Some people think that hosting international sports events may be beneficial for a country. Discuss both views.

Several individuals are of the outlook that being the host of worldwide sporting activities accrues positive externalities for a nation whereas others may claim

otherwise

.

This

essay agrees with the viewpoint of benefits gained. It discusses these

first

,

such

as financial and public relations advantages, but

likewise

delves into the opposite view of increased crime rates. The view that hosting world sports is advantageous for society is true to a greater extent because the game-holder becomes the centre of global attention, not only in sporting terms but

furthermore

in other aspects like culture and business climate.

Therefore

, the state could benefit tourists, investors, and grow its economy as was the case in South Africa post 2010 soccer world cup when it emerged as the leading tourist and investment destination, and

consequently

financial hub of the continent.

On the other hand

, being the destination for global sporting events could be fatal, increasing crime rates and general insecurity.

This

is due to the rapid rise in the inflows of populations in the receiving area as witnessed in the recently ended Olympics in Japan. But

such

population increases are normally followed by tight security mechanisms implemented by the host government in collaboration with the governing body of the sport in question to ensure smooth proceedings.

For example

, the South African National Police Department in 2010 hired an extra 5000 police officers and sent them to different parts of the country to maintain sanity during the procession of the games. In conclusion, providers of venues for international games certainly accrue monetary and visibility advantages, but related negative effects like crime must not be overlooked.

Nevertheless

, despite the cons discussed,

this

essay still concurs with the perspective that holders of world sporting competitions are indeed more beneficial.