Thoroughbred Racing Faces Declining Field Sizes, Financial Threats, and Missed Opportunities

The Subtle Erosion of Horse Racing's Foundation: A Systems View of Declining Field Sizes and Economic Pressures

This conversation reveals the hidden consequences of seemingly minor shifts in horse racing economics and operations, particularly concerning declining field sizes and their downstream effects. It's essential reading for anyone involved in or observing the sport, offering a strategic advantage by highlighting systemic vulnerabilities that conventional wisdom often overlooks. Those who understand these interconnected dynamics can better anticipate future challenges and identify opportunities for sustainable growth in a sport facing significant headwinds.

The horse racing industry, often viewed through the lens of individual races and star performers, is in fact a complex ecosystem where seemingly small operational changes can cascade into significant, long-term consequences. This discussion on the Brisnet.com Call-In Show, featuring insights from callers and hosts Bobby Neuman and James Scully, peels back the layers of this complexity, revealing how declining field sizes, shifts in purse structures, and regulatory battles are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a larger systemic issue. The conversation highlights a critical insight: focusing solely on immediate gains, like maximizing the number of races run or securing short-term revenue streams, can inadvertently erode the sport's foundational appeal and economic viability.

One of the most striking revelations is the interconnectedness of field sizes, purse structures, and geographical racing circuits. Caller Craig from California observed that tracks like Aqueduct, particularly during the winter months, consistently exhibit smaller field sizes compared to Gulfstream Park or Santa Anita. This isn't merely a matter of track preference; it's a consequence of horsemen following lucrative purses and favorable racing conditions. As Scully explains, stables often migrate south during the colder months, leaving New York with a diminished horse population. This directly impacts the number of races run and, crucially, the betting appeal. Smaller fields often translate to lower win payouts, making it difficult for bettors to find value. This creates a negative feedback loop: lower betting appeal can lead to reduced handle, which in turn can pressure purse structures, further discouraging horsemen from participating, and thus perpetuating smaller fields. The conventional wisdom might suggest running more races to compensate, but this can dilute the quality and appeal of the overall product, as seen with NYRA's compromise of running four days a week, which can lead to weaker weekday cards.

"One thing about it, it's been going on for a long time, but the horse crop size, the number of thoroughbreds, is declining."

-- James Scully

This decline in the overall horse population is a foundational issue with far-reaching implications. It’s not just about New York; it’s a national trend that affects the health of the sport across the board. This scarcity directly impacts the ability of tracks to field competitive races, leading to the very phenomena Craig observed. The implication is that simply adjusting race schedules or purse levels within a single circuit is a tactical response to a strategic problem. The system is responding to economic realities by reducing the number of available horses, which then directly impacts the betting product.

The conversation then pivots to the dire situation in California, where caller David paints a stark picture of declining attendance, small field sizes, and a looming existential threat to the state's racing industry. His observation that trainers are already relocating their operations eastward, coupled with the struggles of the CTBA sale and the removal of "racing on demand machines," underscores the compounding pressures. The hope for these machines to boost purses and revitalize racing is met with skepticism due to the powerful influence of California's casino industry, suggesting a systemic barrier to innovation and revenue generation. This highlights how regulatory environments and entrenched interests can actively work against the sport's survival, even when obvious solutions like historical horse racing machines are available. The consequence of this inaction is a slow bleed of talent and capital, pushing California racing towards a premature end.

"I have to say we're probably closer to a year or two [from the end of California racing], and the reason why I say that, gentlemen, is how many trainers have left California and are doing part-time gigs back East already? Number one, the purse structure is tremendous."

-- David (California Caller)

The discussion about a filly potentially running in the Kentucky Derby and the Triple Crown, while seemingly tangential, speaks to the sport's need for broader appeal and compelling narratives. While the immediate focus is on the mechanics of qualification and trainer reluctance, the underlying theme is the sport's struggle to capture the attention of a non-racing audience. A filly’s Triple Crown bid would undoubtedly generate immense publicity, a stark contrast to the current situation where the sport grapples with declining interest and shrinking participation. This suggests that the sport's current operational and economic model, focused on maximizing immediate betting handle through existing structures, might be sacrificing the long-term potential for growth and broader cultural relevance. The reluctance to even consider such a possibility, rooted in tradition and the perceived risks, represents a failure to adapt and leverage unique opportunities for systemic positive change.

Finally, the conversation touches upon the impact of simulcasting, with Gary from Iowa arguing that its widespread adoption may have contributed to the decline of destination tracks by cannibalizing their unique draw. This perspective introduces a systems-level critique of a technology that was once hailed as a savior. While simulcasting undeniably increased revenue streams, it also homogenized the racing experience, potentially diminishing the allure of specific tracks and the pilgrimage-like draw they once held. This is a classic example of a second-order consequence: a solution to an immediate problem (lack of betting opportunities) creates a downstream effect that weakens the overall ecosystem. The analogy here is akin to a forest relying on a single type of tree; while it provides immediate benefits, it lacks the resilience of a diverse ecosystem when faced with new threats.

• Immediate Action: Focus on enhancing the betting experience at tracks with smaller fields by exploring exotic wagers that reward nuanced handicapping rather than simply betting favorites.
• Longer-Term Investment: Develop strategies to incentivize horsemen to maintain larger stables in traditional racing jurisdictions, potentially through tiered purse structures that reward participation and sustained presence.
• Discomfort Now, Advantage Later: Advocate for regulatory changes that support innovative revenue streams, such as historical horse racing machines, even if it means confronting powerful established interests. This requires a willingness to engage in difficult political battles for the long-term health of the sport.
• Immediate Action: For trainers and owners, actively seek out and support racing jurisdictions that are demonstrating a commitment to growing field sizes and improving the betting product.
• Longer-Term Investment: Invest in initiatives that promote the sport to a broader, non-racing audience, such as highlighting compelling storylines like a filly's Triple Crown bid, to cultivate future generations of fans and participants.
• Discomfort Now, Advantage Later: Embrace the idea that attracting new audiences may require deviating from traditional racing formats or marketing strategies, which can be uncomfortable but ultimately crucial for expanding the sport's reach.
• Immediate Action: For fans, actively engage with and support racing jurisdictions that are prioritizing larger field sizes and a robust betting product.
• Longer-Term Investment: Foster dialogue and collaboration between track operators, horsemen, and regulators to address the systemic decline in horse populations and explore solutions that benefit the entire ecosystem.