Strong soccer teams start with merit, not politics

When South Korea failed to make the knockout stages in the soccer World Cup, the country’s president, Lee Jae Myung, denounced the national team head coach, a South Korean citizen. “This is the result of failures in organization and personnel management; if you appoint an incompetent person as a leader, the outcome is obvious.”

It reminded me of a horrific incident from three decades ago, after the 1994 World Cup, when a Colombian player — whose team lost early in the tournament — was shot and killed by alleged drug traffickers after returning home. I never dreamed, however, that the head of state in South Korea would openly criticize the head coach and its soccer association so harshly.

Public opinion in South Korea also boiled over, leading to the resignation of the coach and the president of the Korea Football Association.

The Japanese team advanced to the knockout stage, but was unfortunately eliminated in the first match after facing Brazil. Even so, in Japan, there was almost no public criticism of Hajime Moriyasu, the national team’s head coach or of the Japan Football Association. On the contrary, foreign media have even praised the Japanese team.

The JFA is reportedly finalizing a plan to appoint the current U-21 national team coach, Go Oiwa, as Moriyasu’s successor. While there had been speculation about the next head coach, it seems the JFA has ultimately decided to promote the U-21 coach, who has been training promising young players expected to play key roles on the national team in the future.

If this decision goes through, Japan will see a smooth generational transition: The current head coach — though he failed to secure a single victory in the knockout stage — will have his term extended by about half a year before passing the baton to a younger, new coach representing the next generation.

This treatment is worlds apart from that of his South Korean counterpart, who was forced into an indignant resignation.

But why exactly has it come to this? The contrasting fates of the two managers reminded me of an astonishing episode in China.

Takeshi Okada, who previously served as head coach of Japan’s national team, reportedly spent a year starting in 2012 coaching Chinese Super League side Hangzhou Greentown. Okada recounted the following experience from that time:

Shortly after Okada took the helm, a mysterious, thick envelope was left on his desk in his office. Inside was a large amount of cash. When he asked what it was, he was told it was a bribe for Okada from one of the team’s players — a payment in exchange for the coach selecting him to play in matches.

In the Chinese soccer world at the time, it had become commonplace for players to bribe coaches to secure a spot in the starting lineup.

It appears that the previous head coach and others before him had selected players after accepting such bribes, so naturally, the players assumed the same approach would work with the newly arrived Japanese manager.

Okada immediately returned the cash and firmly refused to accept it. He then told the players, “I will evaluate you purely based on your ability, performance in practice and contribution to the team. I will never, under any circumstances, determine the starting lineup based on money or connections.”

Naturally, underperforming veteran players who had been paying bribes were cut from the lineup. Subsequently, talented young players and those who were working hard were selected in their place. The team’s culture improved, and ultimately, the team managed to avoid relegation from the first division.

It is unclear whether such practices continue in China today. Furthermore, I have no intention of suggesting that this incident is representative of Chinese soccer or the country itself.
So, back to the situation in South Korea. According to reports, the South Korean coach, Hong Myung-bo, whom the president reprimanded, had already faced criticism within South Korea upon taking office for opaque favoritism and cronyism.

After the previous non-Korean head coach was dismissed, negotiations with world-class international candidates reportedly hit a snag, leading to the sudden decision to appoint a South Korean coach. It is said that this selection was made without interviews or presentations and that the entire detailed vetting process was bypassed.

All of this isn’t to suggest that these episodes reflect the national character of South Korea, Japan or China. That said, there are lessons that can be drawn from these contrasting episodes.

First, appointments based on bribery or favoritism rather than merit ultimately weaken the team. Second, conversely, if athletes are selected fairly based on merit, the team is more likely to become stronger. Third, athlete development requires long-term planning and maintaining a smooth generational transition appears to be the surest path to improving the level of play.

Setting aside the issues of bribery and favoritism, when it comes to long-term planning, Japan might just have a slight edge.