Editorial Football Association Covering Up Referee Now Faces Its Own Red Card
On the ground of women's professional sports, a referee was reported to have told a player, "Looks like you're on your period." The incident occurred at the WK League Suwon FC Women versus Seoul City Hall match held at Suwon Sports Complex on the 28th. Ji So-yeon, who has represented Korean women's football for over 20 years, testified that referee Bae Seon-young said during a wireless communication, "She's been on edge from the start. Looks like she's menstruating," targeting her. She provided specific details of the remarks, the situation at the time, and even the sentence she used in protest. The match was halted for four minutes, and the entire incident was captured in the federation's live broadcast. If the testimony is true, this is not merely a matter of refereeing dispute. It is blatant sexual harassment—a match official exercising final authority over play has made a player's body the subject of ridicule through an official communication channel.
Yet what followed was even more disheartening: the Korean Football Association's response. According to an MBC report, the association's referee team stated on the 29th that "it is true that the referee and assistant referee communicated, but the word 'menstruating' was not used, and player Ji So-yeon was not specifically targeted." In the same breath, they claimed that "unnecessary remarks constitute inappropriate behavior" and promised preventive education going forward. One must ask: if the problematic word was never used and no one was targeted, what exactly constitutes the "unnecessary remarks," and what exactly will be "prevented from recurring"? An explanation of innocence and a promise to correct wrongdoing cannot coexist in one document. This self-contradiction amounts to the association itself confessing that something inappropriate occurred.
The procedure is even more problematic. The association reached its conclusion before even reviewing the match supervisor's report and the referee's report. Before any investigation even began, the institution rushed to declare the innocence of its own subordinate referee under investigation. By the association's own logic, the player testifying to harm becomes someone who fabricated words she never heard. The first principle in handling sexual harassment cases is to verify the victim's statement through investigation, not for an institution to rush to protect its own members. This response is secondhand victimization, making the victim cry twice over. This is why criticism has emerged that while the remarks themselves are problematic, the response constitutes a disaster.
There is another absurd aspect. Only the person raising the complaint has suffered consequences. Ji So-yeon cannot play in the match on the 2nd of next month due to accumulated cautions received during the protest process. The player who objected to sexual harassment must sit out, while the referee identified as the speaker has vanished behind the veil of "promised education." To speak of women's football's development and future while allowing this picture to remain unchanged is hollow.
The path forward is not complicated. The wireless communication is an official channel heard by all members of the refereeing team. The association and league must cross-reference the communication records from that time with the referees' statements and transparently disclose the facts. The concerned referee's match assignments must be suspended until the investigation concludes, and remedial procedures for the cautions imposed on Ji So-yeon must be reviewed simultaneously. The formal complaint the Suwon FC Women club is preparing must also be addressed with sincerity.
Korean women's football has reached this point through the dedication of its players. The moment the institution crushes the testimony of that flagship player beneath concern for face, the trust of every player who steps on the pitch crumbles. What the association must protect is not the referee's reputation but the dignity of sport. The player raising the protest was not the one who should have received a red card that day. The one who deserves a red card now is the association attempting to conceal the truth.