Domenic Cole's essay on public sports funding: for international sportsmen or for local sports enthusiasts.
In these times of austerity, there is much debate as to how public funds for sport should be spent. My own view is that a balance needs to be struck between funding of international stars and the provision of financial support at the grassroots level.
There is an obvious case to be made for using public money to fund grassroots sport. The major argument for this is that these funds should be used to help as many members of society as possible. This can be best achieved by supporting local sports events which are available to the whole community. For example, if there was a governmental programme to encourage children to receive a few hours training in a sport of their choice, this would potentially benefit all families. It could also help with the fight against obesity, which would be a valuable use of public money.
There is also, however, a good case to be made for giving financial support to international sports stars. One rationale for this is how successful international athletes can help give a country a positive image, both at home and abroad. For instance, most people in the UK would consider the investment in supporting athletes for the 2012 Olympics to be highly worthwhile. It is also worth considering how international sports stars act as positive role models for young people and this can encourage them to take up sport.
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement in the question as I do not believe that it is the case that public money should be spent either at the international or grassroots level, rather it should apportioned between them both.
In these times of austerity, there is much debate as to how public funds for sport should be spent. My own view is that a balance needs to be struck between funding of international stars and the provision of financial support at the grassroots level.
There is an obvious case to be made for using public money to fund grassroots sport. The major argument for this is that these funds should be used to help as many members of society as possible. This can be best achieved by supporting local sports events which are available to the whole community. For example, if there was a governmental programme to encourage children to receive a few hours training in a sport of their choice, this would potentially benefit all families. It could also help with the fight against obesity, which would be a valuable use of public money.
There is also, however, a good case to be made for giving financial support to international sports stars. One rationale for this is how successful international athletes can help give a country a positive image, both at home and abroad. For instance, most people in the UK would consider the investment in supporting athletes for the 2012 Olympics to be highly worthwhile. It is also worth considering how international sports stars act as positive role models for young people and this can encourage them to take up sport.
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement in the question as I do not believe that it is the case that public money should be spent either at the international or grassroots level, rather it should apportioned between them both.
No comments:
Post a Comment