THE CASE FOR A CALI CUP
By Ray Paulick
The Breeders’ Cup, like many mature businesses in faltering industries, has hit a flat spot, and the people who run it are faced with a difficult question: whether to continue on the same course and expect little to no growth, or to make bold, transformative decisions designed to enhance its standing as a major sporting event, improve market share in the pari-mutuel world, and increase its all-important revenue stream.
Whether to play offense or defense is usually a pretty easy question to answer. From playgrounds to boardrooms, everyone wants the ball. So, offense it is…until you show your team the playbook. That’s when people start hedging, saying a defensive strategy isn’t such a bad idea after all.
And so it was at the Breeders’ Cup, which embarked on a strategic planning process some 18 months ago, hired an international consultant experienced in sports marketing, and presented recommendations to the board of directors in December 2009. Foremost among those recommendations, though only one part of a multi-dimensional strategic plan, was to settle on a permanent location for the Breeders’ Cup—permanent meaning the next five to 10 years.
The board approved the core components of the strategic plan in December, discussed it at length in March with the larger board of members and trustees, and is expected to take a final vote at an April board meeting.
It’s not as if the Breeders’ Cup has been a failure since its inaugural running in 1984. In fact, it’s been one of the few shining lights in American racing over the last half century. But looking ahead, as the American Thoroughbred industry continues to retract in betting turnover, racing dates and foal crops, the Breeders’ Cup, if it continues on a similar path, faces declines in nominations and little to no growth in revenue on the championship event itself.
That’s why William Field, the consultant who has worked closely with Strategic Planning Committee chairman Satish Sanan and Breeders’ Cup president Greg Avioli, believes a permanent site will help transform the event and lead to a spike in annual revenue. Further, Field is convinced Santa Anita Park in Southern California is the best candidate to be that site, with the non-profit Oak Tree Racing Association acting as host.
The recommendation, not surprisingly, has been met with criticism, from several fronts. Easterners feel they are at a distinct disadvantage when shipping horses to California. Horseplayers are focused on their dislike of the Pro-Ride synthetic track at Santa Anita (which has produced two consecutive injury-free renewals in 2008-09). Many Kentucky breeders want to be able to drive to Churchill Downs to attend the event, especially when it is scheduled right on top of the breeding stock sales at Fasig-Tipton and Keeneland.
I asked Field, who consulted with English soccer’s Premier League during a phenomenal growth period, how a group of Kentucky breeders could realistically be convinced that it is in their best interest to approve a plan to relocate the Breeders’ Cup 2,000 miles away. They might agree in principle that a dramatic and bold step is needed to infuse the Breeders’ Cup with additional revenue, but what would convince them to put the interests of the organization ahead of their own self-interest?
“Make no mistake,” Field replied by email, “if all the right elements of a deal can be put in place, Santa Anita will be the best place for Breeders’ Cup to maximize its impact. With the sport facing such difficult times, the success that Breeders’ Cup can have there will make a real difference–not least to the benefit of those Kentucky-based breeders you refer to. So, I’m not sure I agree with the implication in your question that having Santa Anita as the long-term location won’t actually be in the interests of those breeders.”
Field continued: “Santa Anita is by far the best location for a November championship–just look at the last two years which have demonstrated a remarkably strong overall customer and racing experience. And those ‘customers’ not only include the wagerers and those who come for a great day out, but also owners–current owners and potential new owners. I think it’s definitely in the interests of those breeders based in Kentucky, if we can use a fabulous Breeders’ Cup event to stimulate investment in horses. We need events that will capture the imagination of prospective owners and provide a stronger platform for the sales agencies. The Breeders’ Cup is as good a shop window for the sport as you can have. Let’s make sure that we put that shop window in the place that can best attract those new potential owners. Southern California looks like that type of place to me: it has a big population and 17 million visitors a year–with a large proportion of high net worth individuals.
