In Racing, Simple is Too Simple

An Op/Ed in the TDN today looked at simple being too simple when it comes to revenue splits in horse racing. Revenue splits can't really be changed and be accretive, in the truest sense of the word. If you have a pie in an 8 inch pie plate, you can't cut the slices differently and make it a 12 inch pie. But massaging them in certain ways, creatively, can make things run smoother.

Some people make this argument very simplistic but it's anything but.

Let's take this recently tweeted out story by Rich Eng "Plug Pulled on Feed From Some Racetracks" where the author explains that in Vegas there is a negotiation going on between Monarch and them to show content. Monarch, whose head recently said ""The days of the buyer importing the signal cheap and keeping most of the revenue (from wagering) are probably coming to an end", is playing hardball with Mid-Atlantic tracks trying to extract more of a fee. In Vegas, this is not happening.

"Daruty said the race books were not being hit with a rate increase by his company."

So a rate increase for other tracks is fine, but for Vegas books, no.

See, not so simple as "increasing a fee because the host track should make all the money"

Vegas has floor space designed for racing and if they don't make enough on it, they won't show horse racing. The Mid-Atlantic tracks have an opportunity cost of showing Monarch races too. So does anyone taking a signal.

Signal fee changes are not simple. The sport needs to look for creative ways to do things; blanket changes will never work. The dichotomy between Vegas and the Mid-Atlantic track proves it.

No comments:


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...