Some today feel that international sporting events are an opportunity to encourage world peace between traditionally opposed nations. In my opinion, the shared comradery is marginal enough as to be largely meaningless.
Proponents would argue that these events strengthen national bonds, particularly for the host country. Take the recent Olympics in Brasil as an example. Brasilian citizens and the government may have harboured animosity and prejudices towards various other countries where they have political, geographic, or economic ties. These predispositions might soften in citizens as they replace their generalised impressions with the real people now staying in their hotels, eating in their restaurants and passing them on the street. Governments will also have the opportunity to meet with foreign leaders in a spirit of friendly competition and without the tension of trade or military talks.
Nonetheless, only a very small percentage of people will be influenced in this way relative to the global interactions that actually impact world peace. A good example of this would be the complex civil war taking place in Syria. Very few citizens in a war-torn nation care about sporting events, if they have any representatives, and the leaders may not even make the trip. They will be more concerned about which sides Russia and the United States are supporting and the outstanding problems that led to conflict in the first place. World peace is further imperiled by other Middle Eastern countries with a religious affiliation who are unlikely to be pacified through a football match. Competitions like the Olympics and World Cup cannot in any way alter these underlying sources of conflict.
In conclusion, sports tournaments have very little role to play in a more peaceful world. Countries should take part in them to stir up national pride and achieve glory, not as a means to an unachievable political end.
Some
today
feel that international sporting
events
are an opportunity to encourage
world
peace between
traditionally
opposed nations. In my opinion, the shared
comradery
is marginal
enough
as to be
largely
meaningless.
Proponents would argue that these
events
strengthen national bonds,
particularly
for the host
country
. Take the recent Olympics in
Brasil
as an example.
Brasilian
citizens and the
government
may have
harboured
animosity and prejudices towards various other
countries
where they have political, geographic, or economic ties. These predispositions might soften in citizens as they replace their
generalised
impressions with the real
people
now
staying in their hotels, eating in their restaurants and passing them on the street.
Governments
will
also
have the opportunity to
meet
with foreign leaders in a spirit of friendly competition and without the tension of trade or military talks.
Nonetheless,
only
a
very
small
percentage of
people
will
be influenced
in this way relative to the global interactions that actually impact
world
peace. A
good
example of this would be the complex civil war taking place in Syria.
Very
few citizens in a war-torn nation care about sporting
events
, if they have any representatives, and the leaders may not even
make
the trip. They will be more concerned about which sides Russia and the United States are supporting and the outstanding problems that led to conflict in the
first
place.
World
peace is
further
imperiled by other Middle Eastern
countries
with a religious affiliation who are unlikely to
be pacified
through a football match. Competitions like the Olympics and
World
Cup cannot in any way alter these underlying sources of conflict.
In conclusion
, sports tournaments have
very
little
role to play in a more peaceful
world
.
Countries
should
take part
in them to stir up national pride and achieve glory, not as a means to an unachievable political
end
.