GETTING THE CUP IN GEAR
Monday, November 9th, 2009By Ray Paulick
Horse of the Year won’t be the only racing subject being debated in the coming weeks in the wake of the 26th Breeders’ Cup championships from Santa Anita Park Nov. 6-7. For what it’s worth, if I had a vote in the Eclipse Awards (and I don’t), it would go to Zenyatta as Horse of the Year. I can’t blame anyone for supporting Rachel Alexandra, but I am a believer in the Breeders’ Cup being a key factor in determining year-end championships, including Horse of the Year. Zenyatta showed up and turned in a performance for the ages. Rachel Alexandra remained in her stall, resting on her own historic achievements from earlier in the year.
Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra make up the greatest unfulfilled rivalry since…well…Curlin and Big Brown in 2008. If you’re like me, I’ll bet you’re getting tired of these rivalries, the ones that only play out in the mind. I prefer the type settled on the racetrack: Affirmed and Alydar…Sunday Silence and Easy Goer.
The other subject worthy of discussion and debate is the Breeders’ Cup itself. This is year three of the two-day version of this event, one that began in 1984 as an audacious seven-race, $10-million day of racing. It’s now a 14-race smorgasbord that includes more “championship” races than we have championships (as measured by the Eclipse Awards).
The expansion in large part was based, not surprisingly, on money. In 2005, then-Breeders’ Cup president D.G. Van Clief Jr., who was serving in the dual role as commissioner of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, set a goal of $200 million in handle for the event by 2010. Total handle that year (when the event was at Belmont Park) was $124.0 million, and it rose to $140.3 million in 2006 (Churchill Downs was the host site), the last time the Breeders’ Cup was conducted on one day.
The expansion to two days and more races was also designed in part to be more attractive to an international audience of horseplayers. The downside is the dilution effect it has on the entire event. Has victory in a Breeders’ Cup race lost some significance?
The first two-day Breeders’ Cup, held at a very wet Monmouth Park in 2007, yielded a total of $147.2 million in handle, and $155.7 million was bet at the 2008 Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita’s Oak Tree Racing Association meeting. Handle dropped in 2009 to $150.2 million, despite the availability of common-pool wagering for the first time to Betfair’s two-million-plus customers.
Barring some sort of a miracle, the 2010 Breeders’ Cup will fall well short of Van Clief’s stated goal. In fact, it could be argued the event is less successful today from a wagering standpoint than it was 10 years ago in 1999, when it hit $100 million in handle for the first time and was still conducted on a single day.
But should handle (or television ratings, which also are lower today than they were 10 years ago) be the yardstick for success? The expansion from eight to 14 Breeders’ Cup races has broadened participation in the event from a horse owner’s standpoint, and it’s given the breeders who support the program through nominations more chances to recoup the fees they’ve paid over the years.
I wouldn’t pretend to compare the Breeders’ Cup Marathon or Juvenile Fillies Turf or some of the other new races with the Turf or Classic in terms of importance or prestige. Those races aren’t going to produce as much betting turnover, either. But they are races that should attract the best of their division from around the world, and they are interesting betting races for fans (compared to the standard fare of five- or six-horse fields that plague so many top races nowadays). In addition, though the new races have increased the total prize money to $25.5 million, roughly one-third of those new purses are paid for by pre-entry and entry fees. So in my mind these new races do serve some purpose.
Have Breeders’ Cup officials hit on the perfect formula on how to present the two days? Probably not. There are many who feel stacking all the filly and mare races on Friday (along with the Marathon) is insulting and sexist. There are other options, including putting the newest and least compelling races on Friday and keeping Saturday with the traditional Cup races. They could also consider making Friday all turf racing and Saturday the main track races.
But the real problem with the Breeders’ Cup is not the event itself, or the order in which the races are run. It’s the absence of an understandable, easy-to-follow ranking or eligibility system in the weeks and months leading up to the Cup.
The Win and You’re In qualifying races are a start, but not the end game solution. It also doesn’t help that so many other tracks are hosting live races on the same day as the Breeders’ Cup and, in effect, competing with the championships for wagering dollars. Our industry should take a look at another racing sport that has its biggest event early in the season and has still managed to create an exciting and engaging championship Cup. NASCAR has the Daytona 500, as big an event for NASCAR as the Kentucky Derby is for horse racing, and has managed to create a build up after its early climax with its Chase For The Sprint Cup. In order for horse racing to build itself back to national prominence outside of the first Saturday in May, a similar invention must be instituted with the Breeders’ Cup as the final act.
It’s a challenge to organize a sport that lacks structure and organization, but that’s the challenge the Breeders’ Cup was given through a long-term strategic plan presented to the board of directors earlier this year. For this plan to be fully developed and implemented, it will require the cooperation of not just horsemen, but of racetracks that in years past have been reluctant to work with the Breeders’ Cup. Those tracks have to understand that a healthy and prosperous Breeders’ Cup is in their best interest, just as the Breeders’ Cup has to realize that tracks must be viewed as partners in developing the strategic plan.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

