Downturn Continues as Handle, Purses Drop

Unlike the 1930's, when racing was a relatively bright spot in an otherwise very dreary economy, thoroughbred racing in 2008 is not immune to the general economic malaise.

The latest figures from Equibase, reported yesterday in the San Diego Union-Tribune, show that nationwide handle was off 9.7% in November, compared to the same month last year, even though the total number of racing days at tracks across the country was up by more than 5%, from 440 in 2007 to 465 this year.

For the first 11 months of the year, through November 30th, total nationwide handle (on-track, at OTB's, and through ADW outlets) was down 6.17%, to $12.8 billion. purses were down 0.6% to $1.1 billion, and the number of race days was down 0.67%, to 5,764.

In some ways, these numbers are good news.  Most US industries are doing a lot worse than racing.  Auto sales, for example, are down 30-40% compared to last year, so perhaps we should be grateful that racing is down only in the single digits.  And for those of us who own and race horses, the tiny decline in purse money is even better news, at least in the short term.  Any business whose revenue is more or less flat this year shoulod probably consider itself verey lucky indeed.

Or at least that would be true but for some very worrisome facts.  First, it's true that purse money always lags behind handle, and if handle continues to decline, cuts in purses can't be that far behind.  Already, at Aqueduct this winter, we're racing for pretty much the same purse levels as last year; the big boosts in purses for the high-prestige Belmont and Saratoga meets have vanished, as the high-profile trainers and their horses head south.

Second, a significant section of the betting public consists of retirees with a few extra dollars to spend -- the guys, for example, who hang out in the Man O' War Room at Aqueduct, betting a few dollars and enjoying the camaraderie.  If these folks' retirement accounts are taking the same kind of hit from the stock market that mine is, I'd expect them to have a lot less to spend on the frivolity of racing.

At the same time, I don't see any decline in the cost of owning and racing thoroughbreds.  Trainers' day rates continue to close in on $100 in New York -- and that's if you're not using Pletcher, Mott, etc.  The recent declines in auction sale prices are a small sign that economic rationality may be returning to the bloodstock market, but we're still a long way from a situation in which one can buy a horse to race with a decent expectation of breaking even, much less earning a profit.

Slot machine revenue, comning soon to New York and Maryland, may help out in the short run.  In the longer term, we still need to figure out how to make our game accessible, relevant and popular.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Economics of Owning a Race Horse in New York

I've been wanting for some time to write about the economics of racing from the owners' and trainers' point of view. And the quarterly ritual of preparing financial statements for my Castle Village Farm partnerships has finally provided both the motivation and the data to get started. So, this post will look at racing from an owner's point of view. I'll follow up later with a look at the economics of being a trainer. In both cases, I'll be focusing on the New York racing scene, that is, as an owner or a trainer stabled at Aqueduct or Belmont, and making an annual pilgrimage to Saratoga. New York has the best purses around -- they'll average over $700,000 a day at the upcoming Saratoga meet -- but it also has very high expenses. So, even with the kind of horses that most of us are satisfied to have -- solid, hard-working thoroughbreds -- not a stakes horse, but not a $4,000 Finger Lakes claimer either -- it's not easy to come out ahead -- even when you...
Read more

NEWSPAPER RESTRUCTURING IS PAINFUL, BUT NECESSARY

Financial pages are full of developments and changes at newspaper companies and these are being commented upon anxiously by those in the industry. Unpleasant conditions certainly abound, but these development are not indications that the industry is dead or dying in the near future. What they signal is that things which worked in the past are not working now, that newspaper companies are badly in need of restructuring, refocusing, and renewal, and that the boards of the companies and the company managers are taking badly needed action. The techniques for restructuring are no mystery. First, you need some cash. This can be obtained by attracting new capital through investment or loans. New York Times Co. did this recently by borrowings $250 million from Carlos Slim. Other firms are looking for friendly investors with liquidity. Another way of raising cash is by turning assets into cash. A classic move made by many types of firms is the sell their building and lease back any space that i...
Read more

Is the future of digital journalism an outside job?

Making small digital news providers sustainable has become the holy grail of journalists and the search continues for workable business models and revenue streams. Advertising may produce some revenue, but it will never generate sufficient resources to support digital journalism because so little advertising money is available for sites with small audiences. About three-quarters of all online advertising goes to the top 10 sites and Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo account for about 60 percent of all online revenue. This leaves very little advertising expenditures to be contested among all other players--of which news providers are only a small fraction. At the same time, the prices paid for online advertising are falling because there are so many sites offering advertising, the advertising inventory is nearly infinite, and audiences continue fragmenting. This means the majority of funding for start-up digital journalism must come from elsewhere and online news sites—especially s...
Read more