To show readers just how much of their tax money is being spent on football, Gillespie provides strong statistics. He writes, "Next year they'll [the Minnesota Vikings] be playing ball in a brand-spanking new $975 million complex ... Over the 30-year life of the project, the public share of costs will come to $678 million." The shear size of those numbers is enough to alarm readers. By presenting these statistics, Gillespie shocks readers and causes them to reconsider the importance of football – is it really worth that much of their tax money?
Gillespie furthers his purpose by linking relevant outside information. Later, when he discusses the Atlanta Falcons, he writes, "there is zero reason to believe that publicly funded sports facilities ever pay back their costs by increasing overall economic activity or putting more tax revenue in government coffers." In this sentence, "zero reason" links to an interview with J.C. Bradbury, an economist from Kennesaw State University. Through this, Gillespie gives readers an opportunity to continue research about this strongly-stated point. The linked interview itself presents even more strong statistics, which further cement Gillespie's view that football is a waste.
Through the use of strong statistics and relevant outside information, Nick Gillespie successfully informs readers of the role of their tax money in football. He then builds a strong essay around those statistics to present his opinion – that football is a waste of taxpayers' money. Ultimately, Gillespie's appeals to logos effectively convince his audience that tax money is going to waste through football.
New Atlanta Falcons Stadium:
Nick Gillespie argues in his article that this $1.2 billion stadium is excessive and is paid for with far too high a percentage of taxpayers' money.