Sample IELTS Task 2 essay: should sports facilities be free

These days, public health is becoming a big problem in many countries. Some people argue that governments should make sports facilities free in order to improve people's health. I mostly agree with this idea, but I also think it is not the only solution.

There are many reasons why making sports facilities free is a good idea. Firstly, many people do not exercise because gyms and swimming pools are expensive. If these places were free, more people would use them and they would become healthier. For example, families with low income often cannot pay for sport, so free facilities would help them a lot. Secondly, when people are healthier, they get sick less often, so the government will spend less money on hospitals in the future.

However, there are also some problems with this idea. Free facilities are not really free, because the government has to pay for them with taxes. This means taxes could go up, and some people may not be happy about this. Also, making facilities free does not mean people will use them. Some people are lazy and they will not do sport even if it is free.

In my opinion, I agree that governments should make sports facilities free, but they should also do other things. For example, they should teach people about healthy lifestyles and the importance of exercise. This way, people will be more motivated to use the free facilities.

In conclusion, although free sports facilities cost money, I believe they are a good way to improve public health, especially if the government also educates people about being healthy.

As rates of obesity and sedentary lifestyles climb across much of the world, some commentators insist that governments could reverse the trend simply by opening sports facilities to the public free of charge. While I largely support this proposal, I am convinced it must form part of a broader strategy rather than stand alone.

The case for abolishing fees is compelling. Cost is one of the most significant barriers to regular exercise, particularly for low-income households who cannot justify gym memberships or pool entry. Removing this obstacle would make physical activity genuinely accessible to everyone, regardless of income, and would almost certainly increase participation. The long-term financial logic is equally persuasive: a fitter population places far less strain on overstretched health systems, so the initial public expenditure could be offset by substantial savings on treating preventable conditions such as diabetes and heart disease.

Nevertheless, free access alone is unlikely to be a panacea. Subsidising facilities requires considerable taxpayer funding, which may prove politically contentious, and availability does not automatically translate into motivation. Many people remain inactive not because of price but because of busy schedules, a lack of awareness, or simple disinclination. Without complementary measures, expensive new facilities risk being underused.

For this reason, I believe free access should be paired with sustained public-health campaigns, school-based fitness programmes and safe, walkable urban design that embeds activity into daily routines. Such an integrated approach would address both the practical and the psychological obstacles to exercise.

In conclusion, although making sports facilities free is a sound and equitable policy that I endorse, governments should treat it as one element of a comprehensive effort to cultivate healthier habits, rather than a standalone cure.