“Not only is it the strongest location from a presentational perspective but it is also the location that can deliver significant revenue growth. If Breeders’ Cup can generate a 50% revenue increase over five years from sources that are driven by being at Santa Anita–seating and wagering revenue, increased sponsorships and state support–then it is very hard to argue against. And remember that Breeders’ Cup’s nominations revenues are at an all-time low.”
Field, clearly, is an offense-minded fellow.
Field supports his argument with statistics showing that a more politically acceptable rotation of Breeders’ Cup host sites centered around Churchill Downs (Churchill Downs, Belmont Park, Churchill Downs, Santa Anita, Churchill Downs, etc.) would provide little to no gain in revenue.
Churchill provides unmistakable benefits (good history of attendance, premium seating, and a central location), but there are disadvantages to putting the Louisville, Ky., track in a heavy Breeders’ Cup rotation. Poor weather, a small media market, secondary status to Kentucky Derby/Oaks weekend, and a for-profit driven management team some say is institutionally arrogant are unattractive factors for the Breeders’ Cup.
As for New York, from a revenue standpoint, the five worst-performing Breeders’ Cups were held at Belmont or Aqueduct. There is also the disadvantage of bad weather, an aging facility, limited premium hospitality opportunities, and two other racing events—the Belmont Stakes and Travers—that are bigger than a New York Breeders’ Cup would ever be. On the plus side, New York is the media capital of the U.S. (though the media has pretty much ignored the Breeders’ Cup), it has a strong racing tradition, and is home to some of the best stables in the country.
So that brings us to Santa Anita Park and the Oak Tree Racing Association. Unlike Churchill Downs and Belmont, which both host Triple Crown events that are bigger than the Breeders’ Cup, nothing in Southern California racing would overshadow a Breeders’ Cup there. Weather in early November is almost always sunny and warm, as is the management team of the Oak Tree Racing Association. As an example, when Breeders’ Cup marketing executives met with Oak Tree management about sponsorship signage, they were encouraged to display the signs throughout the entire fall meeting. At Churchill Downs, according to a source, they were required to keep the sponsorship signs covered up until the day of the event.
Critics have said a rotation of several tracks is the best way to bring the Breeders’ Cup to as many people as possible, citing other sporting events like the U.S. Open golf tournament, the Super Bowl, and the NCAA’s Final Four men’s basketball tournament. But racing’s three biggest events—the Kentucky Derby and Oaks, the Preakness, and Belmont are all at permanent locations. Perhaps we should consider a rotation of one of those races out to California or to other parts of the country to expose the Triple Crown to as many potential racing fans as possible.
Critics of a permanent site, like Daily Racing Form’s Steven Crist, have said the last two years at Santa Anita have not been a financial success—a point Breeders’ Cup officials would dispute. He also completely overlooked the fact the country was in the midst of its worst recession and financial crisis in decades for the 2008 and ’09 event. Further, Crist manipulated betting numbers to suit his point of view, comparing handle at a one-day event at Churchill Downs to the second day of a two-day event at Santa Anita (of course, the consultant selling Santa Anita as the host site probably manipulated the handle figures to suit his argument, too).
Crist and others have also said the home team—Southern California-based stables—have enjoyed an edge competitively the last two years. That’s also been the case at Churchill Downs and Belmont Park, but shippers to Santa Anita have actually done better than shippers to the other two tracks in wins and 1-2-3 finishes at the Breeders’ Cup. Of course, part of the lack of success of New York stables at Santa Anita might be self-fulfilling: many top barns simply refused to go.
It’s a big change, and more than a few people are not going to like it. But as Field, the consultant, said, one of the considerations has to be how a permanent site might lead more people into the industry—particularly as investors in horses. He firmly believes that site is Santa Anita.
"For 26 years the Breeders’ Cup took one approach,” said Strategic Planning Committee chairman Sanan. “We understand that a new approach means significant change but the Strategic Planning Committee believed a new approach is warranted if the property is going to evolve, adapt and grow in a changing marketplace.”
