You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Some people think that governments should spend more money on sports facilities for top athletes. Others argue that this money should be spent for sports facilities for ordinary people. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

FIRST RESPONSE

It is a debatable topic whether a nation should assist the top athletes with more money or to allot money for the enhancing sporting facilities for the common people. I tend to align with the first view, as it is more productive and economical for the government.

The prime reason why some argue that money should be spent on meeting the sporting needs of the general public is because of the visible inadequacies of people living in both the urban and rural areas. In case of those who live in the cities, they do not have enough facilities to do either exercise or sports. In such a situation, it is important for a government to fulfil their needs, rather than spending a huge sum of money on meeting their health needs. Similarly, in rural areas, there are many talented sportspersons who can be brought to the centre only when they are identified and given appropriate guidance.

Analysing the viewpoint of the first group, it is clear that they recommend more money because of the lack of support the top athletes receive. While many eminent sportspersons struggle, the irony is that a few are over-focused. Majority of the top athletes, therefore, still have problems with meeting their financial requirements like availing quality training. Provided that they would get the financial assistance, they could win a lot of medals and can bring pride to the country. Moreover, the economic liability for the state to carry out this task is comparatively lower than providing sporting facilities to a larger population.

To conclude, it is clear that the public need adequate sporting facilities, especially in a country with growing population. However, I believe that top athletes have to be given more focus as they can reflect the sporting pride of a country to the world easily.

SECOND RESPONSE

It is a debatable topic whether a nation should assist the top athletes with more money or to allot money for the enhancing sporting facilities for the common people. I believe the second view has slightly more weightage than the first in the current scenario.

The prime reason why the former group demands more money to the top athletes is because of the fact that they are more likely to uphold the pride of the country by winning competitions. To be precise, these athletes came on top after a lot of struggle. If they are given more attention by providing an international level practice by world-class coaches, they would transform to promising athletes of the nation in future. It is a fact that this needs an exorbitant sum of money, and at present, many of such athletes are falling short of that.

Conversely, there exists a group of people who think that governments are totally neglecting the sporting desires of the common public. To be clearer, today, there are more urban population who has very less facilities to stretch their bodies. The necessity there is jogging tracks, stadiums, swimming pools and public parks. Similarly, in rural areas, there are many unidentified and talented sportspersons. They can be brought to the centre only when they are identified and given appropriate guidance. Both these need governmental support, both financially and politically.

In my opinion, the extra money to the top athletes can be generated by sponsorships and voluntary assistance from the public. Many companies are seen sponsoring famous athletes as a part of their promotions. On the other hand, not many offers monetary help for the general public to satisfy their sporting needs.

To conclude, it is clear that more financial assistance is needed for top athletes to perform better, and there are alternate ways to generate this. However, this is not true in the case of the general public.