My paper is finished I will just be needing you to revise the paper based on my teachers feedbacks on it which is the following I w ill give you my paper right now with:
You have a fairly good introduction that sets up some important context. You will need to parenthetically cite a source of this information about viewership (a popular source will do). The only other thing this introduction is your thesis. The overall argument these paragraphs that follow will be building to. Looking at your conclusion, I think your last sentence has traces of what you need: “Sports are more than just recreational activities, they serve as forums for debates on social, political, and economic issues.”
Your revised paragraphs have a good focus, but at times you need slightly more specific topic sentences. For example, you second paragraph mentions a political benefit of sports in the form of subsidations. A more direct topic sentence would mention who receives the subsidation and/or who benefits. As written it seems like politics writ large benefit from subsidations. Would something like the following be accurate: “Sports benefit local communities and business through subsidations”? I get that the decisions for who gets subsidations could be political, but this paragraph seems to be about economic incentives via these grants.
The source integration in your revised paragraphs are definitely an improvement. Thinking of your second paragraph again, you work well with Humphreys. You do mention other studies contradicting these claims and you will need a source for this information. If it is still Humphreys, then say something like “Humphreys does acknowledge that the economic gains tend to be exaggerated (page #).” If it is a different source, bring them in instead. Similarly, on page 4 you begin a paragraph with “It is frequently acknowledged…” and I wonder “by whom?” Include a source to support this claim as well. You could also rework this topic sentence to be a little more “neutral” at the start: “Sports may also be utilized as a tool for influencing politics….” Then go into a source that discusses this (with the revised source integration you have been working through)
You might reconsider some of the your organization in this essay. You move from talking about grants to the political stance of players, to public subsidies again. You might instead group the economic/money issues together and then transition into the specific players and their political stances. You could open a paragraph shifting from subsidies to players with something like: In addition to financial dynamics of teams, professional sports also amplify the sociopolitical views of individual players.”
Overall, I think you are making some excellent points, but this essay is about more than politics and you should forecast that a little more in your introduction (you this in your conclusion where you mention economics and social impacts). I do think including the Olympics widens the scale a bit more than the earlier sections (I am not sure if it is too much). That being said, I think acknowledging the intentionally “world scale” platform of the Olympics (and as you explain the ways that it offers a platform to influence non-democratic countries) could make for a really good section to follow (and contrast) your discussion of the pushback on Kapernick’s protest in the US.
Your revised paragraphs have a good focus, but at times you need slightly more specific topic sentences. For example, you second paragraph mentions a political benefit of sports in the form of subsidations. A more direct topic sentence would mention who receives the subsidation and/or who benefits. As written it seems like politics writ large benefit from subsidations. Would something like the following be accurate: “Sports benefit local communities and business through subsidations”? I get that the decisions for who gets subsidations could be political, but this paragraph seems to be about economic incentives via these grants.
The source integration in your revised paragraphs are definitely an improvement. Thinking of your second paragraph again, you work well with Humphreys. You do mention other studies contradicting these claims and you will need a source for this information. If it is still Humphreys, then say something like “Humphreys does acknowledge that the economic gains tend to be exaggerated (page #).” If it is a different source, bring them in instead. Similarly, on page 4 you begin a paragraph with “It is frequently acknowledged…” and I wonder “by whom?” Include a source to support this claim as well. You could also rework this topic sentence to be a little more “neutral” at the start: “Sports may also be utilized as a tool for influencing politics….” Then go into a source that discusses this (with the revised source integration you have been working through)
You might reconsider some of the your organization in this essay. You move from talking about grants to the political stance of players, to public subsidies again. You might instead group the economic/money issues together and then transition into the specific players and their political stances. You could open a paragraph shifting from subsidies to players with something like: In addition to financial dynamics of teams, professional sports also amplify the sociopolitical views of individual players.”
Overall, I think you are making some excellent points, but this essay is about more than politics and you should forecast that a little more in your introduction (you this in your conclusion where you mention economics and social impacts). I do think including the Olympics widens the scale a bit more than the earlier sections (I am not sure if it is too much). That being said, I think acknowledging the intentionally “world scale” platform of the Olympics (and as you explain the ways that it offers a platform to influence non-democratic countries) could make for a really good section to follow (and contrast) your discussion of the pushback on Kapernick’s protest in the US.