Copyright © 2010, 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
Tags: belmont park, belmont stakes, Breeders' Cup, churchill downs, daily racing form, fasig-tipton, Final Four, Greg Avioli, Keeneland, kentucky derby, kentucky oaks, NCAA, oak tree racing association, Paulick Report, preakness, Premier League, pro-ride, Ray Paulick, santa anita park, satish sanan, Soccer, steven crist, william field
March 30th, 2010 at 6:25 am
Plastics, the future is plastic
March 30th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Wow — that’s a pretty convincing case. As someone who has attended at Arlington, Belmont and Santa Anita, the weather is clearly a factor in making for a more comfortable event, especially over two days.
I actually don’t see the harm in this approach. If they try Santa Anita for 4-5 years and the revenue projections don’t materialize, they can always go back to a rotation. It’s a shame that Frank Stronach rebuilt Gulfstream in a way that makes it impossible for the Breeders’ Cup to go there or we might be looking at a South Florida-Southern Cal rotation.
March 30th, 2010 at 7:09 am
I really want to know hoe they plan to drive revenue increases through seating. The ticket prices for the BC at Santa Anita the past two years have been a joke. Anytime premium tickets to an event can be purchased day-of indicates a pricing structure that is out of tune with demand and the ticket market.
I do agree with the argument for having the event in locations where weather issues will be mitigated. While autumn weekends in Kentucky and New York can be beautiful days to go racing, as we all know they can also be complete deluges that makes all involved miserable. I still believe that the Breeder’s Cup needs to investigate moving the event permanently to Saratoga during Labor Day weekend, but that’s another topic.
March 30th, 2010 at 7:18 am
Why not have it at the only track that really cares about the customer? Keeneland. Yes, I know Keeneland is quite a bit smaller than Churchill, Belmont and Santa Anita. But my guess is that if Keeneland would agree to hold the Breeders Cup they would pull it off in spectacular fashion. As far as the weather goes, Keeneland could be considered iffy. But late fall is football season. Put a heavy coat on and go wtach the show. The horses would much prefer to run in 50 degree weather and not the 90’s of Santa Anita with lots of smog. I am pleased to learn that Santa Anita is a gracious host. I sure wish Churchill Downs could figure out how to treat people. At least Churchill is consistent, they treat everyone poorly.
March 30th, 2010 at 7:38 am
My vote is still for a Kentucky-based permanent Breeder’s Cup site - Churchill Downs AND Keeneland. Get rid of some of the 2 y.o. races to take the stress off the youngsters & add some allweather races so you have racing in the middle of the country on all 3 surfaces over the two days.
I still enjoy watching the BC - at Santa Anita or elsewhere, but as a breeder I can’t justify paying the money to nominate the foals - it is a waste of money for all except the really big guys. Yesterday for the first time, a representative of the BC called to remind us the deadline’s approaching for nominating the 2009 foal crop.
They must be really hurting to make those phone calls to all the folks who breed a few foals every year aimed primarily at statebred programs - it makes me think the BC needs to fix more than just its location.
March 30th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Regardless of the surface of the track, if the Breeders’ Cup is going to permanently relocate to Santa Anita, and in doing so in some ways guarantee at least in part the continuance of racing in Southern California, would they not be better served as master of their own destiny in owning the track itself? Unlike Magna, or any other potential buyer, the Breeders Cup is essentially not-for-profit and thus has a totally different financial model than any other party (outside of Keeneland). The track would be run not for the profit of shareholders, but for the industry at large and allow the Breeders Cup and Santa Anita to do what most other tracks are unable to do. It seems silly that the Breeders’ Cup would be offering what is a guaranteed money earner for the host track on a permanent basis without at least contemplating owning the whole show itself.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Hmm…NY has the Belmont and Saratoga. KY has the Derby and Keneland. FL is no longer equipped for a big event. CA has Del Mar and…..the BC is a natural fit for a huge annual horse racing event in CA since there is an iconic venue that can support it.. The last two years proved that CA fans will support it and positive word of mouth has spread like wildfire (no pun intended) in these parts. If you go to the BC website (like I just did) - you’ll see articles or releases that BC was nominated for sports event of the year and an Emmy. Why? Zenyatta, ESPN and Santa Anita. 35000 at Belmont and 75000 at a rainy cold CD would have not led to such accolades. It appears the “two year experiment’ worked. In any event, racing needs CA racing to be successful and this is one big Vitamin BC shot (pun intended) that is sorely needed. Only ask is for a consistent safe track that drains properly - whatever the surface!
