There are many who claim hosting the Olympics unproductively diverts money from more essential areas. In my opinion, despite these valid objections, there is still great value in the unifying impact of the Olympics.
Critics argue there are urgent needs that should be prioritized over a sporting event. This applies to every nation but particularly developing ones. For example, the Olympics in Brazil in 2016 led to mass unrest and protests as locals felt too much money was being spent on the event and not enough on helping to alleviate worsening conditions among underprivileged segments of society. The government could have instead improved the infrastructure used by millions daily, invested more in education, or built more hospitals. These allocations of the federal budget would not only serve an immediate purpose but also have a longer-lasting effect than the Olympics.
Nonetheless, most Olympic games are sponsored by developed nations and they occur very rarely which justifies their efforts to unify. The countries competing in the Olympics often have fraught international relationships and competition can counter-intuitively decrease tensions. Supporters may root against other countries at specific instances, such as when watching a football match, but they are united in their love of sports and the shared viewing experience. This has the subtle but powerful unconscious result of fostering greater empathy between diverse ethnic and national groups. When an individual roots for their country and their athletes, and sees other individuals partaking in the same ritual, they will realize that association within a larger tribe is an essential, common human trait.
In conclusion, despite the seemingly inefficient allocation of funds, the Olympics are a mass, cooperative effort that has tremendous value. Therefore, countries should consider hosting the games a great honor.
There are
many
who claim hosting the Olympics
unproductively
diverts money from more essential areas. In my opinion, despite these valid objections, there is
still
great value in the unifying impact of the Olympics.
Critics argue there are urgent needs that should
be prioritized
over a sporting
event
. This
applies to
every nation
but
particularly
developing ones.
For example
, the Olympics in Brazil in 2016 led to mass unrest and protests as locals felt too much money was
being spent
on the
event
and not
enough
on helping to alleviate worsening conditions among underprivileged segments of society. The
government
could have
instead
improved
the infrastructure
used
by millions daily, invested more in education, or built more hospitals. These allocations of the federal budget would not
only
serve an immediate purpose
but
also
have a longer-lasting effect than the Olympics.
Nonetheless, most
Olympic games
are sponsored
by developed
nations and
they occur
very
rarely which justifies their efforts to unify. The
countries
competing in the Olympics
often
have fraught international relationships and competition can counter-
intuitively
decrease tensions. Supporters may root against other
countries
at specific instances, such as when watching a football match,
but
they
are united
in their
love
of sports and the shared viewing experience. This has the subtle
but
powerful unconscious result of fostering greater empathy between diverse ethnic and national groups. When an individual roots for their
country
and their athletes, and
sees
other individuals partaking in the same ritual, they will realize that association within a larger tribe is an essential, common human trait.
In conclusion
, despite the
seemingly
inefficient allocation of funds, the Olympics are a mass, cooperative effort that has tremendous value.
Therefore
,
countries
should consider hosting the games a great honor.