In this blog post, I will examine the issues with the military service exemption system for athletes and explore potential improvements that can ensure the system’s legitimacy and fairness while safeguarding athletes’ performance and careers.
There isn’t a single day that goes by without controversy surrounding military service exemptions in South Korean society. Unlike countries that accept only volunteers into their armed forces, South Korea maintains a conscription system due to the unique circumstances of the standoff between North and South Korea. One presidential candidate saw his election prospects severely impacted after corruption involving his son’s military service exemption came to light, and celebrities and athletes are also known to engage in such misconduct. In the past, there was a case where a singer who had caused problems related to military service sparked a major controversy upon returning to the entertainment industry. While a small minority defended the singer, the majority opposed him, condemning or criticizing him. This clearly demonstrates that the issue of military service exemptions is an extremely sensitive topic in South Korean society. Among these issues, the controversy surrounding the special military service exemption system for athletes continues unabated. Not only is the active career span of athletes shorter than that of other professions, but since their skills peak around their early to mid-20s, a two-year hiatus for military service during their prime can be devastating to an athlete’s career. Due to these unique professional characteristics, there is a tense standoff between those who argue that special military service exemptions for athletes should be expanded and those who oppose it, claiming that such expansion would raise issues of fairness compared to other professions. Is there really no room for improvement in the military service exemption system for athletes? My opinion is “no.” Through this article, I aim to highlight the problems with the current system and propose solutions.
The first problem is that public opinion is divided regarding the implementation of the military service exemption system. Regarding the military service exemption system for athletes in effect at the time, proponents argued that it was only natural to grant military service benefits to athletes with outstanding achievements who had enhanced the nation’s prestige through sports and instilled great joy and pride in the public. In contrast, opponents contended that conditions had changed from the past when the state provided policy support, and since military service is a fundamental duty of citizens, there should be no exceptions—leading to a divided public opinion.
Proponents argue that the athletes’ contributions—made through self-sacrifice and hardship to bring honor to the nation—must be recognized. They contend that providing opportunities to acquire world-class skills through international competition would generate immense economic value and enhance the nation’s brand through sports, thereby benefiting the national interest just as much as fulfilling military service itself. They also point out that, given the limited career span of athletes due to the nature of sports, outstanding athletes should be given the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. On the other hand, opponents argue that South Korea’s athletic performance has improved to a degree incomparable to the past, making it an emerging sports powerhouse, and that in a context where professional sports are thriving, the military service exemption system for athletes should not be used as a means to facilitate overseas ventures. They also argue that granting military service benefits to athletes who already receive competition bonuses and pensions constitutes double benefits, and that it raises issues of fairness compared to athletes in traditional Korean sports or in less popular sports not included in the Olympics or Asian Games. Since the issue of military service is highly sensitive in South Korean public sentiment, it is not an easy problem to resolve; however, the fact that public opinion is so divided clearly indicates that there is a problem.
The second issue concerns the legitimacy of the criteria used to grant military service exemptions. The military service exemption system was established in the 1970s. However, it has been inconsistent and has undergone continuous changes. Initially, the system designated first-place winners at the Asian Games, the Olympic Games, Asian or World Championships involving 15 or more countries, and the Universiade, as well as the top 10 percent of graduates from the Korea National Sport University, as eligible for military service exemptions. However, the military service system has been continually revised—through expansions or abolitions—and in the 2000s, a measure was implemented—and later repealed—that designated athletes who reached the Round of 16 or higher in the FIFA World Cup and the semifinals or higher in the World Baseball Classic (WBC) as eligible for military service exemptions. As such, the military service exemption system for athletes has undergone constant changes.
Furthermore, in the 1970s, South Korea was a developing country with very low global recognition and brand value. In the sports sector, South Korea won a total of 57 medals—16 gold, 26 silver, and 15 bronze—at the Asian Games held in Tehran, Iran, at that time. This is a very low figure compared to the 234 medals—79 gold, 71 silver, and 84 bronze—that South Korea won at the subsequent Incheon Asian Games. Furthermore, at the Montreal Summer Olympics, the country won a total of only six medals, including one gold medal by wrestler Yang Jeong-mo, and at the Winter Olympics, it failed to win a single medal; consequently, South Korea’s international standing in sports was very low. Therefore, during this era, enhancing the nation’s prestige through sports was naturally highly valued, and the military service exemption system for athletes was accepted by the public without significant opposition. In contrast, now that South Korea’s global recognition has risen across various fields—including the economy, culture, sports, and technology—an increasing number of people are arguing that the military service exemption system poses problems in certain sports. Baseball is a prime example. Military service exemptions in baseball become a source of controversy at every Asian Games because a large number of players who have not completed their military service are included on the roster. The fact that they have not fulfilled their military service is not the problem in itself. The problem is that, in order to include these players, more skilled and competitive athletes are actually being excluded from the roster. While determining who is more skilled is a matter of subjective evaluation by the coaching staff, the fact that Seo Geon-chang—who set a historic record as the first player in South Korea to hit 200 hits in a single season—was not selected was difficult for most baseball fans to understand. For the record, Seo Geon-chang had completed his military service. However, because most Asian countries do not have professional baseball teams—and even Japan, which is relatively competitive, fields teams composed of amateur players and does not place much emphasis on Asian Games baseball—South Korea has been able to win the gold medal and secure military service exemptions even without fielding its strongest roster. Of course, there was also a humiliating instance in the past when the team settled for a bronze medal at the Doha Asian Games. In fact, KIA’s Na Ji-wan caused a major controversy when he was included on the roster despite being physically unfit to play in the Asian Games due to an injury—he concealed his injury solely to secure the military service exemption. Thirteen of the 24 players on the roster had not yet fulfilled their military service obligations, and only one player who had been named to the second-round roster was ultimately excluded from the final roster. While a gold medal is certainly cause for celebration, a national team roster assembled based on prioritizing players who have not yet fulfilled their military service obligations—rather than on merit—is clearly intended to serve individual interests rather than to promote national prestige. Is the military service exemption truly justified in such cases?