March 30th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Track conditions are paramount because they can make for a safe and fair event or the ruination of it. Cold or damp weather causes poor attendance, uncomfortable and grumpy patrons and, worst of all, break-downs and potential injury to the animal and its rider. The weather rules out many tracks, including NY, NJ etc. Even Kentucky is iffy at that time of year.
As for the synthetic versus dirt argument, recent statistics show that we need synthetics for the safety of the horse and rider. Steve Crist has gone over the top in his arguments, even condemning the World Cup at Meydan, again using spurious data and assumptions.
I would favor a Tapita Santa Anita. A dirt track at Santa Anita would make it an American Breeders’ Cup, not a reliably international event with the potential to draw in fans world-wide. I hope the BC board has a say in that part of the debate. But, as a previous poster points out obliquely, Stronach still controls Santa Anita and so it is hard to believe that rational decisions will be made. And I would be reluctant to hand the future of the BC to one extremely unpredictable track owner.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Fied’s recommendation makes considerable sense and I make that comment despite the fact that Churchill is only a short drive from my home. A synthetic surface brings the Europeans. A dirt surface and many stay home.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Ray, you talked of Crist manipulating or overlooking facts to fit his opinion, but you did the very same thing in your editorial.
No deaths in 2 years? Definitive measure of the safety of the surface, or coincidence, or the result of increased pre-race vetting? We know it’s not a definitive measure of the safety of the surface, so is the coincidence of no deaths in 2 years really relevant?
How can you possibly not mention the surface problem and the healthy top horses who skipped the event over the past 2 years? As if having healthy top horses not racing in the BC is not a huge problem?
How do you not mention the ill-advised addition of irrelevant races which have done nothing but add to the BC’s expenses?
The BC was just fine the way it was before it started tinkering. It was one of the few glittering jewels of racing. Now it’s dull trophy in need of polishing.
I guess you think the Derby needs to go on “offense” to increase its revenues and market share? Maybe they need to move to CA and run over synthetics too.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:28 am
“It makes sense, at this time, for the Breeders’ Cup to be held in such media centers as Los Angeles and New York. When the event becomes the national fixture we hope it will, then it may be possible to rotate it to other areas of the country.” - John Gaines, Breeders’ Cup founder, 1984
What’s old is new again?
March 30th, 2010 at 8:36 am
It’s no coincidence that Breeders’ Cup hosted the BC at Santa Anita for two consecutive years, then hires a consultant who concludes that Santa Anita is the best permanent place to have the race! LOL! It’s like hiring an expert to defend your position in a lawsuit! Here’s a suggestion - fix the problem with the media while continuing with the same play book that worked for many many years under different management.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:58 am
you will never see me at any POLY TRACK ……never
March 30th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Finding a permanent home for the BC is not a strategy but a tactic. I am not surprised that the BC or horse racing would confuse the two because they have done so for the past 40 years. A strategy is more broad-based and defines goals and objectives over a specific period. It would be something like “The BC must strive to maximize revenues from parimutuel, TV and related merchandising, ensure the best possible experience for fans, owners, breeders and the media, and seek reasonable growth over the next 10 years.” Perhaps, one of the tactics would be to find a permanent home, but it seems like a rather minor point in a BC strategy or racing in general–kind of like deciding what music the band should play while the Tttanic is sinking.
