Some countries invest in specialized training centers for top athletes rather than in public sports facilities. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

Most of the countries in the world spend their federal budget for particular athletes and for practising centres rather than improve the community sports facilities. Although these both ways should improve. According to my opinion, I believe that this is a negative development of a country. Therefore, both these views will be discussed in this essay. On the one hand, many nations in the world are used to invest in several sports as their games. Hence, the government concerns regarding some sports rather than any other sports. It would be a golden opportunity for selected athletes, such as swimming and running. Players can be trained by international coaches. For instance, when a nation invests money for selected games, it can get even the Olympic event trainers for athletes. Therefore, they can definitely focus on the international level and open to the world. On the other hand, though some countries keep their eye only for the special athletes and sports training institutes, improving community sports facilities is the most useful aspect for a rustic. It would be a reason to find out new skilled sportsmen from rural villages. To illustrate, many famous runners have been selected to the Olympic thanks to the public facilities in Sri Lanka. Invest in public sports is the best way to improve athletics in a provincial. In conclusion, although most of the nations in the globe spend only for significant athletes and centres, spending wealth for public sports centres is the best way to develop the talents of the sportsmen. It would be a great investment for the future of a country.