Military service benefits for athletes need an overhaul

The men’s football team deserves applause for beating Japan to win a fourth consecutive gold medal at the Asian Games Aichi-Nagoya 2026. But some players’ inappropriate celebrations and remarks about South Korea’s mandatory military service after the victory have drawn criticism.

Captain Lee Ki-hyuk held up his gold medal and exclaimed, “I’m not going to the military,” and Yang Min-hyuk said, in effect, that he had played with only one reward in mind: exemption from military service. Park Seung-soo, who played just 16 minutes during the tournament, posted a photo on social media wearing a military discharge cap after the match. Their actions suggested that military benefits mattered more than the gold medal.

Such behavior was thoughtless for those on a national sports team and raises questions about whether they understand the responsibility that comes with wearing the national flag.

The players apologized as the controversy grew. Still, many South Koreans were understandably uncomfortable seeing the athletes place military benefits ahead of a medal.

Service members quietly devote themselves to defending the country. Recently, three soldiers were seriously injured after stepping on mines believed to have been planted by North Korea during a search operation in the demilitarized zone. The footballers’ celebrations and remarks effectively devalued military service and risked damaging troop morale.

Questions have long been raised about whether a special military service system created when South Korea had fewer opportunities to enhance its national prestige remains appropriate now that it is an advanced economy. The country also faces a shrinking pool of military personnel because of the population decline, and public demands for fairness have grown. Political proposals range from abolishing the system entirely to tightening eligibility requirements.

Under the current system, athletes qualify for alternative service by winning an Olympic medal or a medal at the Asian Games. The latter criterion has repeatedly prompted questions about fairness because the level of competition varies from one Asiad discipline to another. The debate about athletes’ military benefits also occurred after South Korea’s baseball team won gold at the 2018 Asian Games, but the system’s basic framework remains unchanged.

There are counterarguments. Abolishing or reducing the benefits could threaten the survival of less popular sports, for which athletes receive limited financial or institutional support. That concern deserves consideration. But the current standards no longer meet reasonable public expectations.

This controversy should become an opportunity for public deliberation over whether the system should survive and, if retained, how eligibility should be redesigned. Military duty is a fundamental civic obligation. Any exception must therefore rest on standards the public can regard as fair, necessary and appropriate for today’s South Korea.