The South Korean baseball team secured a gold medal at the Aichi-Nagoya Asian Games by defeating Japan 3-1, marking their fifth consecutive victory at the event. The players' efforts and achievements deserve recognition. However, the celebration of the gold medal has reignited the debate over military service exemptions.
The core of the controversy is not about the players' qualifications or the value of the gold medal, but whether the current military service system aligns with changing societal standards of fairness. According to the current military service law, athletes who place in the top three at the Olympics or win gold at the Asian Games can be classified as arts and sports personnel. This allows them to serve 34 months in their field instead of active duty, along with completing 544 hours of volunteer service. This system, initiated in 1973 under the premise of 'national prestige and cultural development,' has now been in place for over half a century.
There remains a belief that the state should partially reward the achievements of national representatives wearing the Taegeuk mark. The question, however, is whether the criteria for such rewards are still fair and reasonable today. In baseball, there are ongoing concerns about whether the significance of an Asian Games medal balances with the military service exemption. While South Korea fielded a team of professional players from the KBO League, Japan's team primarily consisted of corporate-sponsored amateur players. This highlights a significant difference in how the two countries assemble their teams.
Approaching this controversy with the mindset that 'since we defeated Japan's amateur players, military benefits should not be granted' is not appropriate. The athletes were selected according to the procedures established by the state and met the conditions set by current law. It is not the individual athletes' responsibility to bear the blame for benefiting from an existing system.
The more fundamental question is whether granting substantial military service benefits based solely on achieving 'first place in Asia' is still justified today. Moreover, the level of competition and prestige varies significantly across different sports at the Asian Games. Some events feature world-class athletes, while others see little participation from top professional players. Yet, the current system applies the same standard to all Asian Games gold medals without considering these differences.
Over the past fifty years, the concept of 'national prestige' has also evolved. In the past, the sight of the Taegeukgi on the Olympic podium and the national anthem playing was a powerful means of promoting South Korea to the world. Today, that has changed. South Korean companies and individuals are competing on the global stage in various fields, including K-pop, film, drama, gaming, semiconductors, automobiles, batteries, and biotechnology. It has become much more challenging to isolate a single international competition's success as a measure of national prestige.
The most important values in the military service system are fairness and predictability. There must be clear principles that the public can understand regarding who bears the burden of military service and who is granted exceptions. The government and the National Assembly should not dismiss this controversy as just another sports-related incident. It is necessary to reassess whether the uniform standard of an Asian Games gold medal is still valid, how to evaluate the competitive levels of different events like world championships or the Olympics, and whether there are alternative support methods to protect athletes' careers instead of military service exemptions. The issue of equity between arts, sports, and popular culture should also be discussed.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.