Racing sometimes makes me shake my head. Or as the kids with their fancy phones say, smh.
Yesterday in the TDN the HBPA's Eric Hamelback spoke about the biggest challenges and solutions for horse racing.
"A critical step is ensuring that owners are fairly compensated for their
property and their horses’ images and statistical records being used
for wagering in this tech era by entities that benefit without
contributing toward the care and upkeep of our horses"
This was similar to what was said way back in 2010.
Looking at the logic of the statement is a little difficult, because, well, it's difficult to decipher in the real world.
A reseller gives you approximately 50% of what they generate from handle revenue, for purses and for tracks to put on the races. Some of these resellers are the racetracks themselves. They use statistics and images of horses to generate revenue, because without them both you and they get nothing. It's a factor of production that's already being compensated for through simulcast agreements.
More broadly, maybe the point is that the Jockey Club makes money from selling data, and they are not directly putting it into purses. But even then, with over $1 billion in purses per year, the net profit from the Jockey Club from this data revenue is a tiny percentage of that.
More importantly, however, is the simple fact that 'horses images' et al, don't drive any revenue. If it did, Frank Stronach would not be having to pay NBC to show the $12 million Pegasus Cup, NBC would be paying Frank.
We're back to the beginning in this strange, circular argument. It's - for it seems the umpteenth time - some faction in racing wants money, from a place that generates no money.
In the racing press when someone yells for more money, it's often presented like it's some grave injustice being righted, and the stalls will be soon laden with 14 carat gold straw. It's a fantasy. Revenue will grow - for the HBPA, purses, and others - when racing grows gross revenue. This nitpicking that someone gets more or less of a percentage of almost nothing, means exactly that -- almost nothing. It's a complete waste of time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most Trafficked, Last 12 Months
-
We'll all remember Memorial Day '24 because of the Met Mile as the day Ray Cotolo dressed up like a hot dog. Hope @RayCotolo au...
-
2024 marked the first year ever that Woodbine Entertainment did not put out a year end press release detailing their annual and year over y...
-
Welcome to the 8th edition of the Monday Super Spectacular Blog! It was Preakness week and frankly instead of a horse racing pool, next yea...
-
On the Harness Edge this morning, I see that there is a story up about the BCSA offering their members up for driver and trainer interviews ...
-
I continue to be fascinated with both the press and general football fan reaction to the Bill Belichick 4th down decision in Sunday's ga...
-
As most of you have heard, Charles Simon passed away yesterday at age 57 . Although a lot of you knew Chuck better than I, I still felt a s...
-
How often do you have winning days at this very hard game? I think it's an interesting and informative question, and in some cases I am ...
-
I got a lot of horseplayer feedback on this weekend's post about how often different subsets of winning horseplayers end up green . Than...
Similar
Carryovers Provide Big Reach and an Immediate Return
Sinking marketing money directly into the horseplayer by seeding pools is effective, in both theory and practice In Ontario and elsewher...
No comments:
Post a Comment