Is sport fair when money differs?
Discussion question | This is for ages 14 to 16
The Winter Olympics and Paralympics are also known as the Winter Games. Some countries or sporting organisations can give their athletes more funding to spend on the latest sports technology. Is this fair?
Some countries invest more in sport, so their athletes have access to better technology and training facilities. Can the Winter Games still be fair if some athletes start with big financial advantages?
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think [your opinion] so therefore the Winter Games [are/are not] equal and fair because [the reason for your opinion]. However, others might feel that [an opposite perspective].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (106)
I think it is not fair for some athletes to have the advantage of extra money, so therefore the Winter Games are not equal, because it means they get a headstart in the competition.
However, others might feel that as far as technology goes, it alone can't help you win. Ambition and determination are needed in order to succeed and those are not so easily bought with money. Actually, an athlete who is at a disadvantage might train a lot harder than one that isn't, just to try to balance things out. This can result in a competitor better prepared, but with limited equipment and another athlete with greater resources, but less acquired skills. Now, I think this sends the message that it's totally fine for these differences to exist. But it isn't. It is not okay for participants to work so hard and then lose because someone else has better shoes, for example.
I mentioned that some might train harder in order to balance things out. But what about the ones that may resume to cheating when they feel a sense of inequality? They will most certainly be disqualified, but it's not their fault for the system being this way. That's why I believe participants should all have if not the same, then similar equipment. Chances need to be evened out for everybody.
I agree! All athletes in the winter games should be allocated the same amount of resources and extra funding should be curbed. When another sport organization is offered more money than the other, the team is capable of getting things like advanced facilities that the other can't attain. I believe, if I'm not wrong, that fair play is the core of sporting. How then can equality be achieved if a nation funds its own sports team and another does not? In summary financial advantages should be even. This will make competitiveness and hard work increase and above all, promote fairness.
I agree because I believe that money in sports is bound to vary though some may say that the games may not be fair.
Nevertheless, I personally believe that sports teams can never have the same financial status due to factors like some teams having more sponsorship deals and more fan engagement. As a citizen of Nigeria, I have been intrigued by this question which got me contemplative on my response, in spite of that, I can not seem to wrap my head around teams having the same financial status.
On the other hand, I sense the need for athletes and sports men and women to put in more work in their training activities. Some may argue the facts that richer teams tend to perform more due to their acquisition of advanced technologies boosting there performance but I feel it is not always like that. I have seen teams like Manchester United who have been ranked as one of the richest clubs in the world, which despite all that, they still often struggle to win championships like the champions league and even the premier league.
Money is not always the cause of the success in sporting teams other factors like good strategies and good management also have a huge role to play in sports. For example, in the the just concluded formula 1 season of 2025, we can see teams like the Williams racing which was one of the smallest formula 1 teams with limited budgets, thrived due to determination and passion making them one of the midfield threats in Formula 1. Money may vary in sports but with hard work, resilience, passion and good management, a team can be unstoppable.
Hi, I'm Valentina, a senior legal counsel at an international financial institution. My daily responsibilities include negotiating commercial contracts, interpreting laws & regulations as well as advising clients on various legal matters in the area of investment management. A follow up question for you: how would you go about making sports competitions fairer?
I hear your opinion ,but we must be realistic some countries are more wealthy than others.Its just fair to let them use their money to win and help their own team its part of the compitition.
I think it’s fair if the athletes aren’t good going in sports since their competitors are always getting to the week point of their skills. It’s like if I said that this team has good captain so there are good athletes but the other team is vise versa so why they can not get a good captain ( which is the technology ).
On the other side, if we said that both teams are week at some points and they are no way getting better so they can both use the same technology. Therefore they both can have better experience.
I agree to this you have a solid point there.
The advantage of more money in the Winter Sports, or sports in general is actually a downside guarantee that is actually fair in my point of view if you think about it, let me explain.
The thing is, sports tend to differ in money according to maybe performance or general reputation according to what you have done, but that is it, money reflects on what you have done, not just given for nothing. Cristiano Ronaldo is one of the highest paid athletes in the world, if not the most and many a people do not question, why, because of his impact in the game, not just because he is who he is, there actually is no head start, as money only is according to impact in the game, it is really to encourage another athlete to be like `I can do so too, I am a human just like him". If they do so much and get paid lowly, it would seem awkward from my point of view, so only your mindset would make yourself think, HEY..THIS ISN'T FAIR. Of course ambition and determination are there, but how do you use those to bolster yourself to perform in-game, it is not really an advantage, but a mini sort of encouragement, it also is fair because they can decide to reject these huge pay sums and there are laws guiding these decisions to increase or reduce pays, which justifies my quotes.
Reason my way of thinking and let me know what you think👍
Well to be honest, I feel like it is fair. The difference in finances of the various athletes participating gives some athletes who are underfunded a laser determination, which usually drives them hard enough to excel in the games. Reliance on technology has made athletes and coaches to change their traditional training patterns and strategies. They now rely on statistics and analytics generated by these equipment and technology they use, significantly changing the way they prepare for such games.
An athlete who trains knowing he or she is at a disadvantage, will train and outwork everyone. I speak for myself when I say this, because I want to be a basketballer in the NBA, and I work extremely hard because I know that Nigeria lacks sports opportunities. I recently just got my first basketball, and ever since I have been training day and night in order to be the best version of myself. Lack of financial support only fuels competitiveness, the will to succeed only becomes more evident, because you alone know your story and the grind which you take to get to the international stage. The zeal to outperform everyone is constant, knowing that the underdog story is the story that makes others to believe, dream and aspire to do more despite not having the constant financial support to do what they want to achieve. So the hustle of an underfunded athlete is not one which goes unnoticed, it is one which can inspire millions, and tell the less privileged that despite coming from little, you can conquer the world.
This is a nice sentiment, lovable_grasshopper -- that the "underdog" will win through sheer determination. But what about when the technology given to some competitors gives a greater advantage even than what you call "the zeal to outperform"? The shoes that elite runners or the swimsuits that elite swimmers wear can give a big advantage in a race...
Well from what I have to say, sports has never been an equal activity. Not all runners have the same characteristics. Some runners have longer and springier legs and larger lung capacity. Same goes for swimmers, some swimmers have huger hands and feet, some have hyper mobile shoulders and ankles. But the case remains the same across all sports, and that is some athletes are naturally gifted with an advantage. A case where technology wants to rival talents, talents would win almost ninety percent of the time. I can agree that sometimes technology can give huge advantages, but that's what makes sports more exciting.
An athlete by the name of Wayde van Niekerk who has scoliosis holds the record of the 400m race. Despite being born with a disadvantage he still competed and managed to hold a record.
Technology is usually defined by who uses it. To one athlete it can give little to no advantages. To another it can be a game changer. This simple analogy is the reality we see in sports. I understand that zeal and passion don't simply make you more talented, but they allow you to succeed despite being at a disadvantage. Elite athletes are made by the story behind them, and this is usually that they never gave up to what seemed like an impossible dream. This is the underdog case I speak off. Sports is not fair, but why give up before you even try. Many athletes despite being at a disadvantage have still exceled, and this is what the fans always look out for. So a case where technology gives more advantages than zeal, that sheer determination of an athlete can simply be enough.
I agree with you lovable_grasshopper lack of funds should be a motivation to athletes because I believe that if you are determined, lack of funds will not be a barrier for you, but instead, it should be a motivation to make you want to do better and make money to improve your training and make a global name for yourself.
I agree with this comment loable_grasshopper because your comments really shows that not everyone around the world has the chance or oppertunity that others might be able to have when money is with them.Your comment is really shows that every athlete need zeal ambition or determination to commit throught day and night to become great or really good at the sport.
Well I think that it is fair when the prize money in sports differs because of the following reasons. Imagine this, a runner is training himself every day to become faster and better so that they can win. As we all know they are some people that are born naturally with the gift of very fast running so most times or instances, they might think (oh I'm very fast in running) so most of them think it is not necessary to train or to push themselves as hard as others and eventually the ones that train themselves very hard every day become faster and better than the ones naturally born fast. So prize money being increased for the fist place or second place is not to intimidate, disgrace or discourage anyone but rather, it is to encourage the others to train themselves harder like the first position/runner up.
The increase of prize money for different position also serves as a reward to those who worked harder and more diligent so that they can keep up he good work and also motivate them to motivate others. It also shows appreciation to the different positions and says "thanks" to them for taking the competition serious and for putting in their best.
With all these my points, I think that the Winter Games are equal and fair when the prizes or money differs. However, others might feel or see a different perspective.
I dont find it to be fair because I feel when they do so, the athletes may not really put in their best because after all they have access to the latest technology.And since sport is all about testing your talents and training I feel that would be a disadvantage on such athletes because they would be actually cheating themselves; why, because if technology is taken away from them, they would be rendered quite useless. Sorry to say. On the other hand, those that are pushing hard but unfortunately have no resources, may feel cheated.
Hi Intelligent Llama, good to see your comment! My name is Radhika and I work at KPMG. I want to pick up on your comment that "the athletes may not really put in their best" if they are benefitting from more financial investment. I wonder what you think about how athletes are selected to join their national team to represent their country? If Country A has lots of money to invest in sport, that means all the athletes in Country A who want to join the Country A national team need to compete with each other, before they even get to join the national team. If they are competing with others who have also benefited from financial investment, do you still think they "may not really put in their best"? Be good to hear your views, and good luck with the rest of the course!
I think it may not seem fair to others but every human has a different way they do their things, so in my opinion it isn't fair but it isn't the wrong thing to do either. The Winter Games are equal because even if people use technology to enhance their performance in the game, it depends on how that person intends to handle and uses it that matters. However, people may think it is used to cheat but even apart from helping the athletes, technology is very useful in the Winter Olympics. It helps in environmental control and provides more advanced safety measures in case of any injuries.
