Q:Some people argue that the pressures on international sportsmen and sportswomen kill the essence of sport-seeking for personal excellence. Children kick a football around for fun. When they get older and play for local school teams, they become competitive but they still enjoy playing. A single person's representing his country cannot afford to think about enjoying himself; he has to think only about winning. He is responsible for an entire nation's hopes, dreams and fame. A good example is the football World Cup. Football is the world's most important sport. It is even more important now that the United States is seriously taking it up. Winning the World Cup is perhaps the greatest of international sporting success. Mention "Argentina" to someone and the chances are that he'll think of football. In a sense, winning the World Cup "put Argentina on the map". Sports fans and supporters get quite irrational about the World Cup. People in England felt that their country was somehow important after they won in 1996. Last year thousands of Scots sold their cars, and even their houses and spent all their money traveling to Argentina where the finals were played. So am I arguing that international competition kills the idea of sports? Certainly not! Do the Argentineans really believe that because eleven of their men proved that most skillful at football, their nation is in every way better than all others? Not really. But it's known that you won, and that in one way at least your country is best. What is the writer's attitude towards international games? A) Nations that meet on football are unlikely to meet on a battle field. B) Nations that win in international games prove best on the sports field at least. C) Nations that win the football World Cup are considered as best in all ways. D) Nations that give much attention to international competitions are world-famous in many ways.
A:
B