The essence of the ‘surprise amnesty for 100 disciplinary football players’, which is called the biggest futility in the history of the Korea Football Association (KFA), is the end of an organization that has closed its ears.
The ‘Jeong Mong-gyu 3rd system’, which was launched in January 2021, has been committing large and small administrative accidents for over two years. At the center of it is a big ‘discomfort’. Basically, Chairman Chung Mong-kyu is responsible. After succeeding in his 3rd term, he was criticized for running an ‘Agile organization’ in which work was performed flexibly according to need without any boundaries between departments. He aimed for horizontal work by introducing the modern industrial development organization system he operated, and from the inside, opinions gathered that it was not suitable for a sports organization with a small workforce.
Naturally, controversy ensued due to the lack of professionalism in key tasks and the unclear location of responsibility in the event of an accident. In particular, in the process of forming an agile organization, the public relations team, which played the role of communicating with the outside and reading trends, was eliminated, but it showed loopholes in responding to major risks. In the end, in the ‘Jeong Mong-gyu 3rd generation system’, the method of communication with the media and fans in relation to major negative issues was set as a ‘non-response strategy’. With the advent of new media platforms, various voices have a lot to respond to, and the internal conclusion was that ‘silence is better’.
The fact that the comedic event of withdrawal occurred three days after this surprise pardon is worth seeing as a comprehensive set of mistakes made by the KFA over the past two years. Eyes unable to read the times, lack of communication, and even inaction. He brought himself into a situation where everyone turned away.
Chairman Chung is not the only one to blame. In fact, the responsibility of high-ranking executives who must not spare ‘straight words or advice’ is greater. Their attitude has been ignored even by young KFA practitioners. Still, in the past, when Hong Myung-bo, manager of Ulsan Hyundai, served as executive director, he took off his feet like a ‘salesman’ over various pending issues, gathered opinions, and conveyed them to Chairman Chung to minimize negative issues. A KFA employee who requested anonymity met with a reporter at a temporary board meeting on the withdrawal of the amnesty on the 31st of last month and said, “Several working-level staff voiced their negative views on the amnesty. It is regrettable that only ‘yes men (senior executives)’ who lack a sense of reality seem to support Chairman Chung,” he said with determination.
This amnesty was decided and announced by the board of directors on the 28th of last month, but all the puzzles were already put together a month ago. Two high-ranking executives had a meeting with the Professional Football Federation. It was officially a place for discussion, but in reality it was a notification. The Pro League knew that the decision to pardon, including the match fixer, would be controversial. However, I couldn’t help but consider the relationship with KFA. Nevertheless, it is known that Jo Yeon-sang, secretary-general of the Pro Federation, who attended the board meeting, expressed concerns.
The high-ranking executives who took the lead in promoting the amnesty continued to be’straight’. There was enough time until the board meeting, but I was negligent in listening to outside opinions, and I only listened to the voices of some soccer players and those behind the scenes who had requested an amnesty.
Even the majority of KFA directors recognized that the amnesty was promoted only before the board meeting. One director said,메이저사이트 “It was an amnesty case that included a sensitive element (amnesty for match manipulators), but I was honestly embarrassed to hear it suddenly without sharing the agenda in advance.”
The high-ranking official who pushed for the amnesty remained silent until the end. Right after the temporary board of directors announced the withdrawal of the amnesty, Chairman Chung Mong-gyu left after reading a statement containing an apology message in front of reporters. At this time, the officers around them listened with embarrassed expressions and then left. KFA previously notified the reporters that they would not take questions after the (Chairman’s) announcement.
If it was a matter of genuine apology and regret, it would be right for the executive who promoted the pardon to actively communicate with the media and explain it. A sense of responsibility was required. However, even the apology went into hiding, relying on the ‘Chairman’. From the beginning to the end, he remained as a ‘silent bystander’.