Many people want their country to host an international sporting event. Others believe that international sporting events bring more problems than benefits. Discuss both views and state your opinion. There is frequently great competition to host international sporting events. Not everyone, however, believes that the price involved in hosting such events is worthwhile. For me, this is an understandable point of view and perhaps not every country should try and stage international sporting events. The major argument against hosting international sporting events is financial. Typically, it can cost several million pounds to build the arenas and modernise the infrastructure so that it can cater for the athletes and the spectators. This money, it is argued, would be better spent on welfare and education programmes that provide direct support for the population. Indeed, some governments have incurred so much debt through hosting the Olympic Games that they have had to reduce spending on other social programmes. While there is some merit in that argument, hosting sporting events does also bring significant benefits. First among these is the honour and prestige it brings to the host country because that country will be the centre of the sporting world for the duration of the event. For many people this is beyond any price. More than that, if the authorities plan carefully, they can use the occasion of the sporting event to help finance public works that benefit the whole population in the long term. For example, the village for the athletes can be transformed into public housing and the various stadia can be used to build a sporting legacy for future generations. My own view is that it is an honour for a country to host a major sporting event. However, if a government wishes to bid for an international event to be staged in its country, it should ensure it has sufficient funds to maintain spending on other projects.