I've been reading the narrative on twitter (from some thoughtful observers) that the space has gone from one end to the other. Namely, several years ago you would be flamed or doxxed for saying something negative about wokeness even if it was not the least bit controversial; now if you state an opinion that's even remotely positive about a slice of DEI (or what have you), you receive the same vitriol from the other team.
That's social media and not the real world you may say, and I suppose you're right. But when it comes to horse racing, I think the same exact thing is alive and well.
How does a track go from flush with slots money, living the high life, to "decoupled" like Pompano Park?
How does Arlington go from a jewel of horse racing and million dollar races to a parking lot, with nothing to replace it?
How is it, as we appear to see now at Gulfstream, that the track goes from running a bazillion races a year, supporting an entire industry in a state, to what seems to be nothing?
There's no either/or - it's flourish, or deader than a doornail.
I don't particularly understand the Gulfstream issue. As you see in the Bacon Report and in other places, the supply side of the sport in Florida is strong, and thousands of people are employed in the business (and the track does handle). Why are we either/or here? Where's the nuance to protect that industry in at least some form?
I'm not a big corporate welfare fan, but transitioning money is important for any industry when the rug gets pulled out from under it (whether than be for real estate money or slot money). Where's that plan?
Some jurisdictions have done things with nuance.
Ontario for example went from high on the hog to having the slots at racetracks program cancelled, and that completely could've killed an entire industry. Because the government and racetracks worked together, a plan was consummated. The King's Plate and North America Cup and breeding programs across the province were saved with an influx of capital. In return, several tracks were shuttered, or remained slots parlors, adding to the government's coffers.
This program was signed-on for the long term, so owners, breeders and trainers and jocks were able to have some sort of certainty.
We often complain that the industry didn't do enough with its good fortune when they had good fortune, and that's very true. California might've had the nation's biggest and best betting platform when exchanges were given as a monopoly to them. Kentucky Downs is flush with cash and raises takeout for some god awful reason. Pennsylvania slots cash came into the billions and they still had 30% juice. The list is endless.
But when the good fortune gets pulled, most industries are granted some grace. Horse racing, through its dearth of leadership, lack of foresight or whatever, doesn't seem to live under that same policy. Like we've seen on twitter the last five years, it's one side thriving or dying. There's no in between.