🚨⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️ The incompetent Korea Football Association (KFA) continues to shift blame onto players and engages in media manipulation to divert attention—these outdated officials must resign immediately‼️‼️‼️ “Yong Soo Lee,” “Joong Yeon Cho,” “Kim Jeong Bae” Kim Byung Ji, all regional association presidents, and the President of the Korea Football Association‼️‼️⚽️⚽️⚽️ ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⚽️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ The KFA’s attempt to direct blame at Son Heung-min reflects a structural pattern in which the association refuses to accept its own responsibility and instead deflects accountability onto the most visible figure. This is not to say Son is blameless, but rather that the center of responsibility has repeatedly shifted from the association, coaches, and systems onto individual captains. Why is blame focused on Son Heung-min? First, he is the most prominent face. While performance is a collective result of the team and association, the captain is always the first to apologize and explain. After failing to qualify for the World Cup, Son was the first to bow his head—this is precisely how the system operates. Public sentiment attaches itself to his apology, while systemic issues such as flawed selection processes or tactical failures are pushed aside. Second, having an external scapegoat suits the association. Hong Myung-bo’s reappointment faced criticism for bypassing proper interviews and presentations, and the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism raised procedural concerns. There has been widespread distrust of Chung Mong-kyu’s long-standing leadership, along with parliamentary hearings and administrative lawsuits. If the association were to formally bear this responsibility, it would trigger serious issues regarding personnel, budgeting, and power. But by reframing the narrative as “for nine years, the internal environment was riddled with sand,” failure is reduced to a problem of captaincy and player leadership. Third, generational tensions within the squad serve as raw material. Tensions have been reported between Son Heung-min and Lee Jae-sung (born 1992) and the core players born in 1996—disagreements over continued media boycotts, and unresolved conflicts following the physical altercation between Son and Lee Kang-in during the 2024 Asian Cup. The 1996 cohort has reportedly demanded leadership change, yet nothing has improved. Rather than mediating these grievances, the association finds it safer to frame them as side effects of Son’s prolonged tenure. Reports also indicate that under interim coaching, it is difficult to sideline the team’s star or ignore backlash from the 1996 group—highlighting the vacuum in leadership. Fourth, media cycles amplify this dynamic. Without victories, it’s “over-reliance on Son”; internal discord becomes “captain’s responsibility”; benching him is interpreted as “poor form.” Even media-induced friction—such as reporters mocking Son’s military exemption or interfering in his training—ends up being framed as player conflict rather than institutional failure. What responsibility is being dropped? Tactical planning, coach selection, medical and operational interference, failed conflict mediation, and absence of a generational transition roadmap—all fall squarely within the domain of the association and coaching staff. While it is valid to criticize Son for failing to unify team morale as captain, attributing *all* failure to his nine-year armband erases the association’s operational failures during years of leadership vacuum and temporary fixes. If the team enters next January’s Asian Cup in this state, fears that they are building a house on sand will only grow louder. https://t.co/1Zzy5aMZzX