Interesting point about safety, diligent_potato! Do you think this makes a case for every team to compete with the same level of tech?
Thank you very much! From what I can relate to, even if we were to presume that all the athletes and teams use the same level of technology, not all will be exactly the same thing and not all will be able to raise funds to purchase the specific equipment. For instance, let's assume these basketball NBA teams like the Lakers and the Spurs. Let's say Spurs and Lakers both get the same tech to use, but then they are different models or brands, and not every tech company can reach the advancements of others. So I respectfully think it isn't necessary to use the same level of tech to compete, it actually really matters on the team's mindset on how to achieve their goal, with or without technology
Hi, topical talkers, in my opinion, I consider this fair as funding of athletes may not be against the rules; but rather, I feel that teams who show great amounts of effort attracts sponsorship which could grant them the privilege of funds to acquire the necessary training facilities.
I think with the advantage of more funding from sporting organisations in some countries makes the Winter Games not fair. I find this question really interesting because as a fan in figure skating and an Indonesian citizen that has been intrugued by it, this question has been wandering in my head for a while. It is very clear that figure skating athletes from countries that invest more funding, performs better, shown by the previous figure skating womens singles Winter Games 2022 being dominated by Russian athletes. I say this without diminishing their efforts because I know that their preformances are combined efforts from the coaching and the athlete's own efforts and passion to their discipline---only having one of these aspects wont bring the most out of an athletes potential.
But trying to start doing the sport here in my home country seems impossible. First of all, being on the ice isnt even in our nature---we are a tropical country. We are severely lacking in coaches, equipment, only having a few skating rinks---that so only having public skating rink hours---where as other countries have experienced ex-olympian coaches, easier access to equipment where as only having a few physical shops in Indonesia, and more rinks. Not to mention, skaters are most likely from privileged background with money because it is one of the most expensive sports out there. I hope for a day where winter sport athletes representing my country can reach heights I would never imagine happening now. Let me know other opinions!
I think it's not fair so therefore the Winter Games are not equal because athletes with more money will be able to buy more expensive equipment like shoes and those things if their level is low which doesn't matter too much but however on a higher scale for example the coach or the food it matters too much because the food that athletes need does cost too much money and without this healthy expensive diet they wouldn't be in their best fit so they wouldn't be able to do their best and also good coaches cost mush money but you might think if the player is good they wouldn't be affected too much but no a real example in Egypt my favorite team a Alahly had a temporary cheap coach until they get a new one good one and the temporary was there for a few weeks and the team continued losing games but when the new coach came the good one the team won many games with the same players and everything so the coach matters and money is crucial to get a new coach. Another thing is the lifestyle needs money to be good and appropriate. An example is that in the last Olympics Egypt wasn't at its best and we didn't get many medals but one got a gold medal and world record in Pentathlete Ahmed Elgendy because he was from a rich family and got extra training in his lifestyle away from what the country affords which costed much money.
However, others might feel that it is fair because you will get much money and hard work then you deserve it but I don't think so because if you are born in an already rich family then you don't need hard work for the money only focus on the sport which isn't fair
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Please try to include punctuation to help make your points as clear as possible for everyone to read!
With all due respect I cannot simply bring myself to agree with the facts you have stated. Firstly sports has never been a measure of equality, but rather a measure of excellency. If sports was all about being equal, then there would actually be no sports. Every human is different and at that some people have natural advantages, when compared to others. Some have unique physical features, while some have mutations which give them a major advantage.
Secondly, a cheaper alternative does not always mean that something is very bad. Players all over the world are blooming with talent, and the only thing that has to be done, is just to discover them. In football a player is worth how well they play, but not all players were wonders from day one. Some players started of cheap, and later became worth a ton of money, simply showing that talent can manifest even when a team does not have so much funding.
Lastly, technology can make a difference, but I deeply doubt that it can replace passion. Ahmed El-Gendy's story, from what I read on him, was driven by passion and hard work. His mother played a huge role, helping him to train and encouraging him to do his best, so no he did not perform spectacularly because he was wealthy, but he rather performed out of his genuine love for the sport.
More money means better technology, but if you don't really enjoy what you do, you can never outmatch someone who has a dream and vision. Determination and perseverance are the keys that make one succeed. Even if someone does not have so much money, he can out work everyone else and become the best.
from my point of view this is not fair because in winter they have to buy some equipment that are suitable for winter . for example there is some teams that have good supplies while the other teams doesn't have the suitable supplies so that is not fair.
Can you say more on why this is unfair?
From my point of view, this situation is unfair because, during winter, teams are required to buy equipment suitable for cold weather. Not all teams can afford the same level of equipment; some have good supplies, while others lack the necessary resources. As a result, teams do not compete under equal conditions. For a competition to be fair, all teams should have access to the same equipment. Therefore, this situation creates inequality and is unfair, especially for teams from lower-income backgrounds.
Thanks for reading
From my point of view, this situation is unfair because, during winter, teams are required to buy equipment suitable for cold weather. Not all teams can afford the same level of equipment; some have good supplies, while others lack the necessary resources. As a result, teams do not compete under equal conditions. For a competition to be fair, all teams should have access to the same equipment. Therefore, this situation creates inequality and is unfair, especially for teams from lower-income backgrounds.
Thanks for reading
Sports is fair because it depends on their effort and skills. It is fair in the sense that no amount of money can replace years of training, discipline, and physical conditioning. Athletes still have to train many years, maintain peak fitness and body shape and built mental strength and consistency. without those things even best technology won't help. Talent + hard work are non-negotiable.
However, sports can be also be unfair because money can buy 'some' advantages. for example, richer teams can afford better coaching and sports science, advanced training facilities, high-tech equipment and recovery tools, nutritionist, psychologist and data analysis. These things can't compete instead of the athlete, but it can improve performance and reduce injuries. Two athletes with the same effort and skills may not get equal results if one has access to better support.
In my opinion, Winter Games are not completely fair. Sports reward effort and skills, but money can increase chances of success, so I think the Olympics should set strict rules for the equipment and a budget for each sport that all the countries can afford.
I believe that using technology that others can't afford during the Olympics is not fair.
Imagine that two cyclists compete with each other, one depending on his own skills, training and performance and the second one's country can afford efficient technology devices for him that can reduce the air resistance. Is this fair? It is like having a race between someone with light shoes and the other doesn't. It is like racing a sloth with a rabbit. It is like racing a kid with an adult. The Olympics are aiming to celebrate the human's achievements (pure performance) not the technology.
Competing in the Olympics using technology can reduce the hope for poor countries that can't afford technology. This can lead them in losing their dreams and their ambition.
How to solve this?
I think that there are three solutions whether to ban technology from the Olympics or to set some technology devices that all competitors can afford or that the Olympics can make the technology devices available.
To conclude, I think that there must be justice and equity in the Olympics.
Do you think it actually makes sense if some used technology and the others not since they can't afford it?
I completely agree with you, but I just disagreed in one part, banning technology.
I agree with you as you said that it is unfair that a team can provide technology devices and the other not. The athlete provided with big financial advantages is trained well, has everything that would help him while competing and full of energy and encouragement. But poorer teams join competitions afraid, worried and giving their athletes negative energy because they are truly sure that the opposite player is ready and well-trained for the tricks in the match. These tricks are known by the experts brought to athletes in wealthier teams. Experts generally know and noticed the tricks in the previous matches from their experience of many years. So, another condition that would affect athletes in a competition rather than equipment provided is the energy given to them and metal preparation.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF A TEAM CAN CHANGE MANY OTHER AFFECTING FACTORS, ALL OF THEM RELY ON THE FINANCIAL PART
However, technology should not ever be banned. It helps in training, fairness in the Olympics and coaching. It is not a rule that technology should be only used for cheating or giving an additional, super-natural power for an athlete like swimming suits. It can be used to help an athlete know how much time left in the competition, or in races, to measure the distance left to reach the end. I think it is fair in this case, isn't it?
I agree with the other two solution you gave, "OLYMIPCS SHOULD PROVIDE THEM," and " TO AGREE ON SOME TECHNOLOGY DEVICES THAT ALL COMPETITORS CAN AFFORD".
Standardizing the use of sport device is a very interesting point. But tech in sport isn't only about devices. How would you propose standardizing the other advantage richer countries may have, such as access to leading sport science research, nutrition monitoring, muscle recovery methods or advanced training like high-altitude workout? These technologies can also create a gap in performance.
I also agree with you that using technology that others can't afford in the Olympics games is not fair .
Imagine two swimmers are to compete and one of them is using technology so that he will be able to win the race , I don't really think it would be fair, and probably the game would be boring and lot's of people would start to dislike the Olympics.
I agree with you quickwitted_knowledge because you can’t compare athletes if some use technology and others don’t. Especially when only a few have the opportunity to buy these tech devices. What is the point of competitions when you don’t get the same chances? It makes way more sense to score athletes on their performance without using technology. Considering not everyone uses the same.
From my point of view, this is not fair because, in winter, teams have to buy equipment that is suitable for the cold weather, and they need suitable equipment for the weather. For example, some teams have good supplies, while other teams do not have the necessary equipment. the two teams must have the same supplies to be fair Therefore, this situation is unfair.
I don’t think that it is fair because some athletes might not have the money for some equipment as some people do have the money for equipment . So I believe that the winter games are not fair for people that have less expenses than other people. I believe that it is incredibly important to include everyone in everything.
I think all athletes at an Olympic level should be getting the same funding as their competitors, this is to ensure that every competitor gets an equal chance regardless of where they come from. Smaller countries, like ones in Africa, would likely not get as much funding as a country in the USA or Europe, which would put them at an athletic disadvantage . Although sports rely mainly on the determination and attitude in the game, I believe one of the most important steps to winning is preparation and teams with higher funding will automatically be able to supply their athletes with better preparation, like for example; dietitians or training facilities. So, I think the Winter games are for the most part not fair but I am aware that others will have different opinions and I believe this question is not as simple as a yes or no answer, but more as an answer with many contradicting aspects.
