In his essay, Webb provides background information on himself and his soccer playing kids, which helps to build up his ethos. Before the passage even begins, the information at the top stating that he is a professor of religion and philosophy makes him appear more credible to begin with, which might also make you think that this essay is going to be more serious than it actually is. Throughout the essay, Webb makes references to his children and about how soccer is their family outing, and it brings them together, which is one of the main points Webb uses to defend soccer with.
Webb’s “claims” against soccer appear to be both ludicrous and questionable: “Sporting should be about breaking kids down before you start building them up. Take baseball, for example… The spectacle of your failure was so public that it was like having all of your friends invited to your home to watch your dad forcing you to eat all of your vegetables” (268). Webb appears to use his “example” to question certain parenting styles, and make a valid point that baseball is no better than soccer in being “healthy” for children. Breaking kids down does not sound like a great way to teach one’s children, and the simile used showed the pressure that baseball had put kids under, not soccer. So in the midst of his mock claims against soccer, Webb rags on baseball.
In the end he comes to the point that not only do his three daughters play soccer, but it is in fact a family outing, and it is something that his family enjoys. How can a man, who's three daughters are in love with soccer, play it constantly, and point out that soccer games are a family outing, be someone who doesn't enjoy the sport? It displays his sardonic tone one final time. Webb's rhetorical strategies such as tone, ethos, and especially diction, all play a role in getting across his argument in a manner which really makes the reader question if this man is serious or not.