Carlos Yulo has long been celebrated as one of the Philippines’ most talented athletes, a gold medalist whose dedication and discipline in gymnastics have earned him international acclaim. Yet, in recent times, his stellar career has been overshadowed by controversies surrounding his personal life, particularly involving his relationship with his parents. As is often the case in the Philippines, moralism has found its way into the conversation, and suddenly, Yulo’s achievements are being downplayed in favor of defending so-called “Filipino values.”
While many countries focus solely on an athlete’s performance, separating personal lives from professional accomplishments, the Filipino public tends to apply a moralistic lens to figures in the spotlight. This cultural trait can make it difficult for individuals to be appreciated solely for their work, as their character and family dynamics often come under intense scrutiny. This is where Carlos Yulo, despite his international success, has found himself—caught in the middle of a debate that has little to do with his athletic prowess.
In the case of Yulo, some voices in the public sphere have expressed disappointment, not in his performances, but in his perceived failure to adhere to certain familial and cultural expectations. These reactions stem from a deep-rooted aspect of Filipino society that places great importance on familial ties, respect for parents, and adherence to traditional values. For many Filipinos, to succeed publicly means to uphold these values privately, and any deviation from this script can trigger waves of criticism.
What is striking, however, is how quickly the conversation about Yulo’s abilities as an athlete has shifted. Suddenly, his triumphs on the world stage—his representation of the country and his hard-earned medals—are sidelined in favor of a moral debate. In the broader international arena, this seems almost absurd. After all, when Usain Bolt dominated track and field, the world celebrated his speed and agility. When Michael Phelps shattered records, it was his swimming that made headlines, not his personal life. Yet in the Philippines, it seems Yulo’s personal controversies have become more important than his legacy as an Olympian.
The irony, however, is hard to miss. The same individuals who are quick to judge Yulo based on perceived moral shortcomings are often the very ones who continue to reelect corrupt politicians, turning a blind eye to the ethical failings of public officials. In a country where corruption and political scandals are rampant, it’s curious that so much energy is spent scrutinizing an athlete’s personal life while known corrupt figures continue to hold positions of power. If these critics are so concerned with “virtue” and “morality,” one must ask—where is this moral compass when it comes to those who truly affect the nation’s well-being?
This dissonance raises the question of whether these criticisms are genuinely rooted in upholding Filipino values, or if they’re merely a form of clout-chasing. In an era dominated by social media, virtue signaling has become a popular way for individuals to gain attention or content, often at the expense of others. It’s easier to jump on a moralistic bandwagon and tear down someone’s achievement than to confront more uncomfortable truths, like the systemic corruption that continues to plague the country.
In the case of Carlos Yulo, this misuse of “morality” seems like an opportunistic way to downplay his success, diverting attention from his impressive athletic feats to focus on something far less relevant. His role as an Olympian should be viewed in the context of his sport—his dedication, discipline, and skill—rather than through a moralistic filter that has little to do with his professional achievements.
The world doesn’t care much about these controversies; they see Yulo for what he is—a world-class gymnast and a representative of the Philippines on the global stage. His personal life, while it may be of local interest, has little bearing on his standing as an athlete. It’s time for the country to recognize that Yulo’s contribution to sports transcends these moral debates and acknowledge the immense pride and honor he brings through his performances.
But then, the conversation gets even more cringeworthy. Some commenters, instead of focusing on the actual issue, start talking about “sharing blessings” or even quoting the Bible—perhaps unwittingly gaslighting the entire situation. They position themselves as mediators, but one must wonder if they’re truly advocating for a just reconciliation or simply pushing for submission to prove their “uprightness” or “virtue.” The idea that Yulo should somehow share his blessings as a way to resolve the situation raises the uncomfortable question: if he does, will it even be repaid?
Perhaps, in a survivalist context, where many Filipinos struggle daily just to make ends meet, it’s likely that any form of “repayment” would be possible. The reality is that calls for "sharing blessings" often come across as thinly veiled demands for submission—insisting that the athlete must prove himself morally “worthy” of his success by giving back. But should Yulo’s generosity—or lack thereof—be the measure of his worth as an athlete? Is it his duty to appease the critics by showing public acts of benevolence? To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with an act of benevolence. In fact, giving back to one’s community, what more the parents, can be a deeply fulfilling experience for both the giver and the recipient. However, the issue arises when such acts are no longer voluntary, but instead become an expectation—or worse, a form of compulsion. It’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. If Yulo shares his blessings, it may never be enough for those demanding it, and if he chooses not to, he risks being branded as ungrateful or selfish. So much for those who claim to be virtuous and moral—are they truly seeking reconciliation, or simply trying to maintain their perceived moral high ground? In a survivalist situation that many Filipinos endure, the idea of “sharing blessings” can be unrealistic and burdensome, especially for those who are struggling to make ends meet. The expectation that successful athletes should act as role models and share their fortunes can overshadow their hard work and dedication, creating an environment where their achievements are overshadowed by moral judgment.
