Another thought...
 

I realize this thread is mainly about a uniform being dictated by the state association, but the OP is also complaining about the cost of the slacks.

Why not just look at it this way...the pants are part of your uniform, which includes a mask (HS level and up you've likely spent at least $75 or more), plate shoes (again, at higher levels, $75 or more), a chest protector ($125 on up for anything of decent quality), and so forth. So, you want to gripe about $70 pants instead of a $40 pair? C'mon man...

The NFHS simply says gray. I really don't care if the pants match perfectly or not.

Then again, it's obvious this is just another attempt of Honig's to sell to 100% of a state's officials. I wonder how much of that $70 ends up back in the FHSAA's coffers.

Fortunately, I can still buy pants from whomever I want where I live. And if I'm wearing Davis pants, I really don't care if my partner buys Smitty or Honigs pants. Should I match brand and style of shoe, too?

Mike:

Well said.

MTD, Sr.

ZM:

I don't know where you live; and you are correct regarding a StateHSAA's lack of manpower to enforce its officials' uniform requirements, BUT you would be suprised what your StateHSAA knows.

Somebody from your local umpire's association could see you umpire in a non-sanctioned uniform and report you to your StateHSAA, or you umpire a game that is broadcast on your cable company's local access channel (BuckeyeCable my local cable company has it own sports channel (BCSN) for local H.S. and college sports) and video of the game is sent to your StateHSAA offices. I can assure you that it happens.

The following is a true story that happened to two H.S. soccer officials here in Ohio. The year that USSF/FIFA officials changed from black shirts with white cuffs to yellow shirts with black cuffs, the OhioHSAA still required its soccer officials to wear black shirts with white cuffs. During the very first week of the H.S. soccer season two officials officiated a varsity game at a H.S. located only a couple of miles from the OhioHSAA's offices; the officals decided that they were going to wear their USSF yellow shirts to officiate the game. Unbeknownst to them, an administrator from the OhioHSAA happened to be in the stands. Each official was fined $100, and their game fee was only $40.

MTD, Sr.

In the "north of I-80" part of Illinois, to work essentially any game, you contract with one of a handful of associations. These associations have uniform requirements, which also conform to the IHSA uniform standards. You wear the uniform the association tells you to for the specific game. If you don't, and your assignor finds out, you probably won't be working for that organization at all any more. And then you don't work at all pretty quick. Makes it easy - follow the uniform!

Where I live,there are no fines. If there were, I would not pay them. If they told me I could not work, we'd have a legal discussion about the extent that adhesion contracts are binding in this context. "If you don't like it, don't work their games" is a cowardly cop-out. They can't just do whatever they want unless you let them. Your rights are worthless if you don't undergo the fatigue of exercising them.

My positions are always about associations--state or local--trying to screw officials by making them take on the detriments of both employees and independent contractors, while keeping the benefits of both for themselves. Officials do themselves no favors by allowing them to do so. I couldn't care less what color my shirt is, but I care greatly about who decides. Local associations in particular ought to be charged with theft for charging dues to officials, and then doing little to nothing to represent their interests.

Associations can--and do--require lots of things that I adhere to without question. Whether they can require a specific uniform--particularly a specific manufacturer--as a condition of granting a "license" (We are not licensed here; merely registered. Licenses are granted by government agencies here. In some states, the state association is a government body; here, it is a not-for-profit agency) as a subterfuge to avoid compliance with maintaining the distinction between employee and independent contractor differs from state to state and may or may not be enforceable.

Since there is no one single item that defines employee or independent contractor, you have to watch what side of the line everything they do falls on. My state association is close to requiring enough to classify them as an employer, and I'm sure they know it. That, and likely not lack of knowledge, keeps them from enforcing some of their "requirements." What I do guarantees that I will never work a state tournament, but does more to benefit
officials than nearly any local association does. They act, by and large, as if they are just subdivisions of the state.

Officials in some areas have traded away some of their rights in return for more money or other benefits, and that's fine. Here, they just let themselves be abused, buying into the practices indicating that officiating is more important than officials.

If associations want to require so much that they fall on the employer side of the line, that's fine, too; they can pay FICA and workman's comp. They want to have their cake, and eat it, too. That, I will not quietly abide. I know most officials love doing games so much that they'll tolerate unneeded burdens to do it. I'm just letting them know they don't always have to.

Why did you do that anyway? Do you do that in any other sport?

I never understood why people tried to match pants based on who made them. That was always silly and unnecessary. I bought one brand if my partners did not have them, so be it. No one really ever cared but umpires that had nothing else to worry about.

Peace