OK... let's hit this on a few fronts:
First, I will be critical of LL HQ that they have not said enough about the amount of money that will be going back into the local leagues and volunteers from this TV deal. It was signed last year, there were some good news stories out there one day during the LLWS and that was it. They really need to play up the drop in Charter Fees, the $500K for league hardships and the other line items that are going to benefit the volunteers.
Second, either the media went too far in taking Stephen's comments out of context or he said too much. As someone who works in college athletics, WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE JUDGE'S RULING. So to think that LLHQ knows what it may or may not mean, is beyond ridiculous. The lawyers are having a hard time trying to make sense of what the judge wrote in her summary versus her opinion. It is extremely broad and, frankly, tends to contradict itself in places from what I have been told. (I haven't personally read either the summary or the other 99 pages of "explanation", and most of these media people haven't either.) It will be appealed... probably twice.
Lastly, I will not complain about the salaries at LLHQ. For starters, they have not been able to recruit or retain talented people for quite some time because of the salary levels. It wasn't until the last few years that salaries became competitive... and I know this first hand. About seven years ago, I flirted with a job at HQ... it would have been a 10-15% paycut for me to leave my job at the time (working as a lower-level Division I sports information director). Last year, there was a similar discussion with HQ... and it would have been a fairly significant raise (and yes, my salary in a new position from back then is also higher than what it once was).
For some time, a good portion of the people who worked for LL were either mid 20s with no family and just starting out, or retired military people who were former volunteers and receiving supplemental pay from pensions. It is good to see them being able to pay solid staff members the wages that will make them want to keep their positions -- regardless of whether they are in a regional office or on The Hill.
In the criticisms of Stephen Keener's salary, no one has mentioned the fact that he has been the CEO for 20 years. That is a SIGNIFICANT factor that is lost in those comparisons. How many non-profit CEOs are in that chair for 20 years? Not very many. I would challenge that "study" that is quoted. I personally thought the USA Today story had a negative tone (slanted would be a good descriptor) and I was very disappointed in it.
Lou... to your point, since I don't think the TV contract kicks in until after this world series, those programs may not be in place until next year. Now, that may be why HQ hasn't said as much about funneling savings and funding back towards leagues, but I do think they need to start doing so particularly to offset the negative spin that was put forth in the Yahoo and USA Today pieces (and a few others that have jumped on their coattails.)
However, I also thought HQ always paid travel for the international umpires, just not the US folks. (We know not to believe everything the Worldwide Leader tells us on the airwaves...)