It also turns a spotlight onto a world largely hidden from the public eye-one that industry leaders are generally loathe to discuss publicly, and in which just a few anonymous gamblers can have an outsized impact on the financial fitness or ill-health of the sport.

Last year, Del Mar continued a deal with a player identified as Elite 17 that saw them enjoy a noticeably more favorable rate of play than other high-volume players that wager through the CAW platform, Elite Turf Club, according to detailed wagering reports obtained by the TDN, background conversations with racing officials and figures within the CAW world, along with publicly available data.

At the enormous volumes CAW gamblers play, such deals can give individual players a significant financial edge.

The result was that this one player constituted nearly 47% of Elite Turf Club's total handle on Del Mar last year, according to the reports. Two years prior, Elite 17's play had constituted just over 36% of Elite Turf Club's total handle on Del Mar, according to publicly available California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) data.

At the same time, the amount of money another Elite Turf Club player (Elite 2) wagered on the track dropped off by over $32 million between 2021 and 2023, the reports show-from around $45 million in 2021 to around $13 million last year. In 2021, Elite 2's play came to just over 27% of Elite Turf Club's total handle on Del Mar. Last year, that number had dropped to around 12%.

According to multiple sources familiar with the situation, Elite 2 received a deal similar to Elite 17 in prior years at Del Mar, but not last year.

An individual familiar with the situation-who spoke as a “California racing source” on condition of anonymity-said that, prior to the track's 2023 summer meet, Elite 2 declined such a deal, which would have necessitated paying a “substantial seven-figure up-front payment.”

Del Mar Thoroughbred Club | Horsephotos

When asked if Elite 2 had changed their mind about the deal after the summer meet was underway, the source declined to answer, citing concerns about proprietary business information. “But you can't make an up-front payment after the meet has started,” the source added.

Such arrangements have served as a pre-payment on host fees to be split between the track and the purse account, sources say.

The deals that Del Mar has struck with Elite Turf Club players over the years, while hardly an anomaly among tracks nationally, nonetheless raises questions about the best approach to managing CAW play in a state where purse revenues are generated solely through betting. If purses fuel the sport, getting this equation right is an imperative.

Are deals between tracks and individual CAW players, therefore, a sustainable approach for growing the sport in California? Is CAW play now so vital to the economics of horse racing that every step must be taken to maximize their business? Or should California's tracks be much more focused on incentivizing play from the average punters who generally contribute the biggest slice to purses, rather than pandering to the whales of the betting seas?

While it's difficult to know exactly how such deals might have impacted Del Mar's purse account revenues, the bare numbers illustrate a track facing tough economic headwinds, with serious implications for the horsemen and women in the state.

Purses last fall at Del Mar were reduced by over 10% due to a purse account overpayment reportedly to the tune of $2.1 million. All-source handle at the track's flagship summer meet declined nearly 11% from 2022 to 2023, according to the DRF. Wagering through Elite Turf Club on the track's product has declined from around $167 million in 2021 to around $113 million last year, according to the CHRB.

“As a track with no subsidies from alternative forms of gaming that depends exclusively on handle for purse generation, promoting handle from all segments of the betting market is very important to us. On an annual basis we sit down with the [Thoroughbred Owners of California] TOC to both establish purse levels and to discuss how we best promote wagering on our simulcast signal,” wrote Del Mar Thoroughbred Club president, Josh Rubinstein, in response to a series of questions.

Before the start of each meet in California, the tracks present the TOC with a list of individual host fees charged to each location that receives its simulcast signal. For that track's meet to proceed, the TOC must first sign this document.

“We are proud of our racing product, which has been well-received for the last several years, and confident that our host fees are fair and competitive with other major race tracks. We will continue to work with our partners to balance pricing considerations with the overall demands of the wagering markets,” Rubinstein added.

How takeout is divided from CAW play

BACKGROUND ON RATES AND REBATES
The debate around CAW players typically surrounds the major edge they wield over regular gamblers thanks to their use of sophisticated wagering technologies and the attractive rates and rebates offered to them-inducements not available to the average punter.