March 30th, 2010 at 9:57 am
I wholeheartedly agree w/#10 above….Breeder’s Cup racing needs to be run on turf or dirt., and possibly every 3rd year on synthetics, if need be. Dubai had a breakdown last Saturday….but do you hear much about it in the news?? I didn’t. So what’s most important is a well-maintained track, and we have that at Belmont and Churchill Downs. To have it at Keeneland would be fine or Santa Anita, every 3rd year, but let it be known that weather does not deter fans from coming out. Do you ever see an empty ftadium when the home team’s doing well, or on a snowy first day of baseball in the Northeast?? Not in your life….the fans are prepared for the weather, and Thoroughbreds run better in colder climates vs hot, smog-filled So. Cal tracks…ithe coller climate is heatlhier for the horses who are our atheltes and the stars of the show, let’s not forget that. It’s the NWO……..just ram it down our throats whether we agree or not….we, the fans, owners and breeders, obviously have no say in the matter, and this consultant hasn’t a clue about Thoroughbred racing…..he just needs to shake things up to earn his keep and sound like he knows what he’s talking about…a true salesman, and the BC folks are falling for it……very sad indeed.
March 30th, 2010 at 10:19 am
As we roll into April Fools day, we dont know if Belmont will open after Saratoga’s meet.
On the other extreme, maybe Albany will allow a racino at Aqueduct and it becomes successful. Then NYRA can have November stakes races on dirt, like the Cigar Mile, Remsen and Fall Highweight, and run them with purses that keep most of the good dirt horses away from a synth BC.
And maybe draw top Euros and Southern Hemisphere champs who want a name in New York City
March 30th, 2010 at 10:37 am
If the Breeders Cup was held at Santa Anita on a permanent basis, then the only option for the East Coast would be to set up their own series on dirt. Since most of the top horses, in all divisions, are concentrated from the Midwest, East, I think theirs would be most popular. As far as racing goes, as a whole, it is obvious Breeders Cup is worried about the entity Breeders Cup, with those that make up those races playing second fiddle. Again, we have an elite group trying to tell everybody what’s best, BUT, in the end it is what’s best for them. This is a perfect example AGAINST a national organization. Each track/state should remain independent. As far as racing, there is nothing wrong that NAME horses not be retired after their 3 year old year won’t fix. Ex., look at the Santa Anita Handicap this year — what a poor excuse for a field supposedly representing the finest. Next, look at Rachael Alexandra and Zenyatta and the flood of exposure they attract. Where are the top 5 horses from the last 3 Derbies, now? What a difference looking at Dubai vs. the Breeders Cup! Now Dubai, truly, is a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!
March 30th, 2010 at 11:03 am
As a breeder/owner/fan, I VERY much want the BC to rotate around the country. This will keep national interest up for different tracks, different fans, and different surfaces. Think “Olyympics” folks.
Given the personalities at BC/NTRA, I strongly suspect the decision for a “permanent” location has already been made (at least for a few years), and that they are trotting out this Feld consultant merely to set the groundwork to justify the unannounced decision. BC management and Churchill Downs have butted heads for some time over money, despite the fact that Churchill has hosted two of the most successful & popular Breeder’s Cups.
March 30th, 2010 at 11:15 am
I would add that, contrary to what this BC consultant Feld suggests, a “permanent” location for the Breeder’s Cup will greatly reduce its prestige in a major way, as well as alienate Eastern fans & track owners. His example of “The Masters” is a poor comparison indeed. Noone cares where golfers come from, and golfers suffer no disadvantage of traveling far to the event. This is not true for racehorses. The Masters is also relatively small with very expensive and restricted tickets. This is NOT the model we should be using for Breeder’s Cup.
Let’s not forget the history of how the NTRA came to exist — it was a consortium of tracks trying to cooperate for the national betterment of racing (and thus, the business at all the racetracks). NTRA floundered financially, but managed to save itself by merging with Breeder’s Cup (which had been very successful).
