Some countries achieve international success by building specialized facilities to train top athletes instead of providing sports facilities that everyone can use. Do you think it is a positive or negative development？

Several states establish top

infrastructures

for elite sportsmen to gain triumph worldwide rather than offer these

infrastructures

to most residents as everyday items available. In my view,

this

is a negative development, which is stemmed from some reasons.

To begin

with, those particular setups are expensive, putting a tremendous burden on the budget of the government. Splurging on sports

infrastructures

may cause limited spending on social welfare fields,

for instance

, resulting in the decreased quality in education, medical system, transportation and so on, which is more beneficial to lift the living standards of residents than just a few gold medals prized by Olympic Games.

Moreover

, purchasing topmost

infrastructures

does considerably less good than building wide-used facilities in a wide term. The reason is

because

Replace the word

that

show examples

that the upper facilities could only be made use of by a few numbers of users,

nevertheless

, athletic setups constructed for daily application provide access for citizens of all ages to utilize them, which not only build up their bodies but

also

maintain their health and fitness. The general boost of people's physical wellbeing makes more sense than improved scores of a few professional athletes undoubtedly. In conclusion, making sporting facilities for every resident is more important than purchasing the uppermost

infrastructures

for the professionals.

Thus

, it is a negative development method for the government to spend too much on top sports set-ups.