ASA 2009 Code Changes

[Andy]

I had heard that there was going to be a $5 increase in the umpire game fees for national tournaments starting in 2009...is that true?

[wadeintothem]

The money is not the issue with me. Event adding $7-8 bucks a game would be what? an extra $60 for the week at a National. Big deal.

With me, $18 a game is kind of degrading. It is a small slap in the face. "We pay you this little, because we can."

That said, I will keep on being degraded until I reach my personnal goals, then it will someone elses turn.

If you choose not to be degraded by that level of pay or the money is that big of a deal to you, then I wouldnt hold it against you for not wanting to work a national. Besides, that keeps the slots open for people who do want to work them.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Andy

I had heard that there was going to be a $5 increase in the umpire game fees for national tournaments starting in 2009...is that true?

Sort of. Fast pitch fees were $18 for JO (except Gold), $20 for Gold and Adult (except Mens' Major), and $23 for Men's Major. Starting in 2009, all are now a minimum of $25.

Slow pitch game fees are unchanged. Adult is $20, JO is $16.

UIC's and National Office Reps increase from $50 a day to $100, and ***'t. UIC's increase from $25 to $50.

In the big picture, the budget had to be balanced, and either fees had to increase, or services cut (or both). The teams were raised as much as anyone thought was doable (33%, from $6 to $8), and that wouldn't cover the deficit. Umpires were raised 20%, from $15 to $18; that is the portion that goes to OKC. I figure that $3 increase is between a half inning and a full inning of work, so I had no problem accepting that umpires should also share in the process of keeping ASA fiscally sound.

The two measures combined came close, but short of balancing the proposed budget. The remainder is expected to come from increased ACE coaches participation, as ASA mandates certified coaches in championship play.

The proposals to increase the umpire and UIC fees were doomed, IMO; increases are approved (as noted above) effective 2009, and the proposed increases were too much, too soon ($30 for fast pitch umpires, $150 for UIC and National Office Rep, and $100 for ***'t. UIC).

Also, there won't be fewer umpires at National Tournaments; there will be fewer that ASA will be paying for their travel. There was no projection how much money that would save, but it also seems fiscally responsible to reduce the expenditures where possible, without damaging the program. The program continues to use At-Large umpires from outside the host association, it simply reduces the minimum mandated to receive National reimbursement. It leaves open the standard process of swapping slots to outside associations, to allow the umpires from any area to participate.

Just my take on these issues. There were hard choices to be made, and no one knew what services might be lost or reduced if ASA didn't raise the fees.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I agree with Steve that there was no way another rate increase was going to be approved. Of course, the reason for them was to address Texasbock's opinion with which I disagree.

If you are in it for the money, fine, stay home. Those who have been to a national will tell you that in many, if not most, cases, the umpires are treated above and beyond what you get at many NQ/Regional/State/showcase tournaments including food, drink and entertainment that goes beyond game fees. I've even had a host do my laundry. There are, also, quite a few hosts which pay higher than the minimum provided for by code.

If one chooses to not work a national because of the pay, that is fine by those who want to work them.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I agree with Steve that there was no way another rate increase was going to be approved. Of course, the reason for them was to address Texasbock's opinion with which I disagree.

If one chooses to not work a national because of the pay, that is fine by those who want to work them.

Then why not save ASA more money and cut the game fees out completely for nationals? If you're not in it for the money, you're not in it for the money, right?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by topper

Then why not save ASA more money and cut the game fees out completely for nationals? If you're not in it for the money, you're not in it for the money, right?

I suspect you meant this as a rhetorical question, but I will answer it anyway.

When I attend an ASA National, I enjoy every part of the experience; the games, the umpire cameraderie, the discussions with my peers and those I respect, the socialization, and seeing some that I only see on those rare occasions. I don't treat that week as, and expect it to be, a money-making week.

At the same time, I hope to come out even. If the game fees cover the "incidental" costs of the week, it is a successful trip. If I return home with all my expenses (and beer) paid, I'm happy. The games are a bonus, the means to the process.

But, that's just me. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way, but also don't think everyone thinks that way.