Given that the frequently changing military service exemption system failed to apply consistent standards, and considering that South Korea’s standing in the sports world has risen significantly compared to the past, questions regarding the legitimacy of the military service exemption system at that time are certainly valid.
If so, is there no way to address these issues? I would like to propose two alternatives that could find common ground amid the divided public opinion—which has been identified as a problem—and resolve the issue of the system’s legitimacy.
First, the military service requirement is perceived as a major obstacle for athletes who wish to continue their careers or pursue opportunities abroad, and some even go so far as to form national teams composed primarily of athletes who have not yet fulfilled their military service obligations or engage in military service-related corruption to circumvent this issue. However, to prevent this, one possible solution is to consider raising the age limit for deferring military enlistment. While athletes in some sports can continue their careers past the age of 40, most athletes retire before reaching that age. At that time, Article 71, Paragraph 1 of the Military Service Act—which pertains to exemptions from conscription obligations—stipulated that the obligations to undergo a conscription physical examination, enlist as an active-duty soldier, or be summoned as a public service worker were waived starting at age 36; however, for draft evaders or those at fault, the exemption began at age 38. Furthermore, Paragraph 2 of Article 124-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, regarding the deferral of enlistment for athletes, stipulated that enlistment could be deferred until the age of 27; however, the deferral period could be shortened if necessary based on the supply and demand of military personnel, and that the Director General of the Military Manpower Administration would determine the deferral periods for each reason and the maximum number of athletes per sport.
Therefore, based on the law at that time, there were cases where the age for deferring military enlistment for athletes could be extended from 27 to 35 without amending the current law. However, since this was not always possible, expanding the deferral age from 27 to 35 is expected to alleviate concerns regarding the interruption of athletic careers and a decline in performance due to military service obligations. In addition, the age limit for enlistment in the Armed Forces Sports Unit should be raised from 27 to 35, and the age limit for applying to the National Police Agency’s Mugunghwa Sports Team should be raised from 30 to 35. This proposal is expected to secure military manpower and ensure equity in military service obligations without undermining the military service system of that time, which was based on conscription.
Second, another option to consider is significantly relaxing the current selection criteria for military service exemptions for athletes, so that the exemption system can be applied to a larger number of outstanding athletes. Specifically, rather than limiting the selection criteria to the Asian Games or the Olympics, the scope should be expanded to include world championships and Asian championships for each sport. This measure is expected to benefit a large number of athletes, including those in less popular sports. However, to ensure fairness in the application of military service obligations and equity with other sectors, athletes serving as sports personnel should receive a fixed salary as public service workers—just like the general public—during their service period, and all income earned during their mandatory military service period should be returned to the national treasury or utilized for the Military Sports Development Fund. While this proposal may draw criticism as “state exploitation of athletes,” we believe it could be a mutually beneficial solution for athletes in terms of fulfilling their civic duty and maintaining their athletic performance.
There will likely be various counterarguments regarding these two improvement proposals. The first anticipated objection is that significantly expanding military service exemptions for athletes could raise issues of equity when compared to other professions. First, let’s examine the number of athletes who benefited from the military service exemption system at that time. It was revealed that a total of 797 athletes received benefits under the system during a specific period following its implementation. Looking at this in more detail, 439 athletes—55.08% of the total—received benefits based on the consistent criteria applied at the time: first-place finishers at the Asian Games and third-place finishers at the Olympic Games. Additionally, 337 athletes—42.3% of the total—received benefits during a period when the program was temporarily expanded to enhance athletic performance in anticipation of specific international competitions. Considering that approximately 115,000 people are subject to military service each year, it is evident that the number of athletes benefiting from military service exemptions up to that point was very small. Therefore, expanding military service exemptions for athletes is not expected to violate the principle of equity when compared to other professions.
The second anticipated counterargument concerns the “proposal to extend the age limit for deferring military enlistment.” According to the “proposal to extend the age limit for deferring military enlistment,” in certain cases, enlistment would be allowed in one’s late 30s—around age 40. Given that the average age of enlisted soldiers at the time was around 20 to 22, having men in their 40s join as new recruits could create various problems in the military, where the rank structure is crucial. This is true. The rank structure is extremely important in the military. However, just as the rank structure is important, rank is also a matter that transcends age. It is already common for an individual’s age and rank to differ depending on when they enlisted. In extreme cases, a 25-year-old man who graduated from the Army Military Academy may be commissioned as a second lieutenant immediately after graduation, while a man in his 40s who has served as a non-commissioned officer for 20 years may still be a staff sergeant. Since a second lieutenant is an officer rank and a sergeant first class is a non-commissioned officer rank, the second lieutenant holds the higher rank. While this is an extreme example, it is a real possibility and actually occurs in practice. Furthermore, even if the “proposal to extend the age limit for deferring military enlistment” were implemented, I do not believe the number of people enlisting in their 30s would be large enough to significantly impact the rank system that has been well-maintained thus far. The age difference will not undermine discipline between ranks in the military, nor should it ever be allowed to do so.
With this, we have examined the problems with the special military service exemption system for athletes and proposed ways to improve it. While military service is an inescapable civic duty for South Korean men, it is also something that most would prefer to avoid if they could. For athletes in particular, military service can potentially be the biggest obstacle in their lives, making them susceptible to the temptation to avoid it—and we have already seen such cases quite frequently. Since today’s sports stars, as public figures, receive a great deal of attention from the public, we look to responsible policymakers to devise alternatives that can address the problems inherent in the military service exemption system for athletes.