I belive that the true test of fairness in sports is the observance of universal laws and the unadulterated display of human potential. Thus, the winter games are fair and equal because, at the moment the starting gun is fired, the athlete's bank account is irrelevant. The test of succses in winter sports is the display of grit, mental toughness, and the product of thousands of hours of greuling practice-traits that cannot be brought with money. While the richer nation may be able to afford the "clutch" instinct or the guts needed to speed down the mountian at breakneck speeds.
The Olympics are a test of who can better maaster the environment or the sport, and their own body, not a test of who has more money or a test of the size of the research budget. In addition, international laws regulate the equipment used,so technology cannot replace the fundamental athleticism needed to win. Ultimately, the games are a fair contest because the playing field is determined by universal rules that prioritize the performance of the athlet instead of their financial statment. The Winter Games is an example of the potential that exist with in the human being, regardless of their wealth. Besides the judges won't decide the winner based on the technology they use at practice. They will decide the winner when the finish first or jump the highest,etc.
Hi, I'm Valentina, a senior legal counsel at a global financial institution. My daily responsibilities include drafting & negotiating commercial contracts, interpreting laws & regulations as well as advising clients on various legal matters in the area of investment management. A question for you: is having a big budget (whether the athlete's, their sponsor's or country's) versus no budget fair in your view? Wouldn't big budget equate to better kit, better equipment, training facilities etc. that, collectively, improve an athlete's performance significantly.
Hi, I'm Valentina, a senior legal counsel at a global financial institution. My daily responsibilities include drafting & negotiating commercial contracts, interpreting laws & regulations as well as advising clients on various legal matters in the area of investment management. A question for you: is having a big budget (whether the athlete's, their sponsor's or country's) versus no budget fair in your view? Wouldn't big budget equate to better kit, better equipment, training facilities etc. that, collectively, improve an athlete's performance significantly.
I think this is fair because, in my own terms I believe the Winter Games are all about planning. A country investing in sport is not a bad thing after all, it's just optional. Your outcome is in your hands, how it comes out depends on you and how you planned for it. I personally feel like investing in sports and games is a good thing though, it help the development of smaller upcoming teams in different areas.
Honestly, I think it's fair. Sports is about the athletes talents, skills and determination. Even though money helps in better facilities and good equipment, I don't think it can actually make an impact in the mindset and determination of the athlete. For example, an athlete performs sport within his society, without given the opportunity to play at national level, he/she can use that medium as a motivation to improve or give up. It actually depends on the athlete's mindset and decision.
Well what I think that is fair because it shows that some countries are more into sports than others and also people who have more technology become more dependent on it and that will give the chance that other counties need to surpass them and take the win for their country.
I think it is not fair because it can discourage athletes from achieving their goal and completely demoralise them, because for those who do not put effort in the activity will end up getting the gold while those that have done everything in their power to get that prize will end up living in doubt because the already have the mindset that money can buy everything. If money differs it shows that the rule ruled out are useless because the number one rule in every competition is no cheating , if cheating prevails then what the point on spending a lot of money of money to organise an event knowing fully well that the number one rule will be violated. So all I am trying to say is that money should not have its way in everything. Thank you.
I feel like countries or sporting organisations can invest more in sporting facilities that they can use to practice and become very efficient but when it comes to actual participation in the winter games, everyone should be allocated the same things because sports should be fair and based on talent and not everyone has sufficient funds to give their athletes the opportunities that the others have and when the games are fair it will show that the athletes that had the opportunity to train with advanced technology are not over dependent on them. Therefore it is not fair for some athletes to have the advantage of money during the games.
I will think that having extra money isn't a problem, unless it's usage doesn't pass the Olympic test (a test that runs on the teams technology to determine whether it's usable or not.)
I think that the competition holder should limit the amount of money each country is able to have and the best part about my thought they could fund other poor but skilled countries.
The only techs that should be used, should only monitor the players health conditions for the sport. As well as some that would improve their skills not give a certain win.
Improving their skills would need an overall improvement for all teams. As some countries have athletes that have a pure skill that if faced with a tech improved skill would fall due to lack of sustainability of heart and breathing rates. Techs can steady up the heart beating and breathing rate.
Tech is for improvement not advantages.
Personally, i think that countries that can not get access to technology have a massive disadvantage because they cannot track their progress over time and cannot get recommendations for future development. countries like Algeria and the Congo-if they had sports teams- can not get the best top-of-the-line tech that can help get the best techniques for exercise and diets for upcoming sports events.
However, the real question is, ''can technology make you physically faster or more aerobically fit?'' the obvious answer to that is no.
a screen and wires can give you a chance to improve, but nothing can beat the natural human spirit of determination and the carefully constructed techniques of traditional exercise.
I think it's very unfair for the athlete because we are turning the winter games into a battle of Corporate budget rather than a battle of human spirits and talents .When a gold medal depends more on the aerodynamics of a suit than the hard work of the person,then we have stopped hosting a sports competition and started hosting an industrial Expo. If rich people get all the advanced facilities as a technique in their sport, then where do the poor people will go? their will be a lack of equality and unity in diversity. I understand that today "money is everything", but a money that is used to destroy hard work losses its value .If an athlete wins because their country could afford more technologies or a $100,000 bobsled, we are not measuring the person's talent,we are measuring a person's bank account . If we continue to let financial power dictate the podium, Are we still showcasing the talents or have been simply created high-stakes auction for medals? At what point does an athlete stop being a competitor, and start being a human Billboard for their country's wealth? So, let's advocate more about this in our future!
I think that because some countries spend more money on sport, the Winter Games aren't fully equal or fair. The Winter Olympics and Paralympics are competitions where athletes from different countries compete to see who performs best. But when some athletes have netter technology and training facilities, they start with an advantage that others don't have. This means that talent and hard work alone isn't always enough.
For example athletes from different countries can train using latest equipment and with better coaches. This helps them improve faster and perform better in competitions. On the other hand, athletes from poorer countries might be just as talented, but they don't get the same support, which makes it harder for them to compete at the same level.
However, others might feel that the Winter Games are still fair because each country chooses how much it wants to invest in sport. Some people also believe that athletes still need skills and determination to win, even with good technology.
Even though this is true, I believe that big financial differences make the competition less fair. For the Winter Games to be more equal, athletes should have similar chances to train and compete, so results depend more on ability and effort not on money.
Actually the answer will be”no” but why? Because if rich clubs enter a tournament, they can buy international players, but local clubs will not know because they do not have the ability to do this, but at the same time, how can this problem be solved? That it remains among the rules of the tournament that money is forbidden to be used, and it is also possible that rich clubs use their money, but talent earns, and this remains hard work from the cheap club, not more, and also money can bribe the referees in the competition, and you can let you put your son or daughter in a competition, and they have no talent in it, such as swimming, maybe your son or daughter has a weak breath under the water or Archery, their eyesight may remain weak, and in more than that too, and there are three things in sports, they defeat money by crushing victory, for example, talent, laws and work, but in a good aspect of this, for example, if we will use money in restoring clubs or supporting beginner athletes And this is the good side
And that was everything bye bye
In my opinion, I strongly feel that when money differs, the game is unfair. Therefore the Winter games are not equal because if you are rich, it can give you a huge advantage because they can have the funds to buy more quality and expensive suits than the people who have a budget. They can also buy more gadgets and could possibly even bribe people for an unfair chance.
I think this is fair because if a country have more fundies it have to use it for equipment or also for new technology. However, others might feel that isn’t fair because new technology can help a lot the performance of a players
Do you think it would be fair if everyone had access to that new technology?
Hello topical talkers, hope you are doing great. The question Is sport fair when money differs? It’s a really interesting question, and honestly, it’s one that a lot of sports fans argue about all the time!
At first, you might think sport is always fair because everyone has to follow the same rules on the pitch or the track. But when you look closer, money makes a huge difference before the game even starts.
If one team has millions of pounds ( that could get them world-class coaches, high-tech equipment and better scouts) and the other team can barely afford new footballs, it doesn't feel like a "level playing field." It’s much harder for a small, local team to beat a giant, rich club, even if the players on the small team work twice as hard.
However, some people say that’s just how life works. Also, we all love an underdog story! There is nothing better than watching a team with no money beat a massive club because they had more heart and better teamwork. That’s what makes sport so exciting—money helps, but it doesn't guarantee a win every single time.
Can you give any examples to help explain your points? It would be great to hear some real situations about underdogs or when two very mis-matched teams have competed against each other.
That is such a brilliant point! You are absolutely right that it is those stories that make the entire debate about money so much more interesting.
One of the biggest examples of money making something feel unfair is with football teams like Manchester City or PSG. The fact that they have billions of pounds means that they can go out and sign the most famous players and build the most expensive training facilities in the world. The end result of this is that they win their league every single year.
But then you also have the incredible story of Leicester City when they won the league in 2016. They are literally a tiny club compared to the massive clubs like Manchester United, and no one thought they had any chance of winning the league at the beginning of the season.
However, the fact that they had less money did not stop them from working so hard together as a team, and they ended up winning the Premier League.
Good comment with great references.
I think it is not fair for the sports organisers to give certain teams money as it is not equal as everyone should have the same equipment so that means the Winter Games are not equal as they get a better chance of winning.
On the other hand tech cant alone make you win as you need qualities of ambition determination and hopefulness to help you succeed so tech can't make you win but it can help you. For example, athletes might have more resources but if you don't have the talent and skill it'll be harder for example Ronaldo he was born into a poor family, but he practised and he dreamed of making family happier. So ambition took over he practised every single day determined, hopeful and now he is living comfortably with his family as a professional so in fact Ronaldo didn't need the tech although it helps, as he already had the talent and ambition.
Concluded , teams should have the same financial funding and advantage to promote fairness and stability so everyone has a chance.
