Sports · 7 đề · 1000+ Phrases

International sporting events have become increasingly common in recent decades. While some people reckon that host countries might have to deal with a sudden surge in crime or involve themselves in an exhausting preparation process, more importantly I believe they can take the opportunity to boost tourism.

To begin with, although events such as these are a great opportunity for countries to gain global exposure, there are present significant challenges. Firstly, records have shown that there is a twofold increase in crimes such as prostitution and petty theft when a country organises an event such as the World Cup or the Olympics. Furthermore, the process of preparing for these events is often demanding. For the World Cup 2014, it took Brazil five years to revitalise its cities and construct various facilities including stadiums and indoor athletics arenas to meet the world-class standard set by FIFA.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that international sporting games can potentially stimulate the tourism sector. By being the host, a country is able to attract a large array of athletes and their supporters from all around the world. This sudden increase in visitors will likely proliferate the sales of products and services such as accommodation and transportation within the period of the events. In the longer term, it is a great chance for the host nations to promote their culture on a global stage. For example, since the pictures of beautifully garnished Vietnamese dishes made headlines during the SEA Games in 2003, Vietnam has been branded as the “Kitchen of the world” and a must visit destination for global food lovers. This obviously does wonders for the Vietnamese economy.

In conclusion, although sports events come at the expense of a few immediate problems, the benefits of boosted gross sales and cultural promotion are of greater significance. In my opinion, host nations can also consider the option of sharing an event with a neighboring country to spread the risk and still enjoy the lucrative long-term benefits.

Extreme sports such as rock climbing or cave diving have gained an increasing popularity in recent years. Despite legitimate potential benefits they might offer, I am completely for a ban of these sports considering historic damages to both players and state budget.

The main disadvantage for participants is that it puts their health at risk. Although protective equipment and training courses have improved in recent years to support extreme athletes, a high number of cases of severe injuries and deaths are reported every year relative to other sports. According to a report by the Joint Hamalyan Committee, there have been about a hundred climbers and eight thousand others who have lost their lives on Mount Everest and at base camps respectively over the last 10 years, and thousands of other risk-takers have lost extremities such as fingers and toes due to extreme cold and shortage of food supplies during snowstorms.

At a social level, national governments must bear the financial burden of large-scale rescues. Clear evidence of this comes from the costly operation to save twelve members of a junior Thai football team who were trapped in an underground cave in 2016 while participating in a cave diving competition. During the operation, the Thai government had to seek the assistance of not only Thai professional scuba divers but also deep-sea diving experts from France and Australia who were equipped with cutting-edge rescue technology. Though the team was successfully rescued, it cost the Thai government up to three million dollars to cover the expenses of such renowned personnel and expensive equipment. This cost could have been saved and spent on building schools or hospitals if dangerous cave diving had been previously banned in the country.

In conclusion, due to the detrimental effects on the athletes and governments that extreme sports can cause, a complete ban of these games should be introduced. In my opinion, governments should immediately close all such sites and prohibit all adventure games organisers from operations.

The importance of sports in society has recently drawn much attention. While many consider them purely to be recreational activities, I believe they can contribute to a more united world.

On the one hand, there are many individuals who play sports purely for pleasure. A clear example in this case is the casual football matches after working hours in various countries including Vietnam. Participants usually gather at local playgrounds or parks, forming teams and joining amateur pick-up matches. Their motivation is simply to release pressure and tension in a healthy and controlled way, taking a break from their everyday responsibilities including both work and domestic tasks. Very few of them indeed have the intention to start a career in sports or to develop professional networks when playing. The results of these matches are also of little significance to their local communities.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that sports are vital in uniting nations. This can be seen in the case of the ping-pong matches that bridged the gap between the US and China in the early 1970s. This series of matches took place in the world table tennis championship in 1971 between players from each country, marking a thaw in pan-Pacific relations that paved the way for a visit to Beijing by a US president. Eventually, the US lifted the embargo on China, and both countries welcomed the resumption of more harmonious relations. This case is evidence that sports might play an indispensable part in easing tension and establishing relationships at an international level.

In conclusion, although the role of sports might be underestimated by many people, I contend that they are an effective instrument to forge initial relationships between nations. Therefore, international sporting events such as the SEA Games or the Olympics should be better invested and prioritised by hosting countries.

The discourse regarding the impact of product advertising in sporting events has generated controversy in recent years. Some argue that corporations exert a positive influence on sports since they promote products that can encourage participation in sports. In my estimation, I do not agree with this sentiment since corporations promote products that enable a sedentary lifestyle.

Admittedly, corporations can use these events to promote products that will encourage active lifestyles. To cite an example, during the 2014 World Cup, Adidas released the official tournament ball named ‘Brazuca’ and heavily promoted it on their social media accounts including Twitter and Instagram. The company made a concerted effort to advertise the ball’s design, aerodynamics and production process. The marketing push behind ‘Brazuca’ during the 2014 World Cup actively encouraged viewers to buy the ball and it sold out in Adidas stores worldwide. This encouraged and continues to exert an influence on the exercise habits of millions around the world. This instance clearly illustrates the positive influence corporations can exert when promoting their products during sports events.

However, corporations have more often been known to promote products during sports that precipitate passive lifestyles. For instance, McDonald’s was the official restaurant of the 2012 Olympics in London. During the event, they released an exclusively branded menu that included burgers, fries and milkshakes. According to a spokesman for the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges, the menu was recklessly unhealthy as the average calorie count for each item was over 900. When combined together to make a meal, the calorie count reached upwards to 3600, which is nearly twice the recommended intake for the average adult. Essentially, McDonald’s was promoting obesity in countries such as England where such a lifestyle is becoming more prevalent and represents a present danger to public health.

In conclusion, while there have been instances of corporations having a positive influence on sports through the promotion of their products, the evidence to the contrary is more substantial. In the future, sporting event organizers should be more discriminatory in choosing sponsors, preferring preferably those with products that spread a meaningful message.