When “rates” are mentioned, what is meant are “host fees.” This is a charge wagering outlets pay to track operators for the contractual right to import a simulcast signal. A wagering outlet could be another racetrack, an ADW platform (like FanDuel), or a CAW platform (like Elite Turf Club).

Experts say that CAW host fees for the premium tracks typically vary between 6% and 8%. After breeders' premiums and other minor deductions have been removed, host fees are roughly split 50/50 between the track and the purse account in California.

The entities that pay the lowest host fee, therefore-like CAW players-contribute the lowest per-dollar amount to purses. At the same time, proponents of CAW argue how these inducements are warranted due to the vast amounts these players inject into the betting pools.

The amount CAW players are “rebated” can be broadly calculated with this simple equation:

Rebate = Takeout minus host fee (plus any other associated minor fees). The smaller the host fee and the larger the takeout, then the bigger the rebate.

Let's use the 20% blended takeout rate among the pools. And let's say the host fee (plus other associated fees) that the CAW player pays comes to 7%.

The rebated discount for the CAW players, therefore, could be a maximum 13% on every dollar wagered.

Experts recently told the TDN that the most successful CAW players can consistently win at an average rate of around 92%. At that win rate, a 13% rebate (for example) would see the player enjoy a 5% profit margin.

According to wagering reports reviewed by the TDN, that win rate is an undercount. These reports show how Elite Turf Club players can win at an average rate in excess of 105%, even before their rebate from Elite is factored in. At this rate, the profit margin would be much better than many investment accounts.

It's also important to note how the numerical monikers given to Elite Turf Club players-a company majority owned by The Stronach Group (TSG)-don't relate to just one person.

These players employ a team of potentially dozens of people, including mathematical wizards who create sophisticated computer algorithms capable of analyzing the betting markets for exploitable weaknesses, as well as individuals who place the bets for them.

Insiders consulted for this story describe how these teams of experts can, over time, deduce through the betting markets and through other data sources if rival CAW players receive more favorable rates.

Given the money at stake, the competition can be cutthroat.

ELITE 17'S DEAL
As CAW play has grown exponentially in recent years, track operators have cut deals like that between Del Mar and Elite 17 to attract their business. And the amount these gamblers wager is often so huge, just one player can make up a significant portion of a track's overall handle.

In 2019, when the renowned gambler “Dr. Nick” stopped wagering on Australian racing reportedly due to increased taxes on bookmakers, his exit was projected to trigger a 6% drop in turnover on racing across the board.

Multiple sources for this story said that Elite 17 and Elite 2 were both well-known Australian gamblers.

Scott Daruty | Horsephotos

Scott Daruty, president of both TSG's Monarch Content Management and of the Elite Turf Club, declined to confirm or deny their identities, citing confidentiality agreements.

According to detailed reports obtained by the TDN, Elite 17 wagered more than $650 million on U.S. racing through Elite Turf Club alone last year. In 2021, Elite 17 wagered roughly $60 million on Del Mar's product, according to the CHRB. Last year, Elite 17 wagered some $53 million. Last summer at Del Mar, the amount Elite 17 wagered was roughly 10% of the total handle at Del Mar, using the DRF's all-source handle figures as a baseline.

These numbers don't account for Elite 17's potential play on horse racing through other methods such as fixed-odds providers and exchange options like Betfair in other countries, or on other sports. Some CAW players also have accounts with different CAW platforms like Velocity, owned by Churchill Downs, which enables wagering on tracks whose simulcast signals are managed by Churchill.

At the same time, multiple sources say individual deals are still fairly prevalent among smaller tracks struggling financially, but that they're now unusual among the nation's top-tier tracks.

