In many countries, public funds are predominantly allocated to elite athletes, often neglecting the general population. In my view, this trend is negative, despite being economically beneficial.
Directing large amounts of resources toward developing specialized facilities solely for top athletes is largely profitable. The professionals would have opportunities to train and follow healthy diets before huge tournaments, such as the Olympics, where they might have a higher chance of either winning or finishing on the podium. This outcome may not only result in economic value to one’s country but also bring fame and recognition worldwide.
Nevertheless, focusing exclusively on the top-performing sportsmen is likely to harm the sports industry. While spectators love watching sports events, they may also be motivated by the opportunity to participate. My father, for example, regularly plays football with his friends by booking local stadiums, apart from following football leagues and global tournaments, but if such facilities were restricted from ordinary people, they might lose interest in sports. As a result, it can directly impact the attendance rates of various sports competitions and reduce the revenue within the sports sector.
Furthermore, the public may feel this policy is unfair toward them. Seeing how much money their countries invest in some talented sportsmen, who represent only a tiny fraction of the population, while leaving them with a limited investment or even nothing, people may become dissatisfied. Consequently, the widening gap between ordinary individuals and those receiving special treatment can erode the fabric of society in the long run. For example, in 2016, there was widespread unrest among citizens in Taiwan protesting against discriminatory government policies related to medical treatment.
In summary, I firmly believe that countries should not support only professional athletes, as their action may well damage the long-term sustainability of the sports industry, despite its economic benefits. By limiting the general public, it might also cause dissatisfaction.