Should governments spend more money in support of the arts than athletics?

Should governments spend more money in support of the arts than athletics?

I believe it is the right thing to do for the governments to distribute more money into activities which are more beneficial for the society, namely the people and the city. Therefore it is clear to me that supporting art with more money would be indeed the correct choice.

Comparing to athletics, art is closer to non professional people. It does not only play a role in the form of podium art such as concerts or exhibitions, but also melts into every details of our daily lives. In the contrary, athletics especially those would need governmental support would be at a highly specialized level. And that makes it distant and thus less attractive for the audience.

In another aspect, art stimulates the economy stronger than athletics. In 2005, the Spanish government has made their decision to investigate over million euros extra in all sorts of art projects, and was eventually rewarded with twice as much money back right in the same year. There are little examples of athletic events which can gather a great amount of international audience, whereas international events in different areas of art happens almost everyday. The stream of people is greatly stimulative to the local and national business, because every single tourist converts in to income for the government.

At last, a remarkable advantage in art, is that it creates culture and colorizes the history of a city and nation. There are a lot of small villages which are not necessarily prosperous but more interesting and enjoyable than the big cities. The profound influence of art to a city is far beyond money and not present in athletics.

As a conclusion, art is more relevant to people’s lives in both cultural and economical senses. And it leaves a city and nation more spirits and beauty to track on hundreds of years later. Therefore supporting art shall be more prioritized and encouraged by the government.