Prompt: some employers offer their employees subsidized memberships of gyms and sports clubs, while others see no benefits of doing so.

In this day and age, whether the managers provide sponsored memberships of gyms and sports clubs for their employees brings integral benefits or not remains a contentious debate among people. Some people may assert that there exist numerous examples of proffering funded memberships ameliorates the productivity of the company. On the contrary, it’s posited to be excessive. The following essay will bring both sides into discussion. On one hand, subsidized memberships will serve as an incentive for employees to work harder. Provided that they avail themselves of these memberships, employees will achieve a balanced lifestyle between work and health. By this virtue, job satisfaction will augment, leading to an enhancement in the employees’ input and, consequently, the firm’s output. Therefore, proffering funded gym memberships will ensure the company’s prosperity. On the other hand, opponents of providing subsidized memberships postulate that the contrary can not guarantee the level of effectiveness of this offer. Spending too much time and funds on incentives may deteriorate the company’s financial situation, which includes profit, commission, and salary. In consequence, the possibility of redundancy may occur due to inadequate capital. These aforementioned opinions appear to be quite powerful. Having taken everything into careful consideration, I would aver that the proponents of sponsored membership contention have yet to form an accurate standpoint. It would be more logical for employees to balance work and health, which would allow for an increment in the employees' productivity.