Public money for the Olympics and the World Cup: IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer

Hosting an event such as the Olympic Games or the World Cup is seen by many governments as a chance to showcase their country to the world. However, these events now cost billions of dollars, and some people argue that public money should not be spent on them at all. I largely agree with this view, particularly in the case of countries with pressing social needs.

Supporters of hosting point to the economic and emotional benefits. A major tournament attracts tourism, creates construction jobs and can speed up the building of new infrastructure such as railways and airports. It also generates a strong sense of national pride, as many British people felt during the London Olympics in 2012.

However, the evidence suggests that these gains are usually exaggerated. Costs almost always exceed the original budget, and ordinary tourists often stay away from the host city because of crowds and high prices. More seriously, many expensive stadiums are barely used afterwards. Several venues built for the 2004 Athens Olympics were abandoned within a few years, and Montreal took around thirty years to pay off the debt from the 1976 Games. The promised legacy often turns out to be a burden on taxpayers.

In my view, the central issue is priorities. Money spent on a two-week sporting festival could build hospitals, schools or sports facilities for ordinary people to use every day. If governments wish to improve infrastructure, they can do so directly rather than as a side effect of a sporting event. Where events are held, the costs should be shared with private sponsors, and existing venues should be reused wherever possible.

In conclusion, although international sporting events can bring prestige and excitement, I believe they rarely justify such large amounts of public money, and governments should invest in projects with longer-lasting benefits.