So do you think I have a fair point ?
I think this is a fair point. Do you think it would be difficult to ensure all teams have equal advantage?
I think it'll be easy as the people in charge can disqualify people who don't play fair
i think it is not fair because many countries can’t finance athlets, so those who have an advantage in technologies could have an advantage in victory
i think everyone should start with the same things and if a team cant afford it,then that thing gets out of the competition(obviously only if its not crucial for the game)
I agree because that will make the game more fair and will make teams want to win so they will give more fiances to the athletes so that they will perform better
I think the situation is unfair so therefore the Winter Games are not fully equal and fair. This is because some athletes have access to new equipment and technology that help them train better. For example, this equipment could be a ski that is lighter but stronger, which helps a lot while skiing.
However, others might argue that technology is not everything. Even if you don't have enough money for the latest gear, if you believe in yourself and work as hard as you can, you may still defeat the new technology without needing power-ups to win.
To conclude, I urge everyone to do their best. But to make it truly fair, I suggest that the Winter Olympics should make sure everyone use the same equipment, with the same advantages and disadvantages so the best athlete wins not the best machine.
I completely agree, the situation where a country is highly funded than another for the winter games isn't fair. Just like you establish, some athletes have better facilities and equipment to train with. This is usually a problem for those athletes who do not have equal level of funding. They may decide to give up when the see the performance of the athletes who had the advantage of higher funding and technology.
However, this is not to say that athletes with low funding don't stand a chance. People may think it's fair because they believe that if the athletes give their best, they will succeed.
Well, that's the interesting thing about sports, it's impossible to predict. For example, in the 2017 World Championships, even one of the greatest Jamaican athlete, Usain Bolts, couldn't finish his race due to an unexpected injury. So I think that everyone should try and do their best despite the difference in training technology.
I highly believe that is not fair to have a money advantage due to some countries not having enough money however if all the countries had the same tech it would be a however different topic but I believe it is highly unfair for example in skiing the Normans put a secret tech in the suits giving a better advantage. It would increase their win rate. By giving restraints this is my opinion.
Sports won't be fair when different teams are allocated different resources and finances. Sports bodies should be able to allow only equal amounts of resources and finances ,If economy influences sports then some will not even be able to compete in the winter Olympics or any other sports competition it will not be fair play richer teams could buy the higher advantage extreme technological improvements and training whereas poorer teams will have to really on raw physical training sheer determination and extreme discipline.
@Easygoing_economics thanks for your comment. Can you explain how a sports body might go about allowing "only equal amounts of resources and finances"?
Well, a limit should be specified rather than teams pouring multimillions or billions so that they could easily win the competition with latest technology which may sometimes be inaccessible to the public and poorer or lesser teams are left to manage current resources. If all training materials and resources were equal and finances were kept at affordable limits, then there would be no controversy after during or before the competition because everyone was given the same limit with resources and with finances and the main point is that they were at affordable limits.
Well, it is fair for some countries to have extra money, so the winter games are equal. My reason for saying this is because while I was carrying out some research, I found out that in 1949, a friendly match was held between the Nigerian national team and Marine FC in Crosby near Liverpool. The surprise was that the Nigerian team was playing barefoot, far away from home, but they still managed to get a win of 5-2 against the home team. This shows that they were determined and put their all because they knew that they were up against what seemed to be a better team due to more money, but they still won.
This shows that teams today should not be worried about the amount of money they have because when they see other teams with the latest tech they should be motivated to put in their all and show that raw talent and determination are the real strengths of the team and technology does not determine who wins and who loses.
However Others might disagree due to the fact that tech helps monitor athletes and shows the better lifestyle for them to get fit and be in better condition for the specific sports they are participating in.
That is really interesting - thank you for sharing that case study. Where did you hear about this match?
Originally I heard about it on social media and I thought it was not real but after running some research I found out that it was real. My source of information was www.liverpoolecho.co.uk.
I think that sport is enhanced when money differs as the sport is more prone to innovation and advancements in technology, which ultimately in the long-run will boost the sport's appeal. So therefore the winter games are equal and fair as sports must evolve, however I can see why underprivileged countries may be opposed to the unequal spending on the sport as it makes it harder for them to compete.
Good balance in your comment, appreciating both sides of the equation.
I agree because tech is just there to assist not enhance, by using technology to make players faster and stronger that is just tampering with physical abilities and should be an offence. In the long run the games are a show of sports and not technology so tech is fair but it should be joined with physical power,
I think that it’s unfair when richer countries fund their athletes with high-tech equipment and training facilities. The Winter Olympic itself is to celebrate athletic skills and dedication around the world. Countries like Germany, Norway, and USA have easier access to winter equipment and invest heavily in their sports. Norwegian skiers are very successful because they have access to top-level resources. However, there are athletes in tropical countries out there who don’t have access to winter equipment, advanced training, and a decent coach, yet they have the talent and skill to do it. These athletes work just as hard, but they barely have any access to advanced tools. This inequality could promote discouragement, conflict, cheating, and even bring athletes with high potential to quit. Especially in the Paralympics, technology is highly used. Compare an athlete with a basic prosthetic to someone with a custom-made, high-performance model funded by their country or sports organization. Athletes with basic equipment would clearly be disadvantaged—they would train as hard as they could to balance it out. I think that everyone in a competition should have to train equally as hard, whether they’re advantaged or not.
In conclusion, The Winter Olympics should solely focus on performance—it has always been the main purpose of sports. There should be a set budget for everyone and provided the same equipment to promote fairness. Therefore, I think that it isn’t fair because every country has different economic states and the olympics should measure skill instead of advantage.
Just an addition for my earlier argument: Since there are tropical countries that can’t afford advanced technology and have no access to winter equipment, The Winter Olympics shouldn’t have every country representative. About 25-35% countries have snow in the winter. Athletes from those countries can train regularly without any problems, because more equipment is provided there. However, tropical countries don’t exactly have a place to train. For example, my country, Indonesia. There are definitely many athletes here that have potential in Winter sports, but there’s limited access to equipment. Our country may have a few places to train our athletes, but our Winter equipment is very limited. The only possible way is by purchasing advanced equipment from other countries—it’d be way less affordable, considering that our country primarily focuses on funding football and badminton. I wouldn’t consider that The Winter Olympics is for every country, because only some countries can actually perform to their maximum potential. The Olympics should specialize for countries with snow instead.
I think an equal amount of funding should be given to all countries to make the Winter Games fair, because some countries do not have the assets to acquire the latest technology, therefore it would only be fair if the amount invested is equal. Also, sports should rely on talent, skills and training, and not on technology, so it may seem unfair if a country uses more technology than the others; even when the talent is there, people may argue that the technology is the reason they won. I think its best to keep the amount of funding equal to avoid arguments of whether or not is technology that gave the winning team an edge.
In my opinion i feel that this is fair, by countries giving their donations to their athletes the can get the latest technology for training and equipment for the different games they face, just like the saying what you sow you shall equally reap is a clear statement of what can happen, if a country puts in their all, they shall see great results in what their athletes do, but a country that minimizes what they can do for their athletes will lead to poor results.
Yeah I agree some sports have better access to technology and to help them get better with the money. And some peoples opinions are that technology can help and I agree to some of that but also I think that sometimes sport should be based off talent not technology. like money can help buy the technology and sometimes gives people and advantage but in a lesson we learnt about a week ago with the t-shirts that would predict if you were going to get hurt or not was a good idea.
I think the Winter Games are still meaningful to determining the peak of what humans can achieve (both physically and mentally), however, they cannot be considered fair due to the financial advantages which can directly affect the competition's result. While we would all like to believe money doesn't matter, truthfully, it does. Equipment, training, scientific analysis, data analysis, etc. all require money, and if your sponsor or country is not willing to pay top-Dollar for said things then you are put at a severe disadvantage. This matters less in certain sports but some like bobsleigh or speed skating highly depend on technology and access to trainers and places to train. Determination and skill become limited by monetary investment, which is a dangerous precedent to set. The monetary element might also play a psychological role. Mentality is extremely important for sports. Eddie Hall (the first ever mean to lift 500kg) said that while in the competition he imagined that he was a lifting a car off his kids. How does that relate you may ask? Well, this clearly shows that the mental state you are in has an affect on you. Imagine that this is your only chance and you fumble but you don't have enough funding to continue.
However, others might feel that the Winter Games are fair because all competitors must rely on their dedication and physicality because they all compete under the same blanket of rules. If you take this argument, then funding is a factor just like any other and the actual competition relies in the spirit and pressure every competitor has to adopt and face.
There is a few athletes who can use money to their advantage,and when they do this it becomes less fair. When richer teams play against those that don't have as much it is likely they may use money to get advertisement, when they do this it causes the other teams to earn less.Also teams that use money to get advantages may or may not use bribes. The lesson told us students how athletes need technology for recoveries,apparel, and enhanced beverages. This is a privilege to teams that can afford it, meaning teams that have less can't always have the best equipment. This is why teams with more money might not be as fair to play against.
I think it is completely unfair that some countries fund their athletes to buy the latest sports equipment, because there are 93 countries in the Winter Games and the countries that may not be able to afford to fund there athletes with the latest equipment. This can lead to natural talents from countries that are not as rich to not perform as well, all because of money. So yes, I think the Winter Games should not be about money, but about talent and skill.
I think that giving some athletes much more funding and access to advanced sports technology makes the winter games less fair, so therefore the Winter Olympics and Paralympics are not completely equal and fair. This is because athletes from wealthier countries can afford better equipment, cutting-edge training facilities and expert coaching, which can significantly improve performance. In sports where tiny margins decide medals, even small technological advantages can make a huge difference. As a result, success may depend not only on talent and hard work, but also on how much money a country can invest in its athletes.
However, others might feel that this situation is fair because countries choose how much they invest in sport, and funding is a part of national planning and commitment. They may argue that athletes still need skill, dedication and discipline to succeed and technology alone cannot win medals. From this perspective, the Winter Games can still be fair as long as the rules are the same for everyone, even if resources are not.
