Many governments resort to rewarding sports icons with enormous cash benefits when they (the latter) achieve something remarkable. But this is not so when it comes to achievements in arts, literature, science, medicine and the like.

• How justifiable is it to honour sports icons with money?
• Do you think governments need to follow this practice in other areas too?

Offering huge cash prizes for outstanding performance in sports is common everywhere. I tend to that that it is justifiable in many ways. Coming to other areas like science and medicine, it is wise as well to follow the same policy.

Let me see how justifiable it is. Sports, unlike other careers, need extreme patronage because of its being too demanding. A sports icon has a very limited career span, and in such a short period he is expected to make the maximum out of it because he or she has a long life ahead. Besides this, unlike other careers, these careers are not paid jobs. But they are forced to work 24x7. And finally, the reputation they bring in for the nation and the fire they instill in the younger generation cannot be calculated in any terms. So it is proved justifiable.

How right, by the way, it is to follow this same attitude in other areas? I feel that governments need to install a system to identify those people who are able to make exceptional contributions to mankind and honour them the same way as sports icons. For example, a medical scientist who happens to develop a vaccine for AIDS, a researcher who comes up with an industrially viable alternative fuel or a man of letters who brings in a Nobel or the like needs to be honoured with money. They are as important as sports icons. That is what I feel.

To conclude it, I find it right to reiterate that sports persons of great caliber need to be honoured with money. So should be the case with others who are able to make once-in-a-lifetime contributions to human life. This is not only for their well being, but also for the welfare of all.
290 words
Ajaypeesdoc