Prompt: art versus athletics Question: Do you agree that government should spend more money in support of arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams?

Although both arts and sports are important to society, based on government should bring as much welfare as possible to people, I would not agree that governments should spend more money to support arts than athletics. Ċ Arts could be in everywhere and in every ways, there's no certain types of art with certain prices. Therefore, it means that the great works might not come from money. Moreover, arts are subjective, it's hard to define which kind of art should be supported, but the resources are limited, it would be hard for government to decide whom or where to invest in. Ċ As for athletics, they could bring very good reputations to the country if they do well in international games such as Olympics or World Cup. Sports are much more acceptable and understandable to people than arts, which could bring large population to watch the games and get huge advertisement income. Once more and more people watch the games, they would practice the sports and make themselves healthy, which is definitely important to a country. For example, NBA is extremely popular in the US so a lot of American would play basketball, which means it turns to be a quite healthy habit among them. NBA creates huge imcome every seasons, millions of audiences watch NBA from all over the world, brands who sponsor NBA show such as NIKE and Adidas get high attention from audience so they earn more money, the whole benefit is quite significant. Ċ Therefore, I believe that it would be more beneficial for the government to invest more money to athletics than arts, as sports event could bring really good income and benefit, and make everyone to get a healthy habbit and live a healthy life.