I think having a better economy than other teams are fair and equal. Altough some countries gives more fund to their athletes compared to ther country's athletes, for me it's fair. There is no rules that every country's athletes should get the same fund, so there's nothing wrong it. However, most people think this is unfair since the one with better funding could get better equipment, training, and technology. In my opinion, it is fair since each countries have different economic capability and you can't force each country to have the same fund. In other cases, if the sport was popular in the country, the government could spent more in funding them than other sports. In my country, the government gives a lot of fund to the soccer team but other sports could get not even a tenth of their fund. Altough your opponent has better funding, that doen't meant that you're already lost. You could still win through hardwork and determination. But, if other team uses the funds they have to cheat and bribe the organizer, then it's totally wrong and unfair. There's a lot of case where the underdog team eventually went on to win. So it's not unfair, it's just the goverment gives different treatment and funds
No, because different technology’s have different amounts of power. For example, if someone in the Paralympic’s had faster amputee legs, they would be quicker than everyone else because of advanced technology. It doesn’t matter if one country has more money than another, everyone should have a right for true talent, not just a win. People want to see talent, not technology. Take LeBron James for example. He doesn’t need tech to prove his talents. And he’s a world class star! In conclusion, they don’t need to buy technology to prove they are good. They need to prove they have talents.
You make some interesting points @introspective_editor! You say LeBron James doesn't need tech to prove his talents - how is this different to paralympic athletes who might need technology to support their skill?
Paralympic atheletes have suffered from injury and want to continue. Some atheletes (Paralympic) use robotic legs to run, but this might make it unfair. Every athelete has to use the same tech. From educated guesses, I think that AI might analyse the track and when it’s time, the atheletes might run but without their own talents. The atheletes that play fair will probably get last place or near. For example, Ntando Mahlangu used specialised running blades. So the conclusion was that not all tech is fair
Yes I think the Winter Games are fair because if you're a prodigy within your field, you'd still be able to compete with other athletes that may have better training from funds. It is truly skill that matters. Most of greatest athletes didn't start with nepotism, rather they showed their extra ordinary skills and that's what got them in the high leagues.
Although there are some instances where underprivileged athletes tend to fall behind because their lack of financial aid but it is unlikely if the athletes expertise has exceeded exceptionally.
However, others might feel that it is unfair if the athletes aren't prodigies and they need a good training to be phenomenal. Personally the solution to this problem might be placing athletes based on their own leagues categorised by equipment and skills. Yet this solution isn't perfect because it may unfold more unfairness, inequality, and cause athletes to feel inferior.
I believe that unequal funding means that the Winter Games are not entirely equal, as the ability to win can be determined by finances even before the athletes cross the line. In winter sports, small things count, and those who have more money can afford the best skis, sleds, prosthetics, and data analysis training. These may only save milliseconds, but at the top level, milliseconds mean medals. It is hard to say that the Winter Games are equal when the athletes are not starting from the same point. For Paralympians, access to the best adaptive sports equipment can mean the difference between winning and losing, making financial superiority a winning factor instead of mere talent.
But others may believe that the system is fair, as it is not based on cheating but on investment and hard work. They may believe that those who invest more in sports deserve more and that technology cannot replace discipline, perseverance, and years of hard work. There are also international rules that prevent too much difference in equipment, which helps to maintain equality.
In conclusion, while talent and hard work are still important, money still plays a significant role in determining results. If the Winter Games are meant to honor sporting excellence equally, more investment in less-equipped athletes would ensure that medals are won through talent, not money.
I strongly believe sports is fair even when money differs because EARNINGS OF TEAMS ARE DIFFERENT. Teams can not just start and instantly have money it is as a result of their hardwork and achievements. In the world of sports every teams earnings can never be equal the more competitions you win the higher your earnings. Let me use a popular football( soccer) club called REAL MADRID as an example. Real madrid FC is a popular football club which has had so many achievement over the years, achievements like Laliga, Uefa Champions League and so on , which has boosted their earnings. They can afford sports tech and tech enhanced training facilities which can boost their players. Will you call that cheating or effect of their hardwork? Over time because of their achievements they have gained recognition from different organizations like Adidas, HP and Fly Emirates which even makes their earnings high. so, what i am trying to put to you is that the earning of a team which gives them the ability to buy tech does not affect the game of sports negatively rather it enhances their players abilities which makes the game more interesting and lively.
THANKS AND HAVE A GOOD DAY.
Do you think there should be limits on how much technology or resources wealthy teams can use to keep competitions balanced?
In everything we do there should be balance, that a team is wealthy does not mean i they should use their wealth, tech, and resources to intemidate other teams. But, that a team is wealthy does not mean competitions cannot be balanced it's the team's effort that earned them their wealth. Are you trying to say teams cannot be wealthy again so competitions would be balanced as you say? I still strongly stand with my point that sports is still fair even when money, tech and resources differ.
In my opinion, it is not fair that some countries or sporting organisations provide their athletes with more funding this is because it is partial when athletes from wealthier countries have advantage over those from poorer nations because the have athletes from the poorer countries may have more skills but due to unavailability of latest sports technology, they may lose and the main aim of sports which is skill and hard-work is neglected.
More funding for some athletes and less funding for the other creates a scenario of less skill and more money, to me it should rather be a test of how to maximise your available resource to get an effective result because it promotes the spirit of fairness and equality and neglecting these discourage talented individuals with less financial support.
THANKS.
I think it is not fare because it can give a country higher advantage over the other because it can both be because one nation is at war which will take away funding for that aspect due to war and this might be the reason the country losses in some sports because of lack of fund. and that makes it unfair because this gives the opposition avenue to win the match which will weaken the country in any aspect they are struggling with, and the players will feel disappointed that the lost.
THANK YOU
I personally believe that is fair because it can be a way to motivate other competitors and make them want to do their best so that they can win. The other party has an advantage because they have equipment that the other does not, so if he or she wants to win, they are to try to put on maximum effort so that they can either become better or be on the same level with the other.
Money in sports is a double edged sword that makes the game exciting but less equal. Money allows wealthy nations and teams to afford high tech supplies, that poor players can't get. beyond gear funding elite support including top tier coaches helps players that pay them to perform their best while players without enough money can't afford it. I argue that sports should be a pure test of human skill instead of tech that give a play an advantage.
I think that some athletes should not have more money because they can bribe the coach and they can win the game easily,
How might some athletes use their money to gain an advantage and win games more easily?
No I don't think it'll be hard as however doesnt obey the rules they should be disqualified
No I don't think it'll be hard as however doesnt obey the rules they should be disqualified
I agree because... I love that point
This is quite an important point in the regards of the Oylmpics and global sports. It is such a controversial issue that needs to be talked about. I think that this is completely unfair and is a hidden problem deep within professional sports and the Olympics the overall, in this case the winter Oylmpics. Rich countries participating in the Olympics this year such as Switzerland and the US of course will have an advantage along with the other rich countries that have participants in this olympics. They will be able to afford the best gear and best tech tools to allow their athletes to have the best chance at success. Some may argue that at that level of such high competition small things like gear do not matter. They may only take off a fraction of a second in total. But on the other hand a tiny amount of seconds makes all the difference. Look at athletes like Noah lyles, he won by 0.005 seconds against Kishane Thompson, but it was enough. The difference may have been that lyles had better gear from being from a richer country. In this high level competition fractions of seconds wins races. This is not fair and is something we need to fix. In conclusion rich countries have an advantage against everyone else, who can't afford the budget on sporting equipment.
No, I don't think it's fair that some athletes have the advantage of more money, so therefore the Winter Games are not equal because some people might have access to better training facilities or opportunities based of of their resources. However some others might feel that they can't control how much money they have compared to their competitors, so it's not exactly unfair that they have the advantage. Others could also point out the fact that extra money alone could not help athletes that much over the people they're against to the point where they have an extremely unfair advantage.
Even though I do think people on that side of the argument have a fair point towards this problem, I still think it is still a little unfair for those who have less money, resources, and opportunities, I'll explain a little bit of my own reasoning for that opinion. When a lower class athlete shows up to a competition against another higher class athlete, they are most likely going to be a bit more unprepared for the match/game/race ahead of them, whether that means cheaper materials, less safety protectors, or even just not the necessary equipment needed for the sport. Also that I don't think it's fair that even though all athletes train hard and work towards improving themselves, some people might do better when the time comes to compete just because they had more opportunities to improve their skills. In conclusion even though it's true that money doesn't define skills, sometimes in sports money does come in play when it's time to improve.
With an ever-changing technological society, it's common for nations to experience wealth distribution gaps. Dating back to the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, many people began experiencing a change in their employment, their housing, and activities around them. That said, because these differences are often seen between developed and less developed countries, I believe the Winter Games can still be fair.
Competitions evaluate athletes' skills based on what they showcase rather than comparing their performance to other athletes. Regardless of the sport, from individual competitors to teams, many of the categories are created to test an individual's endurance, speed, balance, and stage presence. In figure skating, your points aren't deducted for the brand of equipment and clothing you're using. The standard of being dressed head-to-toe in luxury is simply not an element of competing.
However, many still argue that such a financial difference relies solely on the Winter Games host. Another perspective to have is regarding the support a nation gives. Even if the nation is not financially stable for expensive costs, helping with a fundraiser and promoting it is something that can alleviate the gap. The brand deals and outlet coverage can make a difference in funding.
Thus, the Winter Games can remain fair, despite the advantages that may exist in terms of money.
The Winter Games are a beacon of equality. However, this equality is increasingly undermined by disparities in terms of wealth and access to technology. The rules and technology standards are intended to provide a level of playing field, but the underlying inequalities remain masked by the shine of competition.
