Public funds should be spent on individuals who participate in international sports events rather than on local sports players.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

In times of austerity the choise to support international sport starts or common people should be made. I think that there must be a balance, based on long-term objectives to know how to invest public fundings.

Generally speaking, well-known individuals from the world of sports might be examples of well-being and good health for the rest of the society. There is evidence that people who do sports have fewer coronary hearth diseases, less obesity, less frecuencies of emergency and hospital admission. It would appear that if public funds are invested in advertissing and promoting personal sport careers or international events, a greater number of the general population can be appealed and inspired to follow the example, becoming, by this way a good government investment.)

On the other hand, policies made to create innovated public facilities may reach more people with the same amount of funding. A good illustration of this could be the construction of a public swimming pool or a football pitch where everyone could come an play and learn to love sport. The only argument against these policies could be that “local policies have local results”. A country will not be famous for its number of district’s swimming pools but for the name of those who had international success and learnt the value of swimming in that public pool in their childhood.

In conclusión, I think that public funding should be invested in international sports events/players as well as in local sport players. I do not agree with the statement in the question because both are equally important and the responsability of the state as manager of every public funds.