MATCH REPORTS
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
ARCHIVES

Umpires' wage scales cause a storm

Following criticism in a section of the British press, the International Cricket Council has defended its pay scales for umpires.

The controversy was sparked by a British newspaper which claimed that Javed Akhtar, who officiated as the neutral umpire from the ICC panel in the series-deciding fifth Test between England and South Africa at Headingley, received only 158 pounds (US$260).

This was in contrast to Peter Willey, the home umpire, who received 2,755 pounds (US$4,529).

The ICC, through its spokesman, clarified that Akthar actually received 662 pounds US$1,088) as match fee, plus 600 pounds (US$986) for expenses, a business-class airfare and accommodation.

The spokesman said that Akhtar's match payment comprised what he would have received in Pakistan -- Rs 12,000 (US$266) -- plus the maximum ICC Test fee of 500 pounds (US$822).

Willey's compensation included the standard salary for a professional English umpire adjudicating in a test, paid by local authorities, plus a bonus for his 11th test appearance.

The Daily Mail estimated that based on the 158 pounds figure, Akhtar would have earned more money per day working an eight-hour shift at McDonald's for five days.

The ICC argument, incorporating plane fare and accomodation into the wage, is tenuous at best. After all, it is the ICC that appointed Akthar to umpire -- the body could hardly have expected him to pay his own fare and board. Remuneration, and expenses, are two seperate packages, and using the latter to explain the paucity of the former would get laughed out of any labour court anywhere.

Interestingly, the England Umpires Association put a new twist to the tale, when its chairman Barrie Leadbeater said English umpires earn more because they are the only full-time officials making a living from the game.

"It is difficult to justify paying the others so much less, but if they were paid the same they would be rich men in their own countries, where the living standards are lower," he said.

On the face of it, the entire argument is strange. First up, several professional umpires have come up in other countries as well -- and if none of them makes a living exclusively from the game, it is because they are not paid on par with the British umpires.

So it is the classic chicken or egg case -- by Leadbetter's argument, the umpires don't make a living out of it so they shouldn't be paid higher wages; the other side of that coin is that the umpires are not paid well, so they can't make a living at it.

The other part of Leadbetter's argument is even more ridiculous. Essentially, he says umpires from other countries can't be paid on par with British umpires because that would make them rich men in their own countries.

What precisely does he have against someone getting rich doing his job? That is the way of the international marketplace -- foreign companies buy raw material or set up production facilities in third world countries to take advantage of the very disparity between the pound/dollar and the local currency, that Leadbetter now faults.

The ICC meanwhile has released a statement saying its umpire fees and bonuses vary from country to country, as do players' fees, determined on inversely proportional basis to the relative standard of living in their home country and according to differences in scale of cricket operations and variations in currency.

"Recognizing the differences in local fee levels, the ICC fee is set on a scale basis, ranging from 500 pounds (US$882) per Test for the highest paid umpires to 200 pounds (US$332) for the lowest paid. Pakistan umpires are at this level," the statement said.

This explanatory statement however only underlines the problems arising out of the global body's ad hoc methods. A more obvious solution, and one that would raise umpiring standards, would be to have fixed parameters for both quality, and remuneration.

In other words, recruit only the best for the international panel, pay them top wages -- equal wages, because there seems no reason why two umpires officiating at the same level in the same game should have a disparity in income of 300 pounds -- and monitor their performance, if their quality slips, replace them...

Simple and effective -- but then, cricket's governing body doesn't do 'simple and effective'.