The first problem is technological reliance. In today's world, to succeed in many winter sports means having access to precision crafted equipments, state-of-the-art materials, and endless testing. This means that athletes from more affluent nations get the benefit of research facilities, wind tunnels, and custom designed equipment, while others are left to make do with standard or outdated equipment. This means that success is much more about engineering as it is about human talent. Another issue is talent filtering . In a less affluent system, lack of funding may mean early development is stifled, travel to competition is limited, and access to world class coaches is denied, which means that some talented athletes never make it to the top level. This means that the game may feature the best funded athletes rather than the brightest and best from around the world. From an IB perspective, this raises questions about equity vs equality. The game provides equality to all athletes in competition, but there is a lack of equity. However, a complete ban on the advanced technology would stifle innovation and development in sports.
This is not fair therefore the winter games are not equal!
When more wealthy countries come into the games they are already beginning on a much greater advantage. Their players do not only have the more expensive gear but access to a wider span of resources. Take for example the training process. Those with more money to spend on the equipment will end up getting resources that can help them train much more effectively and focus on their weak points much better. While those with less money to spend on equipment may rely on the basic materials which may not necessarily target areas that need more work.
This is also true when it comes to health resources. When a player gets hurt those with more money are able to fund their players recovery. They may have access to personal trainers or doctors that could meet their specific needs so players can be back on track in no time.
Some may broadly say that technology does not make talent, which is true! However, having the correct amount of funding for high tech resources to further your talent can make all the difference.
In my opinion, sport can never be equally fair, just like life. Every team or person doesn't have the same budget and amount of money to spend. This can vary their resources and ability to buy or invest in better equipment. Keep in mind, just because someone has more money doesn't mean they are better at a sport. It just occasionally allows them to have more resources in place. But to me, sport is in the mind; if you are determined to change and work hard to develop your skills, money is worth nothing. If you can differentiate yourself from others, just based on how you approach your sport, nothing is impossible. Saying that if you don't have money. It will be harder for you to be "better at sports" will impact people. We must start to spread the narrative that with a little grit and determination, nothing, not even money, can get you from chasing your dreams.
If sport was a shop where you pay to be fast,
The richest would win, and the rest come last.
Some skiers have gear that’s shiny and new,
While others train hard with less they can use.
Money can help you slide and fly,
But it can’t teach courage or help you try.
The Games feel fairer when effort leads the way,
Not just the size of the bills you can pay.
You can’t buy teamwork or practice all night,
Or pay for a win with your wallet so tight.
Real wins come from trying your best,
Not from having a fat wallet in your vest.
Thanks for sharing a creative comment. Please make sure you add your opinion and make sure you explain your thinking.
I think for me, it looks unfair if you already train hard to enter the winter olympics and you lose just because your country didnt invest or support in sports. Athletes from richer countries can afford better equipment, advanced technology, and better training. This gives the big advantage before the competition even begins. The winter games are meant to test skills and hard working not how much money a country has.
Athletes from poorer countries may be just as talented, but they often lack proper facilities or modern sports technology. This can make it harder for them to compete in the same level. Even if they train hard, they might still fall behind because they do not have the access to the same resource. This creates an uneven playing field and reduces equal opportunity.
In conclusion, Winter Games cannot be completely fair if funding is unequal. While talent and effort are important, money also plays a big role in success. To make the game more fair, rules can limit how much technology can be used or provide support to less wealthy teams. This may help athletes have fair and more opportunity to succeed.
i think this is not fair because some teams might have more money than others and they will use it for making them faster in a race or more skillfull in games like football or basketball, if you are going to use it in the winter game they will probably find out and will you leave the games and sports is not about winning but taking part and using your talent. if teams used this it wouldn't be fair because they will use high tech inventions like a super suits and this will make sports boring because people keep winning or your team is winning every match. even if i was bad at sports i wouldn't use it i would pratice everyday.
I think that it is not fair because other countries can pay to get better at the sports , whereas other countries that might be less fortunate wouldn't be able to get more practice for the winter sports.
No ,it's not completly fair.
Countries and more many can buy better equipment and give more help to their athletes.
This gaves the advantage over althletes from poorer countries who may be just talented but don't
have the same suppot as the richest countries.
The game will not be fair because the team with money can braed the coaches to give them penaltys,free kicks and throws
and it can caus conflicts and the game will be boring.
I agree because... they can bribe the coaches to give free kicks,penalties and can cause conflict between the two teams and the game will be boring
This is not the matter of it being fair, the other teams have the money so they get equipment that's fine, but the problem is how they use that money and equipment, do they use the equipment to cheat, or do they use the money to bribe referees.
Can you share what you mean by saying "bribe the referees"?
i think this means to offer the referees things like money to make the game fair on their side
It is not uncommon to hear of this, no matter how fair a sport is, there is no hiding the fact that there must be a few cheating scandals. Take the 2011 Turkish match-fixing scandal where the club president was convicted of bribing the referee to fix 4 matches and determine the out come of others. And mind you, money is not the only bribing factor, it could also include gifts and favours.
I believe it is not fair that some players get more funding than other players. Funding can affect a athletes performance a lot, especially in the winter Olympic games where expensive gear and training is required for athletes to perform better. Equipment like skis and snowboards can be very expensive if the person wants to use high quality gear to enhance their performance.
It seems as if there is not much anyone can do about this issue. Different countries have different economic levels and has different limits on how much they spend for their athletes. A country like Cambodia where I live in, would not be able to fund their athletes to train and compete as much as a country like the UK or France. Meaning that the winter Olympic games is not fair for all of their participants.
So how do we make the Olympic games more fair? maybe the Olympics organization could provide baseline equipment for the athletes who might not be able to fund good gear to compete properly or have restrictions. Of course this is all just a suggestion and it will be very difficult to make it fair for every nation in the Olympics.
Even though the Olympic winter games can be unfair for players representing more undeveloped countries, they have an upper hand on pure skill or strength as they don't have the advanced in equipment to train like some other people. I actually think these people who have skill, mentality and hustle make sports more entertaining and fun to watch.
In conclusion I agree that it is unfair for athletes with less funding in the winter Olympic games.
Hi, topical talkers. Many people tend to say that the effect of money on athletes are not impactful, but I feel that it has a lot more impact that we can think of. For example in the aspect of performance, it is quite obvious that an athlete who is deficient of modern tech may not perform as well as someone who has the privilege to train or use technology in their game strategies or play, as athletes with necessary technologies are provided with a more conducive training environment and in-game analytics. They are also granted an opportunity to have more experience in such a field. An underrated effect may be how athletes with high end gears foster intimidation to other athletes without technological gears which could cause a sense of self-doubt or lack of efficiency. In conclusion, minor privileges amongst athletes should not be overlooked as they could quietly result in significant competitive imbalances.
I think it's not fair if some athlete start with big financial advantage and therefore, in my opinion, the Winter Games is unfair. Developed countries such as China and United States have a lot of fundings for their athletes, but least-developed countries or developing countries do not have fundings as big as the developed countries.
My country, Indonesia is a developing country, and I can see the lack of funding for certain sports. Winter sports such as ice hockey and figure skating are very lacking here since Indonesia is a tropical country. Most ice rinks are located in malls, and ice rinks that is specifically for training/practicing are very rare, and has a high cost. People that want to go professional in ice hockey or figure skating either has to train abroad or self-fund. Another example is cycling. Cycling is a sport that need smooth and good roads to practice, but Indonesia doesn't have that. Because of the constant raining and flood, roads in Indonesia is prone to frequent repairs and are often damaged.
However, I believe in hard work winning. I believe that if an athlete have the ambition to win and train hard, they will win. An athlete that know that their in a disadvantage and will use that mentality to train even harder and an athlete that have good equipment and because of that is more laid back have almost same chance of winning, don't you think? Though, in my opinion, one of the solutions to make it even more fair is for athletes to have the same equipment in a competition. After all, who would want to lose just because they have different shoes?
I think that because some countries have more funding, the Winter Games are not completely equal and fair. This is because, with more funding, the athletes will have the latest sports technology and equipment, and training facilities will be of a higher standard. This will enable them to compete better even before the games start, and it will not be a matter of natural ability and hard work but one of funding. The athletes from poorer countries may have the same ability but may not have the chance to achieve their potential. However, others may say that the Winter Games are fair because, at the end of the day, every athlete is competing by the same rules and regulations when it comes to the actual games. They may also say that it is a matter of choice for each country to fund sports.
I think that winter games are fair and equal because in modern sports, money matters, but only up to a point. Bcs beyond a certain level, money no longer improves performance. Think about ski suits. After a certain point if drag reduction is reached, it doesn't matter how much more money is spent, it won't help, since all athletes are subject to the same laws of physics and the same rules. In olympics, technology is standardized, tested and regulated. Innovation is tolerated only until it upsets the balance of competition and then it's outlawed. The irony, in fact, is this: Technology is often beneficial to weaker countries than stronger ones. A country that lacks a rich sporting history can bypass years of experience with the help of extra money and technology. Here, technology and money becomes a great Equalizer. If money really equaled success, olympic medals would ossify. But, they don't. New countries emerge. Old powers decline. Because when the starting gun goes off, money vanishes and only the delivery is left. If extra funding truly decided sport, medals world be predictable. Instead, the olympics remain uncertain and this proves that extra money can't be the sole reason for winning.
Sport is not fully fair when money differs, because financial power can give some athletes advantages before the competition even starts. It means some athletes arrive at the starting line already ahead, not because they trained harder or are more talented, but because money has already improved their equipment, preparation & support. The race looks equal, but the conditions leading up to it were not.
Fair sport is about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes or consequences. Sport does not need to guarantee equal outcomes to be fair, but it should guarantee equal opportunity. If money differs greatly, that opportunity is weakened. When funding levels vary, opportunity changes. Athletes with greater financial backing can train more efficiently, recover better & compete with equipments designed to maximise their performance. This turns money into a silent teammate, one that some athletes have and others do not. Even with strict rules, financial power can still quietly tilt the balance.
