Some countries invest in specialized sports facilities for top athletes but not for the average person. Is this a positive or a negative development?

Sample Answer 1 : Band 8

A certain number of nations allocate funds for professional athletic facilities, which are
available only for first-class sportspeople, but not for ordinary citizens. In my opinion, it is
rather an unfavorable development than a positive one. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will be
explaining my point of view in detail.

First, the government should take care of the health and physical development of all citizens
and not only sports elites. This is because every working citizen pays taxes and should have
equal rights for social amenities, including specialized sports centres. Thus, funding of special-
purpose sports facilities might be considered social inequality, especially if they were not
available for a regular person. For example, when I had decided to start jogging, I was
completely frustrated by the fact that a running ring with an excellent soft covering was not
allowed for training if a person was not a member of the national team.

Some people might argue that top athletes should have priority because they represent a
country on the world stage. Despite the fact that international competitions and the reputation
of the country are important, investing in professionals’ needs only does not pay off in the long
term because the construction and maintenance of sports halls are highly expensive.
Meanwhile, modern society has other crucial issues, which are in need of funds, such as the
health care system, city infrastructure, and environmental issues.

While I understand how important it is to equip top athletes to help them perform better,
investing every single penny on them is not acceptable.

In conclusion, I think that the latest tendency among certain governments to invest in sports
facilities for superior sportspersons leaving average people behind is a negative trend because
every citizen should have equal rights. Moreover, in terms of revenue from international
events, funding these elite sport objects is not profitable.

---

Structure of the essay

 

You were given an opinion essay which means you had to pick a side. So,

• Do you agree that the countries should invest in specialized sports facilities for top
athletes and not for the average person?

(or)

· Do you disagree with the fact that countries should invest in specialized sports facilities
for top athletes but for the average person too?

Once you pick a side, you can start planning your essay and then writing it.

Don’t forget to state your opinion on it.

Question Paraphrased – A certain number of nations allocate funds for professional athletic
facilities, which are available only for first-class sportspeople, but not for ordinary citizens.

Opinion – In my opinion, it is rather an unfavorable development than a positive one.

A thesis statement – In the upcoming paragraphs, I will be explaining my point of view in
detail.

Body Paragraph 1:

Topic: Health and physical development of all citizens

Supporting points:

• Government should take care of the health and physical development
• Working citizens pay taxes
• Funding of special-purpose sports facilities could be social inequality

Body Paragraph 2:

Topic: Investing in professionals’ needs may not pay off in the long run

Supporting points:

• Construction and maintenance of sports halls are expensive
• Modern society has other crucial issues

Conclusion:

Reiterated that the latest tendency among certain governments to invest in sports facilities for
superior sportspersons leaving average people behind is a negative trend and supported the
side taken in introduction.

---

Sample Answer 2 : Band 9

Heavy investment in sports facilities aimed at professional athletes is common in countries that want to compete in international events. This is a positive development for national pride but negative on the whole as it takes funding away from the average citizen.

Proponents of this practice would argue that it brings the nation together. The best examples of this relate to international competitions like the summer and winter Olympics. China and the United States have famously invested millions in building sports facilities for prospective Olympians and the results in terms of medals justify the expenditure. The wider implications for national unity come from an entire country watching the telecasts and rooting together. Divisive domestic disputes are temporarily forgotten as everyone focuses on the progress of their country. Much of this would be impossible without specialized sports facilities for the best competitors.

However, these facilities benefit a select few over the majority. Funding for such facilities is a limited part of a federal budget that must cover essential areas like health, education, and the military. Any money diverted towards preparing world-class athletes for international competitions is to some extent a waste as it cuts into the budget for facilities for average people. For example, many inner city youths in poorer neighborhoods lack access to parks and such facilities and this has been identified as one of the factors that allows for poverty to be inherited over generations. Direct the funding away from these expensive gyms for top athletes and it would be possible to build many more facilities that serve a much wider and underserved segment of the population.

In conclusion, despite the less tangible benefits to national cohesiveness, this a negative on level as it favors a talented minority. More resources should be allocated towards facilities for those in greater need.

---

Sample Answer 3 : Band 9

A  number of nations allocate (to give an amount of time, money, etc. to someone or something) funds for professional athletic facilities, which are available only for first-class sportspeople, but not for ordinary citizens. In my opinion, it is rather an unfavorable (having a negative opinion) development than a positive one. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will be explaining my point of view in detail.

First, the government should take care of the health and physical development of all citizens and not only sports elites (the richest, most powerful, or best-trained group in a society). This is because every working citizen pays taxes and should have equal rights for social amenities (something that makes it enjoyable or comfortable to live or work somewhere), including specialized sports centres. Thus, funding of special­ purpose sports facilities might be considered social inequality, especially if they were not available for a regular person. For example, when I had decided to start jogging, I was completely frustrated by the fact that a running ring with an excellent soft covering was not allowed for training if a person was not a member of the national team.

Some people argue that top athletes should have top priority because they represent a country. Despite the fact that international competitions are of great importance (=important), investing in professionals’ needs only does not pay off (brings you some benefit) in the long term because the construction and maintenance of sports halls are highly expensive. Meanwhile, modern society has other crucial issues, which are in need of funds, such as the health care system, city infrastructure( systems within a place which affects how well it operates), and environmental issues.

In conclusion, I think that the latest tendency among certain governments to invest in sports facilities for superior sportspersons leaving average people behind is a negative trend because every citizen should have equal rights. Moreover, in terms of revenue from international events, funding these elite sport objects is not profitable.

---

Sample Answer 4 : Band 8.0

There is a rising tendency that government sports funding is spent on facilities for professional sportsmen rather than for public sports. While I agree that this policy brings some substantial benefits, I am convinced that negative aspects of this trend is more significant.

On the one hand, investment in specialized sports facilities for top athletes may lead to considerable successes. It is obvious that when sportsmen have a chance to practice in better conditions, with modern sports equipment, they tend to reach their full potential and achieve high records. Therefore, they can produce spectacular results in international competitions and gain great respect for their country. Take China as an example. Instead of allocating funds for public sports centers, the Chinese government spends a large amount of money on professional sports. This policy shows a very positive outcome with China often remaining high in standings in Olympics Games.

On the downside, I believe that the drawbacks of insufficient financial resources for public sports facilities should not be overlooked. At its simplest, public health may deteriorate. The fact that only a small amount of money is spent for public sports would result in the shortage of fitness centers and an increase in the expense to join sports clubs. As a result, not many people can engage in sports activities regularly, which will cause damage to their health. Another negative impact would be that it seems to be hard to unearth sports potential because only a small number of people take part in sports activities

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the neglect of investing in public sports centers has both advantages and disadvantages, but the adverse features of this policy are likely more important

---