March 30th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Talk about institutionalizing a distinct advantage for the West Coast “home team” vs. East Coast shippers. Compounded by the synthetic advantage over dirt, and you are certainly setting a precedence of East Coast “place-ism”. The inmates continue to run the asylum.
March 30th, 2010 at 11:43 am
When the Breeders Cup puts on “site seating” as a priority
above the spectacle of the top class horses racing, we know they’ve run amok.
This is an national - if not an international - sporting event.
How many derrieres in the seats whether it is run at
Keeneland or Gulfstream Park, Saratoga should matter little to the Breeders Cup’s ledger.
The 95% of those interested in this event will not be there
but watching it away from the host track. Satisfy them!
March 30th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Racing in California is in serious decline. Lets put the Breeders Cup there!
And to think they paid good money for that study!
March 30th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
It appears to me the market (size, demographics, BC history) is the highest priority in choosing a site; not the surface, which can/will change, not the track, which is a political factor meant to appease a few icons, not even the region, in which weather is the biggest factor
Why do Eastern stables and owners/trainers refuse to ship to CA where the conditions are as ideal as they can be at that time of year. The option is to roll the dice and have a wet, sloppy, 50 degree day. NOT an option in the context of staging a premier, TV sports event in the late fall, early winter. Rachel’s absence from BC 09 was a mistake by her owner, not a reflection of the quality of the venue.
I think the move has merit and the Oak Tree Association is a great host. If it doesn’t work, try something else.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Jeff, you mean if it doesn’t work in 5 to 10 years, try something different right? What if it is deemed a “success”, and that success could have been even better? Would that loss constitute success? People are quick to hold up the banner of “NO surface advantage”, yet condemn the possibility of a muddy surface. This whole thing is laughable.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Jeff, you sound like you work for the BC. Rachel’s absence wasn’t a mistake by her owner, but of the BC, just as it was with the two top sprinters missing (Fabulous Strike and Kodiak Kowboy) and numerous other top healthy horses missing. Instead, the “dirt” races were flooded with turf horses — you really think that’s just some coincidence, and not a matter of fact as to what horses run best over the surface?
We’ve tried it already, and it didn’t work. Zenyatta is the only thing that saved them, pure and simple.
It wasn’t broken, but they tried to fix it, and broke it in the process. Go back to 8 races, with the dirt races on dirt, and move the event around. Not a soul complained and it was the best day in racing.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Whoever hit that sand wedge out of Avioli’s chin took part of his brain too!!!!!!!!!!!
March 30th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Santa Anita or Churchill are the perfect spots. If they go to Santa Anita. Breeders Cup should put new great dirt track in and get money back since they take it all anyway.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Given that:
a) The sport’s leadership cares very little about maintaining the sport’s traditions and history
b) Hostile weather is a possibility when the BC is held at Churchill and Belmont Park
Then why not move the date of the BC up to mid or late September when those two tracks play host when weather will be less of an issue? Industry leadership continuously change dates and conditions of historic races, so why should the BC be immune? It’s not like the BC is the definitive year-end championship anyway as horses win Eclipse Awards winning, losing or passing on these races. Let’s keep the big tracks in the rotation and be more flexible with the date of the BC.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I like the idea of the East Coast tracks hosting their own series on dirt if the BC is permanently moved to SoCal. I know which one I’ll be watching/attending.
And please stop whining about 50 degree weather. Wear a coat if you’re too much of a wimp to “brave” 50 degrees. And guess what — there’s this modern invention called an umbrella for when it rains.
As a lifelong Chicago resident 50 degrees is absolutely perfect horse racing weather in my book. It sure beats the smelliness that goes along with warmer weather racing. I’ll bet the horses prefer the cooler weather, too.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“As far as racing goes, as a whole, it is obvious Breeders Cup is worried about the entity Breeders Cup, with those that make up those races playing second fiddle. Again, we have an elite group trying to tell everybody what’s best, BUT, in the end it is what’s best for them.”
