The United States Soccer Federation has recently become like other sporting organizations, such as the National Football League, that have come out with numerous changes to enhance safety throughout the game each see's over. These changes, in response to a lawsuit filed against the Federation seeking rule changes, include eliminating heading the soccer ball from the game for players under age ten. Praised by many, the changes show a proactive effort to reduce the number of concussions suffered in youth soccer.  However, using one's head to control, pass, or shoot the ball is one of the few essential skills players of all ages learn that is incorporated into every game at all levels.  This leads many to question these changes due to the fact that they eliminate an essential skill from the youth game. In his article "U.S. Soccer's New Player Safety Campaign Leaves Many Questions Unanswered," Doug Fuglsang makes a primarily logical appeal to show why US Soccer made its decision to eliminate heading. Even though this was an effective strategy, used to illustrate the flaws within the new player safety initiative, Fuglsang was unable to produce an argument.  

Fuglsang uses logic to examine the statement released by US soccer on the player safety initiative, which is significant because it allows him to show the statements imperfections.  He calls the play safety initiative "vague and perplexing" due to its wordiness (Fuglsang).  He does this rightfully so because within the settlement agreement, US Soccer says that they will improve concussion awareness, implement new protocol, and modify rules to help this issue (Fuglsang).  Nowhere in that statement does it say how exactly these changes are going to happen. By pointing out the vagueness of the settlement, Fuglsang argues logically that US Soccer is simply just talking about making changes, not actually making them.  The word 'vague' support Fuglsang's central point of really "that not much was changed other than limiting the liability for U.S. Soccer" (Fuglsang).  Unfortunately for Fuglsang, his argument comes apart in the final part of the settlement agreement.  Part D of US Soccer's pledge was to "eliminate heading for children 10 and under and limit heading in practice for children between the ages of 11 and 13" (Fuglsang).  With him assuming all four parts of the statement to be vague, he loses power to his argument.  That statement from US Soccer clearly stated that there will be no more heading in those age groups of players.  

When discussing the encouraged rule adoption, Fuglsang uses logic to establish US Soccer's lack of control, but wrongly overlooks its influence.  US Soccer is the overpowering soccer organization within the states and is slowly becoming a power in global soccer.  In the states, US Soccer only has direct ties to the youth national and academy teams, and loose ties if any to local leagues that the majority of young kids play in (Fuglsang).  Fuglsang's argument relies on the logic that US Soccer cannot control the thousands of youth leagues that are not their affiliates, so that once again, "not much changed" with the new rules (Fuglsang).  The part that he forgot to consider was that any standardized league, which accounts for the majority of youth players, uses the United State Soccer Federation Referees Association to hire referees.  US Soccer will be training their referees with these new rule changes.  Therefore, these "recommended" changes are being slowly being forced upon them anyways.  Also, Fuglsang uses a logical fallacy when talking about affiliates of US Soccer.  He says that "[he] is going to assume all of the affiliates will adopt some form of these new rule proposals in order to limit exposure to lawsuits".  This is an ad populum because he assumes that every league will follow US Soccer's example for the sole reason that they are the overpowering organization in the United States.  In reality, that rule change is going to happen for other reasons like referee training by the organization.  

A poorly organized conclusion hammers the nails in the coffin for Fuglsang's argument.  It begins with a flawed attempt to use logos and ethos together.  Fuglsang, a sports lawyer, examined the liability US Soccer owes to keep its youth players safe, and determined the possibility of loss lawsuits was not worth it. He believes that "U.S. Soccer successfully limited their liability by implementing modest rule changes that do little to change the fundamentals of the game" (Fuglsang).  He created a sense of credibility through which he attempted to make logic from.  However, any reader reading rhetorically can do their own deductive reasoning to disprove Fuglsang's statement.  The major premise is that heading the ball is a fundamental skill within soccer. The minor premise is that US Soccer eliminated the ability to head the ball with these new rule changes.  Therefore, US Soccer's new rules changed the fundamentals of the game in a major way.  This hurts both the credibility of himself and any point he tried to make within the article. 

Fuglsang decided to utilize a primarily logical approach in his argument because it allows him to gain better agreement with the audience.   By using logic, he had a better chance at being able to walk an audience, which does not support his opinion, through his argument effectively to change their views. The sole use of ethos and pathos would restrict Fuglsang's argument from being effective. For example, using solely a pathos appeal would only successfully reach a small market of true soccer traditionalists that do not want their game to change at any level.  The problem is that the majority people would agree that youth games should be safer because many do not want kids to be injured.  Therefore, a pathos appeal would successfully work in favor of the opposing argument since the emotional appeal of the audience would be focused on safety concerns.  Ethos could not be exclusively used either.  Some medical providers and researchers are pushing for changes in sports since new information has being discovered about brain injuries. Fuglsang's argument would be weakened because of this because he and the opposition would have two different credible sources saying two different conclusions.   Therefore, it makes sense for Fuglsang to institute a primarily logical appeal while making his argument.  With that being said.  He was able to incorporate ethos and pathos into his argument.  

Even though Fuglsang does not solely use ethos and pathos within his argument, he does use both of those appeals alongside logos to in an attempt to strengthen his argument. Ethos is used along with logos when he quotes a doctor about medical studies.  He speaks about a Dr. Robert Cantu, chief of neurosurgery at Emerson Hospital and co-director of Boston University's Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy" (Fuglsang).  By doing this, Fuglsang gains credibility for his argument because it is backed by a highly recognized neurologist.  The statistic that he quotes later in the article from Dr. Cantu becomes the logic behind his argument.  Pathos is also used when he speaks about the substitution policy.  With kids being able to "report a potential head injury and take proper precaution without the fear of being unable to return to play, it will reduce the incentive for young players to try and play through a potential head injury" that may or may not cause long term brain damage (Fuglsang).  This plays to emotions of parents who now can rest knowing that their kids can get looked at properly without losing their spot in the game.

Following that, Fuglsang states his opinion that the rule is a mistake (Fuglsang).  Then he goes on to explain that once he "takes into account the research available, potential exposure to liability, and understanding this is an essential skill for U.S. Soccer players; he would probably ban headers in games for all players U-14" (Fuglsang).  He goes full circle by first stating that the ban of headers was a mistake to saying how headers should be banned entirely until age fourteen.  He loses the opportunity to finalize his argument effectively because of how these comments were inconsistent and poorly organized; unlike how logos should be.  

