In the past three years, the NFL has faced a multitude of lawsuits dealing with the unfair payment of NFL cheerleaders. Multiple different articles support the cheerleaders, agreeing that an average of a $1,000 salary each year is unfair. However, other articles are against a higher payment, claiming that cheerleaders work because they enjoy the sport, rather than for the money.
While Megan McArdle’s article, “NFL Cheerleaders Don’t Do it for the Money” uses informal diction, comparisons to other jobs, and concession to the opposition to support the claim that the cheerleaders do not deserve to be paid more, “Who Do We Under-Compensate? , by Ira Boudway, uses a more formal diction, statistics, and concession to the other side of the argument to support the opposite. Throughout “NFL Cheerleaders Don’t Do it for the Money”, McArdle uses informal diction in order to show that the situation shouldn’t be taken so seriously. For instance, when discussing why women participate in the hours of fierce physical exercise and pressures of being an NFL cheerleader, the author states, “But why the women go along — heck, lineup nine deep for the honor of doing so — is harder to understand. ” (McArdle). Informality is seen here with the use of the word “heck”.
In addition, she also uses words such as “apparently”, “I’m sure”, “of course”, and “darn” sporadically throughout her writing. Words, such as these, tend to show a more opinionated position. In addition, the author speaks in first person throughout the article. While this is often an informal way to write published works, McArdle’s word choice and first person narration brings a more personal view on the subject. The audience is able to connect with her views and understand the thought process of an actual person. On the other hand, Boudway’s ‘Who do We Under Compensate? ” uses a much more formal diction to create a more professional piece.
In this article, she uses third person narration and leaves out any subjective ideas and opinions, while still supporting a higher payment. Simple facts, including details from the lawsuit, specific years, and quotes are used to prove the claim without biased thoughts. This appeals to the audience’s ethos. Similar to McArdle’s piece, however, is a personal account that allows the audience to connect with the cheerleaders. In result, the audience receives an objective, yet persuasive piece. For example, in the first paragraph, Boudway begins with a short, background story on a Buffalo Bill’s cheerleader, Caitlin Ferrari.
When talking about the cheerleader initially deciding to cheer for the team, the author states that, “Ferrari didn’t think twice. ‘I’m 18,’ she says. ‘I just made this amazing professional cheerleading squad. I’m going to sign whatever the heck they put in front of me” (Boudway). With specific quotes, such as this, the audience is able to see personal opinions and accounts that supports the claim, while still maintaining a more formal argument. This is important so the author can maintain credibility even with stories and opinions included. In order to justify her claims, McArdle compares cheerleading to other jobs.
In paragraph ten, she discusses the similarities between the sport and an internship. She states that interns would rather be paid than not; however, the lack of payment eliminates anyone who wants the job for money purposes only. The people that are left are those who are truly passionate about the job. Comparing the NFL cheerleaders to this allows the readers to see the situation from a different perspective. This helps eliminate some sympathy the audience may have towards the low payment the cheerleaders are receiving because they know that it isn’t all about the money.
In addition, the cheerleaders are also compared to journalists in paragraph eight. She compares the high status of being a part of companies, such as the New York Times, to the high status of being involved with teams like the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Journalists for famous newspapers and magazines tend to enjoy the appreciation they receive from being affiliated with the company. The author uses this to show that, despite a lower income, the cheerleaders are receiving different kinds of benefits simply because they are working under the NFL.
Boudway is able to show credibility through statistics and numbers used throughout her article. For example, in the article, the author states, “According to Front Row’s analysis, cheerleaders appear on-screen for an average of seven seconds during broadcasts... that may not seem like much airtime, but according to Smallwood, it’s worth $8. 25 million per season” (Boudway). Her use of educational sources for statistics shows the audience that her information is legitimate and reliable.
In addition, by showing what large amounts of money the cheerleaders bring in, in comparison to the little time they are shown on television, Boudway creates a situation that shows the audience just how underpaid they really are. In order to support that claim further, the author also includes numbers of amounts paid to others employed by the NFL. The average salary of concession stand workers, mascots, and football players are all compared to the cheerleaders’ in order to show that they’re getting paid much less than other employees. McArdle takes a look at the other side of the controversy before even beginning to discuss her own opinions.
The first half of her article, in fact, was solely dedicated to unbiased background information, stating details of the case and even agreeing that the amount they are paid is low. For instance, she states, “Women from three different NFL teams have filed suit against the organizations they cheered for, pointing out that they get paid less than a line worker does at McDonald’s, by people who want to wield the despotic managerial control of a press gang” (McArdle). This shows that she is well educated on the subject and isn’t making rash assumptions.
She’s basing her opinions on specific factors and details, despite knowing what most articles are claiming. This helps the audience realize that, even knowing everything that the opposite side is claiming, other opinions can still be more convincing to some people. Similar to McArdles piece, Boudway concedes to the opposite side of the argument. However, instead of using this to create a sense of trust in the audience, she does this in order to show what is wrong with others’ opinions. She specifically uses the argument that other cheerleaders who are against the idea of the lawsuit commonly use.
We always considered it a privilege to be on the field to cheer for our team,’ [Gaulin] wrote… on the squad’s alumni association website disapproving of the current lawsuits. Hers is a typical response to complaints from low-level workers in glamour industries” (Boudway). She explains that this is a common argument among cheerleaders, and is often used by outsiders to support the idea that cheerleaders don’t need paid because they are doing it for their enjoyment. Their thought process on it is that, if the cheerleaders are okay with not being paid much because of how much they love it, why pay them more?
Boudway goes on to prove that this is not a valid argument though. “[This argument] is not, however, a legal defense. ‘There is no exception in the minimum wage law for loving your job,’ says Sean Cooney, a lawyer who represents the five Jills in their suit” (Boudway). The author includes quotes, such as this, this in order to show that their argument isn’t valid. Also, because she uses quotes from lawyers, the audience is able to believe her more likely than if she would have just made the claim herself.
Lawyers have a background in legal matters, making them knowledgeable about subjects similar to those being dealt with in this controversy. This cause Boudway to have a more believable argument against the opposite side. In both Boudway and McArdle’s articles, the rhetorical devices used creates solid arguments that are able to convince the audience of what they are claiming. In McArdle’s article, she uses informal diction, comparisons to other jobs, and concession to the opposition in order to support the claim that heerleaders don’t deserve to be paid more.
On the other hand, Boudway uses a formal diction, numbers and statistics, and concession to the other argument to support the opposite idea that cheerleaders do deserve a higher salary. Although both authors are supporting a different stance on the subject, they similarly create credibility through different aspects of their writing, as well as taking a look at the other side of the recent controversy. These tactics are able to reach the intended audience and persuade them of their opinions.
