IELTS Writing Task 2 — Sport and Health: a Band 9 sample answer

How a government chooses to spend its limited sports budget is a question with real consequences for public health. Some argue that this money is better channelled into grassroots participation than into professional teams and elite competitors. I largely agree with this view, although I believe a modest investment in top-level sport remains worthwhile.

The strongest argument for prioritising ordinary citizens is the sheer scale of the benefit. Encouraging the general public to be active, by building local parks, pools and cycle lanes, can dramatically reduce rates of obesity, heart disease and other lifestyle illnesses. This, in turn, lightens the load on health services and saves taxpayers a fortune in the long run. Elite athletes, by contrast, represent only a tiny fraction of the population, so funnelling vast sums towards them benefits comparatively few people directly.

That said, professional sport should not be neglected entirely. Successful athletes inspire millions to take up exercise, acting as powerful role models for children in particular. When a national team triumphs, interest in that sport invariably surges, and many spectators are motivated to start playing themselves. A balanced policy, therefore, would devote the lion's share of funding to community facilities while still nurturing promising talent.

In conclusion, although elite sport carries genuine value, I firmly believe that public money should chiefly serve the health of the many rather than the glory of the few. Investing in everyday fitness is, ultimately, an investment in a healthier and more productive nation.