South Korea defender Jang Hyun-soo has received a lifetime ban from playing for the national team and hit with a 30 million won ($26,448) fine after he was found to have falsified records relating to his military service exemption.All able-bodied South Korean men must complete almost two years military service as part of efforts to maintain a deterrent against the North but athletes can earn exemptions by winning a medal at the Olympics or gold at the Asian Games.As part of the exemption conditions, athletes must undergo four weeks of basic military training and undertake more than 500 hours of community service over a three-year period.Jang, who has 58 caps and was part of the team that won gold at the 2014 Asian Games in Incheon, has admitted to submitting false records detailing how many hours of community service he has performed.The Korea Football Association met on Thursday to decide how to punish the 27-year-old, who played in all three of Korea’s games at the World Cup in Russia.”Jang has been permanently disqualified from playing for the national team and has been fined 30 million won,” a KFA spokesperson said by telephone on Thursday. In addition to the KFA sanction, the Sports Ministry has given Jang an additional five days of compulsory service.Jang, who will now miss the Asian Cup in January, had apologised on Monday and said he would undertake the required community service.”I am sorry to have disappointed everyone for such a shameful issue,” he was quoted as saying on the KFA website.The issue of military exemptions has come under the microscope in recent months.The incentive was introduced in the 1970s as part of Seoul’s drive to become a world sporting power and raise its profile on the global stage but it has come in for criticism in recent years as the country rebalances its priorities. Some have called for the exemption system to be abolished altogether, questioning its fairness in an era where the South Korean public have been yearning for an end to privilege and lopsided advantages in all walks of life.Tottenham Hotspur striker Son Heung-min was the latest high-profile athlete to win an exemption after he led South Korea to the gold medal at the Asian Games in Jakarta in September.
So you’re saying there’s a chance? Related News Could we see Peyton Manning working in an NFL front office? Never say never.Manning was asked that by TMZ Sports on his way out of a restaurant Wednesday night, where he indicated he wouldn’t say no if the right opportunity came along. “I kind of like being a fan,” Manning said. “[I get to] go to a lot of games … see the Broncos play, Colts play, see the Giants play … so I’m kind of enjoying doing that part of it right now but we’ll see.” Browns’ Myles Garrett eager for ‘more freedom to be the player I want to be’ NFL approves new field for Azteca Stadium; Chiefs-Chargers set for Nov. 18 Manning reportedly has been approached by front offices since he retired at the end of the 2015 season but has remained only an occasional commentator when it comes to working in the NFL.His career spanned nearly two decades, winning a Super Bowl with the Colts, then the Broncos before calling it quits. Apparently, he’s enjoying watching his brother Eli Manning play for the Giants, although the younger Manning’s career likely is winding down, which could open up Peyton’s schedule quite a bit.
New Delhi, Apr 21 (PTI) The Delhi High Court today stayed its single judge order which has held that installation of air conditioners (AC) in schools of the national capital cannot be a ground to hike tuition fees to pay electricity charges.A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gital Mittal and Justice Anu Malhotra, however, was of the view that 15 per cent hike in tuition fees by school towards power charges and running of the AC system they had installed, was not appropriate.”There may be many parents who cannot afford to even pay one per cent of the enhanced fees by the schools,” the bench orally observed.It asked two city-based schools, challenging the single judge order declining their decision to hike tuition fees to pay electricity charges, whether they wanted to force the parents out of the schools.It, however, said that till the next date, it will stay the verdict of the single judge who had said that providing AC facilities in the school cannot be connected with the curricular or co-curricular activities.The division bench also directed the schools that it will not insist on parents to pay any enhanced fees till pending of the appeal before it.To this, the counsel for the two schools submitted that they have not enhanced any fees since 2015-16 academic year.The bench issued notice to the Delhi government on the schools appeal and sought their stand in this regard.The single judge ruling had come while dismissing the plea of the schools against a June 16, 2016, order of the Delhi governments Directorate of Education (DoE) holding that the 15 per cent hike in tuition fees was illegal.advertisementThe schools had challenged the order before the single judge saying, they hiked the tuition fee to meet the expenses incurred in maintaining and running the AC system and in paying electricity bills for the same, which are all recurring expenses in the nature of revenue expenses.The schools had also claimed that AC have been installed for an academic purpose, the running cost for the same is thus a revenue expense for improvement of curricular facilities.Disagreeing with the schools, the court said the DoEs order “rightly held” that the charges for the electricity bill cannot be included in tuition fees and overheads, nor it is expenses on play-ground, sports equipment, cultural activities etc. and also on co-curricular activities.The electricity bills can only be claimed under the head annual charges.The schools had also contended that if the charges can be claimed under annual charges and not tuition fees, then they have not done anything illegal.Rejecting the argument, the single judge had said, “The same does not appeal to this court, more so when there is a finding in the impugned order (of DoE) that the schools have already increased annual charges in the session 2015-2016. The school could not have further claimed the electricity charges under the head annual charges.” PTI PPS HMP ARC