Sounds like some east coasters I know.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I owe Steven Crist an apology for misrepresenting parts of his March 19 Daily Racing Form column (entitled “Cup Needs More Than One Home”) criticizing the proposal of a permanent host site for the Breeders’ Cup.
First, contrary to what I wrote, Crist did mention the “national economic downturn” as one of “dozens of footnotes and exceptions” that could explain what he perceived as disappointing handle figures from the last two years. He also mentioned the possible impact that a two-day event could have on the Saturday Breeders’ Cup handle. However, based on my knowledge of the business figures, I completely disagree with his statement “there is absolutely no case to be made that the Cups at Santa Anita outperform those held elsewhere.” The facts are that the New York Breeders’ Cups have underperformed compared with other host sites, and the last two years at Santa Anita have produced record revenue.
Finally, Crist did not say Southern California stables had a home-field advantage. He did refer to a long-ago “mini-revolt” by owners outside of California who were opposed to Southern California tracks having too many opportunities to host the event in its first several years.
I apologize to Crist and our readers for my sloppy note-taking and misrepresentations from his March 19 column.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
This debate is more of the same: North American racing is stuck in the 1940s: a gazillion jurisdictions and interests none of which want to give an inch. As it is, racing here will continue its decline until it will be a minor league activity in comparison to the rest of the world. The US has the most races in the world for the lowest money, the fewest horses per race and the least amount of betting per race. Nobody wants to learn anything: just keep the same prejudices as before. When horse racing abroad becomes generally available to North American bettors: large fields, enormous pools leading to huge payoffs, guess where all the money is going to go?
March 30th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Making the BC permanently in California is a bad idea. Remember when the last BC was at Santa Anita on the dirt track? There was still a distinct homecourt advantage for the West Coast runners. No way Mandella would have had his day anywhere else. New York, Kentucky and California should be rotated. Or, the way things are going with slots and alternative gaming revenue, how about Philadelphia, Oaklawn and Sunland?
March 30th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
selfish: concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
ManuelB - get your facts straight. You are woefully misinformed.
Ray- I keep hearing about record revenue the last 2 Breeders cups yet being that they had more races and days than years past arent we comparing apples to oranges?
Honestly if the BC’s main goal is to not only be self sustaining but to be a more profitable venture then they should not complain when an East Coast version run over a “traditional” surface appears as competition.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
The arguments in favor of SA as a permanent site for the BC far outweigh the arguments against it. The BC would be wise to make a bold move and park the event in sunny Southern California permanently. Doing so would result in sustained growth over time and increased revenue for the organization.
The sport already has a marquee event in Kentucky that happens on the first Saturday in May. The east coast has the Preakness and Belmont Stakes. California would now have the BC as its top event. That is geographical diversity.
As for the implied threats that the east coast powers would somehow create a competing event to go head-to-head with the BC - what a joke, it will never happen.
March 30th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
It doesn’t affect me where the BC is, but competition is good.
Last year the Cigar Mile had Kodiack Kowboy, the Sprint Eclipse winner, Bribon and Vineyard Haven. Of course HoY Rachel Alexandra only ran on dirt in 2009.
Bigger purses for late year dirt races mean the best dirt horses can decide the championships. And Santa Anita can have their BC synth races.
It works out good for everyone.
March 30th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
LITF, don’t laugh too hard.
They already have the Classic (JCGC), Turf (Joe Hirsch), F&M Turf (Flower Bowl), Distaff (Beldame), Sprint (Vosburgh), Juvenile (Champagne), and Juvenile Fillies (Frizette).
And what do they need increased revenue for? All they need to pay for is championship day and the stakes program, which they were easily doing before they added unnecessary races to the card.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Some people have bashed Churchill Downs and some have said the Breeder’s Cup is a not for profit institution, as if that meant they don’t try to make money. Not only doe the Breeders Cup try to make money, they try to keep all of it.
The Breeder’s Cup has made it impossible for the host track to make any meaningful money due to their onerous pricing format. When CD finally had the balls to bring this up, they were vilified, and wrongfully so.
