IELTS Discussion Essay on World & Money & Culture

People have different opinions about the effects of hosting sports events on a country's progress. Some people support it due to its advantages, while others disagree. I personally believe the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Those against hosting these events usually point out economic and social issues. They argue that it can be a huge financial load for the host country because building and maintaining facilities can be very expensive. This argument is supported by Greece's economic crisis after the 2004 Olympics, which was partly due to the high cost of hosting. Critics also say that these events often result in local people being forced to move, as cities need to clear areas for stadiums and other buildings. For example, the 2016 Rio Olympics caused many Brazilians to lose their homes, showing the social impact of these events.

However, I agree with those who see the potential benefits of hosting sports events. The main argument is that it can boost the local economy by attracting tourists. Big events like the World Cup or the Olympics bring in millions of visitors, which helps the hospitality, retail, and transportation industries. This is proven by the 2012 London Olympics, which significantly increased tourism and helped the city's economy. Additionally, these events often lead to better public facilities because of the need for infrastructure development. Even though the initial cost can be high, the long-term benefits like better transport networks and sports facilities can improve the quality of life for locals.

In conclusion, while there are valid points against hosting sports events, such as the financial strain and possible displacement of locals, I think the benefits like economic growth from tourism and infrastructure improvement make a stronger argument.

There exists a dichotomy of views regarding the impact of hosting sporting events on a country's development, with some advocating for its benefits, while others dissent. My inclination leans towards the former, as I perceive the potential advantages to outweigh the drawbacks.

Those who oppose the notion of hosting such events often cite economic and social reasons. The primary argument is the colossal financial burden it imposes on the host nation, as infrastructure development and maintenance can drain national coffers. This argument gains credence when considering examples like Greece, which faced a severe economic crisis post the 2004 Olympics, partly due to the enormous cost of hosting. Additionally, critics argue that these events often lead to displacement of local communities, as urban spaces are cleared to make way for stadiums and other facilities. The 2016 Rio Olympics, for instance, saw thousands of Brazilians being evicted from their homes, highlighting the social cost of such events.

However, I align myself with those who see the potential benefits of hosting sporting events. The first point of contention is the boost to the local economy through increased tourism. Events like the World Cup or the Olympics attract millions of visitors, thereby stimulating the hospitality, retail, and transportation sectors. This argument is substantiated by the case of London, where the 2012 Olympics led to a significant surge in tourism, contributing to the city's economic growth. Furthermore, these events often act as catalysts for infrastructural development, leading to improved public facilities. While the upfront cost may be high, the long-term benefits, such as improved transportation networks and sporting facilities, can enhance the quality of life for residents.

In conclusion, while there are valid arguments against hosting sporting events, such as the financial burden and potential displacement of communities, I believe the benefits, including economic stimulation through tourism and infrastructural development, make a stronger case.