Topic: Some countries build specialized sports facilities for top athletes to train instead of providing sports facilities that everyone can use. Is this a positive or negative development?
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