In speed skating, nations with strong funding can train on indoor ice rinks year-round & fine-tune skate designs through sport science, while others must rely on limited ice time. In the Paralympic winter games, athletes in events like para alpine skiing often need custom prosthetics or adaptive equipment. High-income programmes can afford lighter, more responsive designs which gives their athletes smoother control and faster reactions compared to competitors using basic gear.
I think its definitely unfair for the nations with low funding, because they could lack proper traning resources. This issue adds an unfairness factor for certain nations.
For example my country Indonesia is encountering a new funding crisis that could treathen the medals we earn. Having less funds means that we could lose certain traning and equipment that are valuable for an athlete's win. It could also impact athlete's chances of participating in certain sports like wushu, cycling, wrestling and ballet, sports that we arent competing in.
For that reason i hope that the Winter Games this year will help poorer countries participate in more competitions and increase the funding in certain countries thus ensuring fairness of play and a healthy sportsmanship. The Winter Games isn't a competition where countries overcome other countries by being the most funded nation. Its a competition created to unite nation's by sports.
I dont think its fair for some athletes to have a monetary advantage compared to others, so therefore the Winter Games are not equal and fair because, with large sums of money invested by a government, athletes will have access to much higher quality training, nutrition, gear and coaches. The advantage they thus gain is incomparable to any advantage another athlete may gain through pure training and talent. When this happens, the winter games are no longer about what country has the best athletes. It will be about what country is willing to pay the most in order to win. Why is that? Because the winter games are based on equipment. They require ice, snow, but winter does not last year round, so what are serious athletes left to do? Well, the ones that come from richer countries can practice in expensive indoor facilities. What can the ones that dont have the money do? Well, nothing, because they dont have the resources.
Take, for example, the 2022 Winter Games. 91 countries participated, and yet 9 out of the top 10 countries by gold medal count were top 24 or higher (out of 195) by GDP per capita according to the IMF.
However, others may feel that the Winter Games are, in fact, fair, as the economic disparities between participating countries only serve as an incentive for athletes from poorer countries to get a gold medal or that the money isnt that important and that the advantage can be negated through work.I disagree, because, as i have proven, the advantage given by large sums of money invested in an athlete is, especially in the winter games, an extraordinary one.
This, in my opinion, is unfair. While some nations can afford to invest heavily in the newest sports technology, others cannot. Athletes do not begin at the same level as a result, even if competitors put in just as much effort. Athletes with superior gear and technology can have a significant advantage in the winter games, because winning occasionally involves money, rather than just skill and effort, The winter games may seem unfair. To make the game truly fair and skill- based I believe that all athletes should have equal opportunities.
Can you say more on athletes having equal opportunities?
In my opinion, I feel having equal opportunities means providing each athlete with the necessary training equipment or resources needed to prepare them for competitions, as this will enable all athletes to compete at a comparable level which will push aside any form of unfairness. In essence, I feel that equal funding of athletes matter as all athletes could go on against each other without having any form of unjust treatment or unfair play.
Before athletes even set foot on the ice or snow, a divide is created between them due to unequal access to resources.
While athletes from affluent countries frequently have access to cutting-edge training regimens and top-notch equipment, others must make do with fewer resources, even though they put forth the same amount of effort. This disparity may have an impact on results and performance, making the competition less fair. The actual role of the winter games is undermined when outcomes are determined more by financial might than by athletic prowess.
Equal opportunities for athletes means that success is determined by skill, preparation, and preservance rather than a nation's financial resources. The competition becomes more fair and significant when all athletes have access to comparable facilities, technology and equipment. No athlete should be put at a disadvantage before the competition even starts. Equal opportunities can be accomplished by applying technology restrictions or providing standardized equipment for less developed countries. Financial and technical assistance features genuinely reflects skill and effort when athletes compete on an even playing field. In addition to making the gamed more equitable, this preserves the fundamental principles of equality, sportsmanship and respect that the winter games are supposed to embody.
I think that it's not fair that athletes from high-income countries get more funding and technology. This is because athletes from low-income countries might only be able to rely on their strength, drive and determination. Although that's great, revealing your true character in sports, having some sports technology can push you to be the best of the best- and the best have lots of funding. However, I respectfully acknowledge that other Topical Talkers might disagree with my opinion because if an athlete doesn't have the funding for high technology then they can try harder, and it builds their self-confidence and focus. Then, if the athlete from a low-income country does win then they can feel so much more accomplished than they were in the journey to success.
Some people believe it is unfair because it can feel like medals are being "bought" rather than earned. If a wealthy country can afford a "super-fast" bobsleigh or the most expensive skis, it gives them a head start before the race even begins. It is a bit like a race where one person has brand-new trainers and another has heavy boots; even if the person in boots is a faster runner, they might still lose. This makes people worry that the Games are becoming a competition between scientists and engineers instead of just the athletes.On the other hand, some people argue that this funding is fair and even helpful. A lot of the money is spent on making sport safer, such as designing better helmets or pads to protect athletes during dangerous jumps. In the Paralympics, high-tech equipment is especially important because it helps athletes perform at their very best. Furthermore, when wealthy teams invent new technology, it eventually becomes cheaper so that everyone can use it in the future.
I believe that the Winter Games are not completely equal or fair because some athletes are at a great financial advantage before the game even begins. If a country has put more money into sports, then they are able to afford better technology and equipment, which gives them a better chance to win before the game has even started. It’s not just based on how talented or how hard they work, but also how much money their country has put into sports.
However, one could also argue that the Winter Games are equal and fair because athletes still need to be talented and work hard to achieve their goal, no matter how much money their country has put into sports. They could also argue that it’s up to the country to put money into sports, and then they are rewarded for their hard work and talent in the Winter Games.
I believe that the differences in finances make the Winter Games not entirely equal and fair, since athletes from richer nations may have access to better equipment, the latest technology, and top-notch training facilities even before they get to the event. If the level of performance can be affected by high-tech skis, sleds, or data analysis, then financial support can give athletes an edge that is not at all related to their natural ability or hard work. This creates a disadvantage for athletes from less-financed nations, even if they work just as hard.
But then again, some people may feel that the Winter Games can still be fair since all the athletes compete according to the same rules on the same day, and that winning still requires a tremendous amount of skill, hard work, and mental toughness.
I think it is not fair because if a team has more money they can win or cheat in the game. That why same of this teams wins easily.
I personally think it definitely isn't fair. If one team is funded or sponsored, so should be the rest. Money is the ultimate means when it comes to modern technology, which can generally help them so much more compared to others who do not have such favouritism. Sport is all about fairness, and I think funding specific teams/athletes is the way to beat that purpose.
I strongly think that the Winter Games can be biased towards those who have received more funding, wealthier countries are able to give their atheletes a significant financially-driven advantage. This is shown by taking a look at the top countries that have won the most Winter Games medals, they are first-world countries with climates and environments that support their sporting endeavours. Sports in the Winter Games are considered prestigious, shown in skiing/snowboarding where a full setup of gear can exceed US$2,000. Therefore, atheletes who participate are typically privileged or supported by their country through coaching, facilities and equipment, they also most likely have grown up in an environment where these sports are very encouraged.
Compare those circumstances to one of an aspiring athelete who comes from a country that doesn't facilitate their goals and lacks funds, there is a clear imbalance. Its important that we encourage those atheletes to keep pushing despite their situations, there are inspiring stories that have arised from atheletes who beat the odds to accomplish great things in their career. The ambition and drive developed in these challenging circumstances create a strong basis for an athelete to thrive. However, that very much isn't a reason to keep under-funding them, those atheletes still risk a lot just for a chance to compete in the Winter Games.
Hi, I am Empowered Nectarine.
This is a common topic and most of the people think it is unfair, but if you ask some people that have a lot of money and they want to participate in the Winter Games, they are going to say that it is fair to use more funding for new technology because they have the neccesity to win and their final goal is nothing to do with equal opportunities.
To be honest, I think this is not fair, because some people are not able to have the same amount of money so they are not in the same condition as other people or organisations. They can buy the best technology for their athletes and it is very probable that the people with the best technology are going to win the competition.
For example, the brands such as, Red Bull that support some athletes in exchange of publicity, the athletes are receiving a lot of money that they can use to improve their skills or their material and this is not fair, because there are other players that deserve this money too.
Some people don`t see this very big issue for their own arrogance and they try to convince general public that this is fair and this is not the way. They should give other athletes the same opportunities that the famous ones have because if not the Winter Games will not be for all people and will not be egalitarian.
I think it is not fair for reacher teams to have more money. Therefore the game will not be fair. That's why they should be paid the same money with the other players.
If they winter games are paid fairly the game will be fair and they will be no cheating.
Other teams train hard to win but some teams use money to cheat.
In my personal opinion sports feel unfair when there is a big difference in money. Teams with more money often have better coaches, better training facilities, and better equipment. This gives them a big advantage compared to the team with a lower budget. Rich teams can also buy strong players and pay for good medical care, hospitality, so their players stay healthy and improve faster. Poor teams may have talented players, but they lack support and resources. Evidence and statistics shows this just by seeing the big teams such as Real Madrid, Barcelona, those teams have the biggest budget in the whole of soccer (football) and there is a reason they've been always on top of the soccer world since the early 2000. Real Madrid have signed arguably the best footballer in the world Cristiano Ronaldo and also many other great and talented players and that won them many games and also many tournaments throughout the many years they were together. Money also affects young athletes. Children from rich families can join clubs, travel to compete, and train from a young age. Children from poor families often miss these chances, even if they are skilled and hardworking. Because of this, winning in sport often depends on money instead of effort and talent. Some leagues try to fix this by using rules like salary limits and shared income, but the gap does not fully disappear. Sport feels fair only when everyone has equal chances to train, compete, and succeed, no matter how much money they have.
