There’s compelling arguments between whether helding a huge international event makes an advantage for a country.In my point of view, the merits overtake the disadvantages.
Proponents of taking international events as a benefit for the country, think it increases tourism revenue. With the events being held, enthusiasts flow to the country. Tourists and participants from other places contribute to local industries with a significant economic boost. What’s more, it can also strengthen the global status of the country. There’s no doubt that getting the chance to hold events means recognition from the whole world.
For those who advocate these activities as costly mistakes, the results for staging doesn’t offset the cost. Governments need to spend lots of money in order to build new places and serve the customers. But the problem is those new buildings often end up being used just once. Not only destroying residents’ living quality, but the environments and habitats are also ruined by the abandoned stadiums and overloaded crowds.
From my personal perspective, there’s more positive affection of helding the events. If the government can strike a balance between making profits and lowering the costs, helding these activities makes a country increase its global status. Besides, we can also earn numerous money from the visitors. On the contrary, new buildings and unaffordable people cost a lot. What if we just upgrade the stadiums which we already have instead of building one. The disadvantages mentioned are all solvable, it sure will make the whole nation more prosperous.
Overall, perceiving helding an event as a great advantage or costly mistake is always an issue. In my opinion, the benefits are more than the complaints. The global rise of prestige, can also make the nationalists gain their pride.