Some people argue governments should offer more support to art, while others want to fund athletics instead. From my perspective, I prefer to support more on athletics. I am going to elaborate this point in following paragraphs.

Funding athletics brings considerable profits to the country. For example,the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games,the most splendid and lavish ever, put China on the map in the athletic world and showed the power of Chinese society. If someone won a gold medal, there is no doubt that he is honorable. Further, the country that wins will be respected by other countries. Thus, more business investments can focus on this country. The country would end up with enhancing economic development. In the terms of profits, funding more on athletics is wiser.

Moreover, supporting more on arts is of no use to country’s advance. If the governments support more on art than athletics, it means the governments have not paid enough attention to athletics. With the fact that countries don’t get any visible gain, their national power improves slowly. Thus, the governments should focus more on practical fields such as economic, sports games, standard of living, and so on. Nowadays, the mainstream value deems that a country isn’t considered a powerful country without enough gold medals. In other words, a nation can improve its international status by supporting more on athletics.

More aid on athletics also in lead people to put more stress on exercise. Nowadays people are taking a busy life. There is less time for them to balance the work and life, not to mention their health. So more fund on athletics show the decision of governments to appeal people take their health seriously. Thus, there can’t be so many deaths called by less exercise.

So, the points I just described express which opinion I prefer. Supporting more on athletics not only make considerable profits for governments but also lead people to attach importance to health. In short, funding more on athletics is better.

When it comes to whether to provide more financial support to art than to athletics, there always are some people arguing that governments should offer more support to art, while others disapprove. From my perspective, I prefer that the former proposal is wrong. There need more sophisticated thought about this issue.

There is no such judgment that art is more important than athletics. Though art does inspire humans a lot in all fabrics of society. It could not come to conclusion that this field is more vital to humans than athletics. Sports games always pursue the positive goal that achieving higher, faster and stronger. It is well known that humans indeed benefit from this goal. In some situations, athletics could offer more directly interests to the whole country and civilians. For example, In the Olympic Games held in Beijing in 2008, the most splendid and lavish game ever, athletics all over the world competed together to get higher grades in humans’ history. If someone got a gold medal, there is no doubt that he was honorable. Further, the country the winner represented would receive respects from other countries. The delight of winning would pull economic flourish, through such wins, all countries could benefit from it.  In this term, how could people endorse that governments should offer more aids to art?

If the governments support more on art than athletics, it means that country has not paid enough attention to athletics. Well, countries couldn’t get any visible gains.Thus, the governments should focus more on practical fields such as economic, sports games, standard of living, and so on.  Nowadays, the mainstream value deems that a country isn’t considered a powerful country without enough gold medals . In other words, a nation could improve its international status by supporting more on athletics.

So, the points I just described express which opinion I lean. Though art seems to be more vital to humans, it is more practical to think from the country’s angle. For more benefit a country can get, we should aid more on athletics.