I think personally that money only matters based on diffrent sports because some sports when you use money it might help but in other sports it might not be able to help you.However there is not doubt that you need ambition and determination is required to be come good or great at sports.I say this because some sports really need you to have good ambition and determination.A great example is Cristiano Ronaldo because he is one of the most higest paid football players and but before the rise the fame and the money.He was a small boy living in portugal and wasn't the richest but he had ambiton grit and determination to be successful and now look at him he is succesful.Just this example alone shows that with enough determination ambiton and grit could make you really good at the sport you are trying to get good at.Now about the money aspect of the every sport there are some evidence where money helps the team to improve with seeing their teams stats performances.Also money could make a team good because that team is able to make the team buy really good players an example is Real Madrid because they usally buy the best players globally to make their team really good,Which might make their team unfair compared to other teams which don't have the same amount of wealth and money as them.
In summary money is a mix between both because some sports with good skill you are able to do really good and with other sport it doesn't really matter how much money you have it doesn't really change your result on how well or how good you do on the sport but it requires ambition and grit.
I think it is still fair because the team that has more finance, technology, will use it and I personally see no problem in it. If team A is richer than team B that should not be team A's problem after all both teams use what they have. Though have all tech in the world does not make you a better player. Example a player has the best shoes in town that of course does not make the player the best. I don't think it's unfair, why I say this is because you have the right to use what you have as far as it's not harmful or toxic. However, others might feel that it is not fair. THANKS
I think that it's not fair for some some athletes when another sporting organizations or countries give their athletes more funding to spend on the latest sports technology, so therefore the Winter Games aren't fair and equal, since they have better technology and equipment that can assure their safety.
However, others might feel that technologies can help athletes who are not so skilled in sport, with a better chance at winning. I believed that success comes from determination and hard work, which money cannot buy. Some athletes grew up poor with no technology. They have to find their talents and pursue them by focusing, dreaming, and making it comes true, by trying their very best for a long time. Success doesn't come that easily and quick, so when other athletes or opponents use money to purchase advanced or better technology, it will be very unfair to those athletes who works so hard just to achieve their dream on competing. It isn't fair for a hard-working athlete to lose to an athlete with better equipment, such as better shoes.
So, this is why I believe that athletes should have the same or similar equipment, to make each side chances to win equal and fair.
In general sports is not fair when money differs. so in that statement the Winter Games are not fair and equal when the team or player's money differs. The reason why I think this specific way is because not having enough funding or money can prevent you from getting the right practice equipment and game equipment to perform well. Some examples for this is getting the right running shoes or cleats, getting helmets or protection, and getting gloves and balls for the game, these are some of the important equipment you need to buy for the game. But some people might think that talent and knowledge can beat tech, and that is sometimes true but to play the game in general you would need money and technology to help you. So in conclusion you need some tech to play fair and equal.
I think that this is not fair because it is basically cheating if you buy things to improve your skill in a sport or game.Unless,you are disabled and need the extra support, but if you are using money and tech to get better and win, then it is unfair and even if you win with the tech, you might get hate even from fans and go into history not the way you want to just because you bought tech.
I think that, teams with a lot of money can afford advanced and more helpful technology. Unlike smaller and less privilaged teams that cannot buy everyting they need that would make their team the best. Teams that don't have much salary who can't afford advanced technology so they athletes have to train more so that they have the skills to go through rigorous physical training and exercise to be able to keep up with the athletes with a lot of money and technology. Now things are even worse because of the invention and advent (coming) of AI. Now, even the regular people can participate and learn sports without training as far as you have the money to use AI to teach you how to play the sport.
I think that rich teams stay rich; poor teams rebuild forever. That why buying championship" becomes possible where financial controls are weak. fans lose interest when outcomes feel predictable. That why the winter Games should be paind fair
Sport is not completely fair when money differs between countries or teams. Wealthier nations can invest more in advanced training facilities, expert coaches, and the latest sports technology, which can give their athletes a clear advantage. This means success is not based only on talent and hard work, but also on how much funding an athlete receives.
However, sport can still be fair in some ways. All athletes must follow the same rules, and technology is usually checked and approved to make sure it is legal. Many athletes from less wealthy countries still succeed through dedication and skill, showing that money is not the only factor.
Overall, differences in funding make sport less equal, but fairness is protected by rules and the spirit of competition. The challenge is to reduce the gap so that talent matters more than money.
It's possible that in the universe where players are paid, the players themselves don't know how to play very well, while in the other universe where players aren't paid, the players know how to play very well.
Actually this is a very big problem But in order to solve this problem, it is possible that we make each country have to pay for its players. So it is a must not a choice.
I think that it may be unfair, however I believe it is worse for both the better teams and the viewers, to have to adjust to a level way below their actual competitiveness just because another team or country isn’t as good or interested in sports. However there can definitely be some ways to make it more fair, maybe introducing different “splits” where the better teams get grouped into one and the worser teams get grouped into another one, a bit like a league.
I think sport isn’t fair when money differs so therefore the Winter Games are not equal and fair because teams with more money can pay better tech experts and can buy better technology. This gives them higher chances of winning, even when they have the same same talent and training as teams with less money. Like that people who don’t have a lot of money probably wont win. The teams who win earn then even more money and sponsors. Which means that teams who were rich in the beginning become even richer and teams who didn’t have a lot of money don’t gain money. Like that not all people can compete fairly, because some countries only have poorer teams or people have to pay a lot to become a member of a rich team. However others might feel that sport is still fair, because technology is also a part of sports and also shows who puts the most effort in winning.
In summary I would say sport isn’t fair when money differs, because if people are born into rich families they have higher chances of becoming an athlete in a rich team, which then helps them to win because they have better technology.
Competitions aren‘t fair anyway. There are always some people who have the better coaches, the better ecquipment or the better education. Or maybe one person can‘t handle the pressure as well as someone else, but should we therefore stop competing? My answer is “no“. That would be unfair for everyone who want to take part in those competitions. But that doesn‘t mean that I think it doesn‘t matter if it‘s fair or not. As I already said competitions aren‘t always fair and that‘s not different in the Winter Olympics or Paralympics. It‘s just not fair that some teams have more money than others and that leads to lower chances.
I don’t think that sport is fair when money differs and I think we should do something against it but nevertheless we should keep competing. Although it‘s unfair sometimes.
I partly agree with Astounishing Orchard. I think that advanced technology is definetely not fair because other members of a team may not have the money to buy advanced technology so there can be a slight advantage to the team with enough amount of money, and a big power imbalance. This is not fair to me!This to me can not be accepted as I think that fairness is a way to not have arguments about rules and people can enjoy it better as there are no arguments but peace in the game. One thing that I can accept and permit is that you train hard and you get fit for the games as you have worked enough to earn your place in whatever game you participate in. In addition to that, that is not using certain types of technology just using your body to work toughly. I also feel that using the latest tech that other people may not have the money for is called cheating because other people don't have it.
This is my opinion and answer. Thank you
I believe that you also have to think about the athletes as individuals:
If an athlete isn’t financed because of their countries inability to do so, they won’t be able to use as much or as good technology as the others, which gives them a strong disadvantage.
Regarding the fact that most Olympic athletes started training for their sport early on, they didn’t get to have a common education like everyone else, and were probably placed in a training facility with - most of the time, their sport as their only skill.
If these athletes miss their chance at the Olympic Games and don’t impress other sponsors who would be willing to finance them, their lack of equipment, education and often social contacts can and will lead to the failure of their career.
I often times notice that society sees those athletes as more than human and less than human at the same time: they are (literally) put on a pedestal and looked up upon by many, but not seen as a part of society. A set goal, a dream, rather than an individual with feelings of their own.
So this is a kind reminder that you can, of course, look up to these athletes, but that you also have to remind yourself of the fact that they are more than their skills in a specific sport.
Sport is often considered a symbol of fairness, where success depends on talent, effort, and determination. However, when there is a big difference in money, fairness can be affected. Rich teams can buy the best players, hire experienced coaches, and use modern training facilities and equipment. They also provide better medical care and preparation. These advantages help them perform better and increase their chances of winning. In contrast, poorer teams may have talented players, but they lack the same resources and opportunities, which makes competition more difficult for them.
Money also affects stability and confidence. Wealthy clubs do not worry about financial problems, so players can focus fully on improving their performance. Poorer clubs may lose their best players to richer teams, which weakens them. This creates inequality and makes sport less balanced. Because of this, many people believe money plays a very important role in modern sport.
However, money does not guarantee success. There are many examples of smaller teams winning because of teamwork, discipline, and strong determination. Passion, effort, and unity can help athletes overcome financial disadvantages. These qualities cannot be bought and represent the true spirit of sport.
In conclusion, money can create advantages and reduce fairness, but it does not decide everything. Talent, hard work, and teamwork remain essential for success. True sport is about dedication, respect, and giving your best, not only about financial power.murder mystery detective.
thank you topical talk 🌹
I believe it is fair that some countries can give their athletes more funding to spend on the latest sports technology. In modern winter sports, technology plays an important role in performance. For example in skiing, high quality skis and better equipment make a difference in speed and your control on the ski slopes. However, this does not automatically guarantee success.
In general, winning a competition depends much more on training ,discipline and the effort an athlete has invested. Professional athletes train almost every day, work with coaches and push themselves to their limit. Mental strength also is very important, especially in high pressure situations like competitions. For example , the famous figure skater Malinin fell at the Winter games this year due to stress. This shows that even top athletes with good preparation can make mistakes if they are not focused or under pressure. These skills cannot be bought with money. Even the most advanced equipment cannot replace the hard work that was invested in the sport.
Of course richer conutries may have better financial resources to support their athletes but there are rules which make sure that all equipments are same for everyone. If these rules are followed, technology cannot decide wins a competition depends much.
In my opinion, although technology cannot influence your performance, success in the Winter games(or also in general) mainly depends on training and effort rather than on the equipment.