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 specialised 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 favours a talented minority. More resources should be allocated towards facilities for those in greater need.