The 2026 Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games have concluded, but the controversy over military exemptions has overshadowed the joy of winning medals. Shortly after the men's soccer team secured its fourth consecutive gold medal, one player posted a photo wearing a military cap in the locker room on social media, while another player admitted he was more focused on military exemption than the medal itself. Although the players apologized, the disappointment among their peers currently serving in the military is not easily assuaged. As representatives of the national team, they face criticism for their thoughtlessness.
However, the issue should not rest solely on the shoulders of a few players. The recurring controversy at each tournament highlights significant flaws in the system. Under current military service regulations, athletes who win a bronze medal at the Olympics or a gold medal at the Asian Games can be classified as arts and sports personnel. This allows them to engage in their sport for 34 months while fulfilling 544 hours of public service. In this tournament, 20 members of the soccer team and 16 members of the baseball team will benefit from military exemptions.
The exemption system was established in 1973, during a time when the sight of the South Korean flag being raised on the international stage was rare. The government introduced military benefits for athletes and artists under the pretext of 'national prestige and cultural development.' Although the criteria have been revised several times, the fundamental framework of using Olympic and Asian Games medals as benchmarks has remained intact.
Meanwhile, the status and environment of South Korean sports have changed dramatically. It has become common for athletes to compete on European stages. Japan, for instance, formed its baseball team primarily with amateur players for this tournament, while its soccer team was largely composed of under-21 players. This raises questions about whether the gold medal won by a professional-dominated South Korean team can still be viewed as a symbol of 'national prestige' as it was half a century ago.
Concerns about fairness have also persisted. It is worth examining whether it is appropriate to equate an Olympic bronze medal with an Asian Games gold medal, given the varying levels of competition and the number of participating countries in different sports. In a context where the pool of military service candidates is shrinking due to low birth rates, any exceptions must be supported by clear principles and societal consensus.
This is not to undermine the hard work and achievements of the athletes. For athletes with short career spans, a gap in military service can directly impact their professional lives. Therefore, it is crucial to reconsider the structure that ties military exemptions to a single medal. If exemptions are to be maintained, the criteria should be refined to evaluate cumulative international competition results, and alternative compensation methods that are separate from military service should be explored.
The government and the National Assembly should use this controversy as an opportunity to reform the system. They need to reassess whether the 'national prestige' standard established in the 1970s can still justify military exemptions in 2026. Military service is a matter of fairness that all young people closely monitor. If the times have changed, then the criteria must change as well.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.