How much should governments spend on sports?

Some governments spend a lot of public money training individuals to be successful in international sporting events.

Some people believe that this money should be spent on things that benefit the general public instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Model Solution 1 (IELTS Essay on Government Spending on Sports)

Governments invest significant money in training for sports events like the Olympics. This comes at a significant opportunity cost as the money could have been spent on other things like free education. I believe less money should be spent on sports.

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that investing in sports is beneficial. It is good for the economy as it creates many jobs, two examples being coaches and construction workers. Sports also promote social cohesion at the societal level as citizens of a country come together to cheer a sportsperson representing their country. It is also advantageous to sportspeople as it allows them to hone their skills and become the best in their field without letting a lack of money get in the way.

However, sports are not important enough to justify high spending. Countries face more pressing problems, such as poverty, climate change, human rights violations and poor public health. Governments must invest resources to resolve these issues, which should undoubtedly be prioritised over developing sports. This is especially important as government funds mainly consist of taxpayer money. Therefore, governments must spend this money on something that benefits citizens.

To summarise, investment in sports is beneficial for the economy as it generates employment and for society as it promotes cooperation. Sportspeople are also given a training opportunity. However, given that the country faces more pressing issues, the funds must be used for public benefit instead, such as improving infrastructure.

Sample 2

Several nations devote substantial resources to the training of athletes competing in international sporting events. While I believe that athletes should be provided with adequate training facilities, this should have an influence on funding for other public initiatives and should be dependent on the country’s available resources.

Frequently, small developing nations spend an exorbitant amount of money on athlete training to please the egos of those in power. In the name of phoney national pride, cash are diverted from critical public programmes; for instance, numerous developing nations send their teams abroad for training and spend a substantial amount of money doing so. Sometimes this also leads to corruption, and government employees who organise such trips receive pay cuts. Additionally, this does not benefit the general population or make their life easier. These judgments should be based on the nation’s economy and funding capacity, not on the actions of other major nations.

On the other hand, these funds may have been invested in public projects such as the construction of improved roads, schools, and hospitals. These facilities are utilised by the majority of the country’s population, so investing in them will also boost the economy. Additionally, this would enhance the lives of the general public. Additionally, resources might be invested in enhancing the local sporting infrastructure so that a greater number of inhabitants, as opposed to a select few, can utilise it for enhanced training.

On conclusion, I would argue that investing large sums of public money in the education of a small number of people should be avoided and should never come at the expense of other public welfare programmes.