On Feb. 21, it was reported that Lee Kang-in, a member of the South Korean national football team, personally met Son Heung-min for the first time to apologize after the ‘table tennis incident.’ Despite reconciliation among the key parties involved, public anger towards Lee has not subsided. While some responses suggest, ‘Since Son has forgiven him, let’s stop here,’ many others express sharper criticism, calling for actions such as, ‘Lee should be expelled from the football community,’ ‘Revoke his military exemption and enlist him,’ and ‘He should never be selected as a national team member again.’
The incident between the national team captain and the rising star during the Asian Cup has sparked widespread debate in Korean society. Even pundits are perplexed, describing it as a phenomenon that cannot be solely explained by the nation’s interest in football and disappointment with the Asian Cup. What exactly has triggered such intense public anger?
① “Lee Kang-in went too far”
Just before this incident, Lee Kang-in was hailed as the promising future of Korean football, charming and self-assured. However, his behavior in this incident was too extreme to be dismissed as mere youthful boldness. ‘To refuse a team meeting convened by Son, a revered figure in Korean football and the team captain? Not only that, he didn’t engage in meditation or calmly prepare for the game; instead, he hastily dined and played table tennis for over two hours. He even got into an argument with the captain and threw a punch? And then, the next day, when the captain suffered a broken finger, he nonchalantly laughed while tossing water bottles with his teammates?’ Fans’ anger reached its zenith.
Commentator A stated, “The older generation, which values unity, hierarchy, and harmony, perceives Lee Kang-in’s actions, as portrayed in the media, as a dangerous signal undermining the foundations of organizations and Korean society.” They added, “Individuals who prioritize traditional organizational culture are experiencing anger and confusion due to clashes with the individualism, rationality, and efficiency emphasized by the younger generation. This incident resonates closely with their experiences of anger and chaos in organizational life.” A concluded, “Since Lee Kang-in’s behavior touched upon such a sensitive issue, those who value traditional organizational culture cannot help but view it with even greater displeasure.”
Commentator B remarked, “As much as ability, attitude is important, but Lee Kang-in’s attitude is detached from the symbolism of national expectations and patriotism that the people hold for the national team.”
② Instagram misstep further fuels national anger
Lee’s method of apology also fueled the wildfire-like spread of national anger. On Feb. 14, when the discord became known, he posted an apology on Instagram, stating, “I should have taken the lead and followed the words of my seniors, but I am sorry for showing a bad image to the football fans.” However, this apology only expressed regret to the football fans, with no mention of an apology to Son and his national team colleagues.
What further fueled public anger was that he posted this apology not as an Instagram ‘post’ but as a ‘story’. Photos posted on a story are automatically deleted after one day. Among football fans, there was talk of ‘apologizing without admitting one’s own mistakes.’ In the end, Lee went to London to personally apologize to Son and then posted a formal apology on Instagram again, this time as a ‘post’.
③ “Son Heung-min is not without fault”
However, there are also arguments against overly criticizing Lee. Some contend that if there were concerns about the upcoming game, Son should have formally requested a team meeting with the coach instead of unilaterally convening one as captain.
‘Though is it reasonable to confront a senior and team captain in such a manner?’ Despite the criticisms, these arguments persist. They also highlight instances where Son himself stood up to authority figures in the past. For example, Son clashed with goalkeeper Hugo Lloris, who was the team captain during a match in the 2019-2020 season while they both played for Tottenham Hotspur. When Lloris questioned Son’s defensive involvement, Son stood his ground and even engaged in a physical altercation.
Appearing aware of such public sentiments, Son also announced reconciliation with Lee, acknowledging, “I don’t believe my actions were appropriate and recognize that they were subject to criticism.” Commentator No Jung-tae observed, “Summoning players against the coach’s instructions was an act of defiance,” adding, “There is a need to reconsider the perception that Son Heung-min’s actions are always lauded as heroic.”
④ All agree: “Klinsmann is the villain”
In the midst of the feud between Lee and Son, there was swift unanimity in facing the towering evil figure known as Jürgen Klinsmann. Both sides reached the consensus that the primary culprit was an inept coach lacking leadership.
In various workplace communities, there is no shortage of comparisons between Klinsmann and their own bosses. These bosses often delegate all the work to subordinates, engage in political maneuvering and favoritism, and take credit for successes while blaming subordinates for failures. When it was revealed that Klinsmann, just before his dismissal, stated at a meeting organized by the Korea Football Association (KFA) that “The conflict between Son Heung-min and Lee Kang-in affected the team’s performance,” public anger once again peaked. Among football fans, suspicions are turning into convictions that ‘Wasn’t it Klinsmann who orchestrated the leaking of the incident to the British tabloids in the first place to cover up his own failures?’
The greatest sin of an incompetent boss is believing themselves to be competent. Despite boldly guaranteeing to continue the World Cup qualifiers, Klinsmann was eventually sacked without even lasting a year in office. While he may have left, the public’s anger still simmers, fueled by news that he pocketed 10 billion won in compensation despite repeated failures.
⑤ Once again highlighted: lack of leadership in the Association
Amid the ongoing controversy, Chung Mong-gyu, the president of the KFA, made his first public appearance only after Klinsmann’s dismissal. However, he departed without providing clear insights into Klinsmann’s appointment, resignation, or the player conflicts, leaving behind ambiguous statements lacking clear direction.
Among football fans, frustration is mounting, with many expressing sentiments akin to, “It feels like witnessing an incompetent company solely focused on evading responsibility.” Commentators have criticized this as a typical case of leadership absence. Kim Heon-sik, a commentator, pointed out, “The organization should take accountability for the incident, yet no one has stepped forward.” He emphasized, “The ongoing trend of evading responsibility by making decisions in secrecy and claiming sole credit for achievements remains unaddressed, vividly exposing the overall leadership vacuum in Korean society.”
There’s been speculation that this situation is uniquely Korean. Commentator No Jung-tae noted, “During the 2002 World Cup, Coach Guus Hiddink established a non-authoritarian, horizontal leadership approach. The recnt incident symbolizes the failure of such a system to progress and rather its regression.” He further observed, “It reflects a broader leadership deficit across Korean society, leaving citizens with no choice but to feel even more enraged.”