Some people think that organizing international sports events is good for the host country while others think it is bad.
People have different views about whether it is unnecessary for nations to be the host of some global events relating to sports, or organizing these events is better for them. Personally, I am in agreement with the latter view, even though the other one also shows some obvious advantageous points.
The option to not become the host of the sporting events is attractive for several reasons. Regarding the economy, countries which organize the international events such as Olympics, FIFA World Cup have to pay a huge sum of money for building new or renovating existing sports facilities. Consequently, such investments probably make some fields of daily life, especially education, hospital system and healthcare suffer from a heavy burden because of the lack of funds. Another issue is that foreign people flocking to the host country are likely to negatively impact on the society. Some criminals and terrorists can take advantage of the massive movement, the crowd and sporting matches for illegal purposes.
However, I believe it is more beneficial to be the place where sports tournaments are organized. One of the evident advantages is that when a world-class event is held in a country, it will build the reputation and dignity, which increases the profile of tourism and even politics. For instance, in 2018, Russia, which was the host of FIFA World Cup, was always splashed in headlines across all the newspapers, websites and also visited by millions of tourists. As a result, Russia's economy was boosted strongly and it has been a popular tourist destination until now. Finally, the host country is assured of having a legacy of improved sporting venues which cater to its residents' sports and physical activities.
In conclusion, while there are several consequences of organising sports tournaments, it seems to be that it is vital to become the host country for some positive reasons.
Discuss both views and state your opinion.
People have different views about whether it is unnecessary for nations to be the host of some global events relating to sports, or organizing these events is better for them. Personally, I am in agreement with the latter view, even though the other one also shows some obvious advantageous points.
The option to not become the host of the sporting events is attractive for several reasons. Regarding the economy, countries which organize the international events such as Olympics, FIFA World Cup have to pay a huge sum of money for building new or renovating existing sports facilities. Consequently, such investments probably make some fields of daily life, especially education, hospital system and healthcare suffer from a heavy burden because of the lack of funds. Another issue is that foreign people flocking to the host country are likely to negatively impact on the society. Some criminals and terrorists can take advantage of the massive movement, the crowd and sporting matches for illegal purposes.
However, I believe it is more beneficial to be the place where sports tournaments are organized. One of the evident advantages is that when a world-class event is held in a country, it will build the reputation and dignity, which increases the profile of tourism and even politics. For instance, in 2018, Russia, which was the host of FIFA World Cup, was always splashed in headlines across all the newspapers, websites and also visited by millions of tourists. As a result, Russia's economy was boosted strongly and it has been a popular tourist destination until now. Finally, the host country is assured of having a legacy of improved sporting venues which cater to its residents' sports and physical activities.
In conclusion, while there are several consequences of organising sports tournaments, it seems to be that it is vital to become the host country for some positive reasons.