The benefits the state gains from maintaining military exemptions for athletes are much greater

To be honest, those athletes' interviews can be quite annoying. Personally, I don't find them particularly likable; they're just somewhat off-putting.
I understand the emotional reaction, but suddenly abolishing the system entirely would actually be a bad move. It would be moving in a direction that causes the state to lose out.
This is because the benefits those athletes bring when granted exemptions are incomparably larger. If you actually look into the numbers, you won't be so angry. In reality, the state is the one reaping the rewards from granting those exemptions.
To summarize it as simply as possible:
Maintaining infrastructure for unpopular sports provides opportunities for citizens to enter those fields.
Securing R&D data for related industries in high-tech sports that combine science, such as archery, shooting, fencing, and bobsleigh.
The economic impact brought to the country when a sports star is born.
Exporting coaches/leaders.
Sports diplomacy, etc. Because the benefits the state gains from granting exemptions are incomparably large, it is almost an essential investment. The state doesn't grant exemptions simply to congratulate the athletes..
The frustrating part is that people always talk about "enhancing national prestige" in such vague terms, so people don't know specifically what the benefits are, which leads to these excessive reactions.
If people understood that the benefits the state and society gain from military exemptions are greater, they wouldn't be this angry.
While we could review and strengthen various exemption criteria—similar to a mileage system—there is nothing to be gained from total abolition. It would actually be a loss.