As far as the other comment regarding New York’s response to a permanent west coast home, you are dreadfully underestimating the discontent that will be caused by this move, if it happens. I guarantee you that NYRA and CD will both stage competing events and they will be MORE successful that the Plastic Cup.
Watch and see.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
FunnyCideOver:
It makes no sense for the east coasters to put all of those graded stakes together on the same program on the same day in November just to compete with the BC. What exactly does the east coast racing establishment gain by doing that?
March 30th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
LITF, it’s not “east coast racing establishment” — it’s “owners and trainers” from coast to coast, and it’s about America’s best horses, and dirt racing, and having a true championship day. Owners and trainers (and bettors and fans) really liked that idea, and if the BC continues hellbent on not having a championship day any longer, then a new event should be established to do what the BC used to. That is what could be gained.
March 30th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Sorry, but as Ray points out in his article the five worst-performing Breeders Cups in history were in NY and then throw in the debacle at Monmouth and it becomes ludicrous to make a case for holding another premiere event like the BC in that area. History has proven it doesn’t work. Facts are facts.
Realistically there are only two reasonable alternatives - SA and Churchill.
March 30th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I am amused by the idea that NYRA, reeling from the Aqueduct racino disaster, half-bankrupt again after sliding through the last time by giving up ownership of the property and subscribing to the Getnick Plan, dealing with the collapse of NYCOTB, is suddenly going to stage a rival championship to a CA-based Breeders’ Cup. To what end? At Aqueduct? Spare me…
Should Breeders’ Cup respond by staging a 1-1/2 mile race five weeks after the Kentucky Derby at some other track?
Despite its flaws, I love Belmont Park — in June — and love Saratoga even more, but the idea that NY has some birthright to the Breeders’ Cup is crazy. Santa Anita, Churchill and the old Gulfstream were the ideal locations.
People in this industry can’t cry out for change and then whine when someone tries something new. Give this a chance to sink or swim on the merits and then you’re free to criticize.
March 31st, 2010 at 1:04 am
As much as it pains me to say it, it’s hard to see why Santa Anita wouldn’t make the best host facility for the Breeders’ Cup. There are too many good reasons to do it based on Ray’s column and the comments on this board. Too many people have said that the Sport of Kings is dying - why wouldn’t we want a marquee horseracing event in California - the number 2 media market and beautiful weather.
Moving the dates to earlier in the fall puts us in competition with college football, NFL and MLB playoffs. Horseracing fans will then complain that their isn’t enough TV coverage. It’s worth taking a shot and kudos if the “old boy” network actually does something not in their own self-interest and to perserve the longevity of the sport and attempt to grow interest.
March 31st, 2010 at 6:30 am
As long as all 3 Triple Crown races are on dirt, synth racing in the US will never truly be championship racing.
Just like a synth race in France would never be a championship race.
There will be dirt alternatives to a Santa Anita BC. The Cigar Mile in 2009 was stronger than the BC synth mile, and if the BC trustees announce a permanent California home, the fall races at Churchill and NYC will keep getting stronger.
March 31st, 2010 at 9:07 am
I sure hope they wait to make their decision until they see how this year’s BC performs at Churchill Downs. When it dusts anything SA has seen the last two years, then we’ll see.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:15 am
A permanent BC site in CA might justify itself if it were to keep Hollywood Park alive. Its proximity to LAX would be a tremendous advantage over Santa Anita, and a Friday night twilight card would allow greater participation by those on both coasts who can’t get away from work during the day.
If the BC were to revert to a one-day event, Hialeah seems the most desirable site — assuming it’s even an option. Rotating fair-weather sites between coasts may be the fairest solution.
Patrick #28,
How would a September BC be able to include two-year-olds, or give three-year-olds sufficient preparation against their elders?
April 1st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Arlington Park should be the permanent site of the BC.
April 1st, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I agree, Arlington is the best spot for BC.
April 1st, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I third that motion, AP for BC!!!