anger toward the organization’s mistreatment of student athletes. This appeal to emotions seems effective as it makes the audience that pay to watch the game and support the NCAA, feel a responsibility to shift their support solely towards