The Black Mist Scandal and Suspicions of Umpire Involvement
The fairness of umpires in NPB was most seriously called into question during the period of the "Black Mist Scandal" of 1969-1971. The main problem in this scandal was match-fixing by players, but suspicions of umpire bribery were also raised in some quarters. There were multiple testimonies that people connected to organized crime had approached not only players but also umpires in order to manipulate game results. However, there was no case in which the bribery of an umpire was proven, and it never went beyond suspicion. Prompted by this scandal, NPB tightened its code of conduct for umpires and established a rule prohibiting contact with people connected to organized crime. In the Black Mist Scandal, it came to light that players of the Nishitetsu Lions had taken part in match-fixing after receiving payments of several hundred thousand yen per game from people connected to organized crime. No direct evidence was found regarding the bribery of umpires, but the suspicion was never completely dispelled.
The Problem of Umpires' Pay and Conditions as a Breeding Ground for Misconduct
The fact that NPB umpires receive poorer pay and conditions than players has long been an issue. An umpire's annual salary is around 10 million yen even at the top level, a large gap compared with the average player salary (about 40 million yen). It has been pointed out for some time that these poor conditions could become a breeding ground for misconduct. Umpires lead a life of traveling from game to game across the country, and they spend long periods away from their families. Amid this heavy mental and financial burden, there have been concerns about their vulnerability to outside temptation. Improvements to umpires' pay and conditions have been under way since the 2020s began, but the gap with players remains large.
The Problem of Blown Calls and the Credibility of Umpires
Apart from bribery allegations, cases in which an umpire's blown call decided the outcome of a game have occurred again and again in the history of NPB. In the 2006 Japan Series, a major controversy over a call arose in Game 5 between the Chunichi Dragons and the Nippon-Ham Fighters. Each time a blown call occurred, the question "Are umpires fair?" erupted, and it was sometimes discussed in connection with bribery allegations. NPB introduced a replay review system in 2010 and began video review limited to home run calls. After that, its scope was expanded, and since 2018 managers have been able to ask for a call to be reviewed again under the request system. The request system was fully introduced in 2018, making it possible for a manager to ask for a call to be reviewed again up to 2 times per game. This has greatly reduced the impact of blown calls.
Institutional Reform and Ensuring Transparency
NPB has carried out several institutional reforms to guarantee the fairness of umpires. These include introducing an evaluation system for umpires, expanding training programs, and widening replay review. In addition, umpire assignments are decided at random, with care taken so that particular umpires are not concentrated on the games of particular teams. However, it is hard to say that complete transparency has been ensured. The results of umpire evaluations are not made public, and disciplinary actions for blown calls are also not disclosed. In MLB, the accuracy of umpires' calls is published statistically, but no such effort is made in NPB. Ensuring the fairness and transparency of umpires is an important issue that NPB must continue to work on.
Cases of Umpire Misconduct in Professional Baseball Overseas
Bribery and misconduct involving umpires is not a problem limited to NPB. In MLB, the Tim Donaghy affair came to light in 2006. This was an NBA case, but it showed how serious officiating misconduct in professional sports can be. In MLB itself, Phil Kasper was caught up in a scandal in 2007 and was dismissed on suspicion of involvement in baseball gambling. In the Korea Baseball Organization (KBO), there was also an incident in 2012 in which several umpires were stripped of their licenses because of ties to organized crime. What these cases have in common is umpires' low pay and their many opportunities for contact with outsiders. NPB's measures to prevent misconduct need to be designed with the lessons of these overseas cases in mind.
Analysis of Structural Factors
There are several structural factors behind suspicions of umpire misconduct. First, NPB umpires have no labor union, and their means of negotiating pay and conditions are limited. Because they lack collective bargaining rights like those of the players' association, it is structurally difficult for their demands for better pay to be met. Second, because umpires' personnel evaluations are not made public, there is no outside oversight. Third, umpires on road trips spend long stretches of time on their own, making it physically difficult to prevent contact with outsiders. Fourth, the contract between NPB and an umpire is a service contract as a sole proprietor, so organizational protection is thin. As these structural conditions overlap, an environment has formed in which both the incentive and the opportunity for misconduct exist at the same time.
The Fairness That Fans and the Public Demand of Umpires
Fans' scrutiny of umpires' calls grows harsher every year. With slow-motion replays on TV broadcasts and instant spread on social media, a single call can develop into a nationwide debate within a few hours. When suspicions arise, voices asking "Wasn't that call a result of bribery?" erupt on social media, and individual umpires are sometimes identified and targeted for attacks. Because NPB makes umpires' real names public, they get no protection from anonymity. There are concerns that this situation will make the shortage of people willing to become umpires even more serious. On the other hand, the pressure of fan scrutiny can also work as a deterrent to misconduct. An environment in which footage of calls is instantly recorded and shared has dramatically raised the risk of making arbitrary calls in exchange for bribes.