Looking back at Brundage
Wouldn’t be surprised if, soon, the conversation shifts from criticizing Yulo to blaming the financial rewards athletes receive for “corrupting” the values of an Olympian. In such a scenario, those who cry moralism and virtue might find an ally in the late Avery Brundage, the former president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who staunchly advocated for amateurism in sports. Brundage famously stated, “The Olympic Games must be kept free of any taint of professionalism,” reflecting his belief that athletes should compete primarily for the love of their sport rather than for financial gain (Brundage, 1963).
Brundage further elaborated, saying, “I believe that in the long run, we will return to a more pure form of athletic competition,” emphasizing his ideal that athletes should embody “the spirit of competition and the joy of participation” (Brundage, 1961). This perspective paints a picture of the athlete as a selfless competitor, driven by passion rather than the allure of monetary rewards. However, this viewpoint also raises questions about the practicality of such expectations in the modern context, especially in countries with limited sports funding, like the Philippines.
The romanticized notion of amateurism ignores the complexities of today’s athletic landscape, where financial support is often necessary for athletes to thrive and compete at the highest levels. Filipino athletes, including Yulo, face not only the pressures of international competition but also the burden of expectations that their success should come without the accompanying financial rewards.
In the historical context such as that of the Great Depression, the expectations placed on athletes mirrored those faced by Yulo today. Athletes of that era competed under harsh conditions and were celebrated for their perseverance, yet they too grappled with societal expectations that prioritized the sport over personal gain. As Yulo navigates the contemporary pressures of competition, he faces the dual challenge of excelling while contending with societal expectations that prioritize moral purity over financial success.
As the discourse around Yulo continues, it is inevitable that some will say, “a medal is enough,” or even a "stipend and a simple living", echoing sentiments like “better to be poor in wealth and rich in law.” Such phrases encapsulate a prevailing Filipino ideal that often valorizes suffering and humility over tangible success. For today’s self-proclaimed moralists, the pressure often seems contradictory: it is either “share the blessings” of success or be condemning the financial rewards that supposedly corrupt the values of an Olympian. This simplistic view reduces the complexities of athletic achievement and imposes unrealistic expectations on athletes to conform to a particular moral standard that may not align with their realities.
Brundage’s ideology, which sought to preserve the purity of amateurism, may resonate with those who advocate for a more ascetic approach to athletics. He insisted, “The athlete must rely on his own resources and develop his skills through hard work and dedication rather than financial gain,” a sentiment that appeals to the Filipino ideal of resilience and self-sacrifice (Brundage, 1964). This notion, while noble, does not account for the contemporary reality that athletes require financial support to pursue their passions and compete on a global stage.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the narrative surrounding Carlos Yulo serves as a microcosm of a broader cultural discourse about morality, success, and the role of athletes in society. By fostering an environment that champions athletic achievement while acknowledging the realities that come with it, society can allow athletes to thrive both in their sport and personal lives. It is essential to celebrate athletes like Yulo for their dedication, talent, and the pride they bring to their nations, free from the constraints of some moral judgments that rather serve only to undermine their successes.
Perhaps the conversation would be better served by allowing Yulo to be seen as the adult he is, rather than as a child trapped in a familial dispute. The continued infantilization of Yulo undermines his autonomy, suggesting that he is not capable of making his own decisions or navigating his own path. In truth, he is an accomplished, world-class gymnast who has the right to be recognized for his achievements on his own terms, without being burdened by societal expectations of morality and virtue.
In the end, if Filipinos can continue to reelect corrupt officials while claiming to uphold “morality,” perhaps it’s worth questioning what moralism really means in this context. Is it truly about values, or is it just another way to detract from someone’s success? Carlos Yulo deserves to be celebrated for what he has accomplished—without the weight of some moralistic judgments. Let the medalist be judged by his achievements, not by some self-proclaimed moralists. Let him be seen as the adult Olympian he is, not as a child caught in a moral drama.
References: