Private sector investment in sports infrastructure is opposed and supported by many people. • What could be their corresponding arguments? Sports infrastructure all over the world has always received investments from private players. Anyhow, there are opposing views on this. Let us see the possible arguments of both the camps. Whatever sports merits nations across the world have got are mostly being materialized by private participation. This could be the primary argument. For example, many sports giants boast of world class tracks and fields, stadia, indoor and outdoor extravaganzas, state-of-the-art training facilities. All these are but greatly for giants in sports. They may again hold the view that almost all sports icons from across the world owe a lot to business organizations to a great deal. For example, Sponsoring world cups, hosting events, absorbing icons as ambassadors, and so on are a few of those gestures, though for their business, being shown by private players. Let us see what the other camp would hold. Businesses spend for sports, but it is not for sports alone; rather it is for them. Sports get benefitted of course. This might be their trump card. The global Corporate giants like PEPSICO, Toyota, Sony, KFC, Johnson & Johnson, to mention a few, have had great dividends from sports, they may argue. The industrialization happening in sports may make unethical practices like doping, match fixing and betting common across the spectrum. Buying out sports icons, owning up teams, barring and banning players could be cited as examples. In short, like any private venture in any field, sports field also invites both praise and flak. It is quite common. Obviously, the arguments might differ as well. But, both parties must admit the fact that it is a win-win equation. 270 words Ajaypeesdoc