The sports industry has ignited a debate on whether the government should subsidize funds for students in the sports sector instead of supporting professional athletes and artists performing for the public at large. While I understand the rationales behind this argument, I would contend that solely spending money on sports in school may not be a holistic enough suggestion.
The government’s funding for engaging students in sports activities can bring about manifold advantageous effects. Undoubtedly, this move probably facilitates educators to instill a sense of remaining healthy life into their students, encouraging them to get involved in a variety of sports events. To exemplify, schools can utilize funding from local authorities to generate more competitions with appealing prizes, motivating students to physically train themselves to achieve high results from the sports events. Thus, the government’s subsidization is likely to contribute to enhancing the quality of the young generation in terms of both mental and physical health.
Despite the remarkable benefits resulting from funding sports in school, professional sports still need adequate support from the government to develop. Without any subsidizing, athletes or artists may lose their will to pursue the professional path leading to performances of poor quality. This move can exert a negative impact on the audience’s experience, creating pressure on the revenue of an organization in particular and the economy of a country in general. Moreover, financial insufficiency can be a hurdle for professional individuals to access well-qualified training courses or cutting-edge facilities, resulting in unfavorable results in international competitions. Consequently, the lack of funding from the government may trigger noticeable challenges for the sports and arts-related industry.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that the government should properly invest money in both sports in the academic environment and professional sports and arts for the general public.