Broke By Billy Corben Analysis

817 Words2 Pages

Analysis of Broke Many professional athletes make six or more digits in a year and then go broke. The director of the movie Broke, Billy Corben, the question of how for the curious watchers. Corben interviews multiple athletes who have gone bankrupt and what they did to get there. The overall claim Corben make is most professional athletes make more money than they can handle. Corben makes a strong argument with evidence of how athletes get overwhelmed and tempted to spend. Billy Corben instantly starts the documentary with a claim of fact to strengthen his argument right off the bat. He claims the sports industry exploded between the eighties and nineties. The salary of athletes were going up faster and faster which means the amount of professional …show more content…

Former NFL linebacker, Leon Searcy said, “Guys competed just as hard off the field as they did on the field.” Corben includes anecdotal evidence and expert opinions to strength the idea of more money more problems. The sports industry uses meritocracy, the payment method of how well you play is how well you get paid. A large portion of athletes don’t get paid in the millions but buy like they do. Because of this spending technique many live paycheck to paycheck which is an example of expert opinion. An example of Corben using anecdotal evidence is when he included the story of Mike Tyson, Mike had multiple tigers and got sued because a man got mauled. Corben included this evidence to prove to the audience having nice, expensive things don’t always have a nice outcome. A particular athlete wrote a check to a credit card company for $108,000 for one month. With big bucks, it becomes easy to swipe the card. This anecdote strengthens Corben’s argument by giving a personal …show more content…

Corben used pathos within his logic. Many athletes fall into the pits of bad investments, a financial advisor stated, “One out of 30-40 investments work out.” This piece of evidence in the documentary Broke can be seen as weak due to relating to hasty generalization because 30 to 40 failed investments is a broad range. A few examples of anecdotal evidence and preposterous investments are floating plastic furniture and investing in a tomato farm. Corben gave the anecdote that an athlete loaned out money to his friends and family and he never saw any of that money. Corben incorporated this instance into the documentary because it showed how athletes were taken advantage of. Corben also included an example of quantitative evidence; between the years 1999 through 2002 42 million dollars were lost by 78 players. Including quantitative and anecdotal evidence helps reinforce Corben’s

Open Document