Essay Writing Task 1
Many countries spend a lot of money to train individuals to participate in international sporting events. Some people say that this money would be better spent on public development instead.
Do you agree or disagree? Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Essay Writing
Many countries spend a lot of money to train individuals to participate in international sporting events
While some people may not agree with the financing of training for individual athletes to compete in international sports events, such events are undoubtedly important for a country in terms of global recognition and especially inspiring the young generation to compete on the global stage.
Most athletes, unless already famous, do not receive large salaries; however, coaching and equipment for training can be quite expensive. In cases where an athlete becomes successful internationally, especially in the case of the Olympic Games and other world class sports events, the financial reward for the country as whole can be substantial, and help in development of all sports within the country, which, in a way, is a type of investment in the public, even though it targets mainly youth.
While it is true that the same money used to train athletes could simply be spent on public infrastructure development, the actual amount of money and what could be achieved on a national scale with the money needs careful consideration. When compared with the costs of financing road and rail infrastructure construction and other public development projects, the cost of financially supporting individual athletes that represent the country at an international level is relatively insignificant; it is unlikely that large scale public development projects would be achieved with such relatively small funding.
Overall, clearly there will always be a conflict between those who consider essential public spending is more important than non-essential spending; however, the definition of essential spending could also be debated, as some would consider international representation at international and global sports events is just as important for the long term development of a country as spending the same money on other public projects.
Personally, I believe that the wide ranging benefits obtained from athletes competing at an international level, such as inspiring young people to take up a sport, international recognition for a country, and the sense of national pride which accompanies success, far outweigh the relatively small cost of such endeavours and is, therefore, a wholly worthwhile investment of public funds.
Essay Writing Task 2
Some countries spend a lot of money on providing world-class sports facilities.
Is this a good or bad thing?
Essay: Some countries spend a lot of money on providing world-class sports facilities
Many countries in recent decades have succumbed to the allure of hosting international sporting events. The amount of money spent on creating world-class sports facilities aimed at attracting international visitors has been staggering.
Any nation hosting world sporting events needs a lot of money to provide world-class sports facilities. They want their athletes to compete and win the competition and receive acknowledgment for the most advanced facilities. They want to win the sports competition that bad, just like some people who buy brand new cars and clothes even though their old stuff is still perfectly serviceable, but they want the latest products and brands anyway.
The benefits of building these state-of-the-art stadiums for international events are that with them, more people are likely to come and visit these specialized sports facilities to watch top professional athletes compete. The country, therefore, makes a profit from ticket sales and sports tourism. But when a nation invests such large amounts of extra money, there are fewer resources available to help fund other areas such as social programs, education for young children, health, etc.
However, the impact on the short-term tourism market can be significant. Various relevant examples exist, such as the 2012 Olympics in London brought an estimated boost of between £2bn and £4bn to the local economy. The Olympic stadium was also seen as a way to create opportunities for future social and economic development in east London. According to the mayor of London at that time, it was the largest investment since the land was reclaimed from swampy marshland in the 17th century.
Should governments spend money on railways rather than roads?
Good idea or overkill? Some countries spend a lot of money on world-class sports facilities such as Olympic or football world cup stadiums, hoping that they will attract visitors who then spend money on hotels, restaurants, and entertainment. However, some people say this is just an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money because what good are such specialized sports facilities for youngsters after the event.
The darker and often unseen side of investing in such facilities is that such investments can be political in nature. Such was the case when the Beijing government decided to spend $40 billion on hosting the 2008 Olympic Games, a huge sum of money at that time for any country.
One might think that China could have used this money to build thousands of schools and hospitals or encouraging young children to participate in sports, but it chose not to because China wanted to use this opportunity as evidence of its rise from a developing economy to developed economy status. The "Olympic effect", which refers to an increase in tourism following an Olympics games or similar international competitions, is often overstated because it depends on how effectively governments promote themselves during events and afterward. Funding may be diverted away from other essential areas like healthcare, education, etc., which has happened before more than once around the world.
Overall, for those countries with the infrastructure to invest and develop building sports facilities for international sports events like the Olympics, it is a huge event and an enormous source of national pride. The investment is enormous, money which governments could use for alternative projects. Despite what many people say, it has been proven that hosting the Olympics and constructing Olympic Parks can impact tourism positively. The results are typically a significant increase in tourism for at least 3-5 years after the end of the games.
However, this is not always seen as a necessary factor in deciding who should be awarded the Games. Some countries spend a lot of money on providing world-class sports facilities while others just don't care about sport and prefer to use their funds elsewhere to support training students or alleviate poverty. The disadvantages are clear: all these new stadiums and arenas often go unused because they are too big for local clubs (the running track is rarely used). The facilities benefit the nation for a short time only, and later some even become abandoned and are no longer maintained.