According to wagering reports reviewed by the TDN, the New York Racing Association (NYRA) offered the same host fee to Elite Turf Club players at Saratoga last year, irrespective of the betting pool. This included Elite 17. The host fee NYRA charged was slightly lower than Del Mar charged the same CAW players (outside of Elite 17), these reports show.

“NYRA cannot responsibly comment or opine on information never provided to our organization,” wrote NYRA spokesperson, Pat McKenna, in response to questions about the wagering reports. The TDN provided to NYRA an overview of the figures in the reports but not the raw data. NYRA's data was independently verified for the TDN. NYRA is a minority owner in Elite Turf Club.

McKenna did, however, stress the steps the organization has taken to manage CAW play, including barring CAW play in the Pick 6, Late Pick 5, and Cross Country Pick 5 pools, and requiring CAW players to place win bets on its races no later than two minutes to post.

California has also taken similar steps to moderate CAW play.

Since Santa Anita's 2022 fall meet, the win pool has been closed to CAW players one-minute to post, or else they must also pay a surcharge of around 3.5% on top of their normal rate if they want to bet to the close of the win-pool. Last year, Del Mar followed suit. Both tracks have also reverted to the traditional Pick 6.

When it comes to Del Mar's deal with Elite 17, the agreement was incumbent upon the player making a substantial payment at the start of the meet, according to multiple sources. Once that up-front payment was made, Elite 17 paid a host fee almost half of that for other Elite Turf Club players, wagering reports show.

But multiple sources familiar with the situation explained how factoring in the up-front payment, Elite 17 paid a host fee on Del Mar's product last year around a percentage point or so lower than the other CAW players.

At the volume CAW gamblers play, just one percentage point difference in host fee can mean a significant edge for one CAW player over all others, along with possible residual effects on all other participants in the betting pools in terms of late odds movement.

Bill Nader | Horsephotos

TOC president and CEO Bill Nader explained that deals involving up-front payments incentivize the player to maximize the amount they wager on the track's product.

“For example, if the player bets over a certain threshold, the player benefits from a high-volume discount. If the player does not reach that wagering threshold, the effective rate would be higher than other CAW players,” wrote Nader.

But could the deal that Del Mar struck with Elite 17 have prompted other CAW players-and Elite 2 in particular-to have curbed their play at the track last year?

The California racing source said that other CAW players were offered similar terms to Elite 17 last year. However, it should be noted that the other CAW players that wager through Elite Turf Club on Del Mar didn't bet to nearly the same volume as Elite 17 last year, and that Elite 2 was the only Elite Turf Club player to wager in the region of Elite 17's handle in 2021.

The California racing source also noted how CAW play is closely aligned with overall handle on a track's product, and that declines in total handle would invariably lead to decreases in CAW play.

“It's hard for us to say with any certainty why player A or B may have reduced his or her volume of play,” the source said. “The best source for that is the player themself.”

The TDN reached out to a representative of the player believed to be Elite 2, who declined to discuss the situation.

Here, it should be noted that at least one Elite Turf Club player increased their play between 2021 and 2023. This was Elite 10, who wagered $4.9 million in 2021 and $6.7 million in 2023 on Del Mar's product.

The TDN does not have access to data showing individual CAW handle on Del Mar's product in 2022. That was the year the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) stopped making such data publicly available. Even so, California remains more transparent than other jurisdictions about what CAW data it makes publicly available.

Another wrinkle in this story is how Del Mar boasts an attractive wagering product with good field sizes and an impressive safety record. With that in mind, was the deal the right one to strike?

“With the benefit of hindsight, it has been the wrong deal for over 10 years and this is why we need a market correction,” wrote Nader, in response to a series of questions. “We represent the owners and purses are paid to owners, trainers, and jockeys, and there is room for improvement. This is what the TOC hired me to do.”

When asked why the TOC approved the deal last year, Nader wrote how 2023 “was my first full year with the TOC and we needed time to work with our Board members and others, notably the tracks, to voice our reservations and allow for a period of adjustment. This entire exercise has been a work in progress.”

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW?
The issue of shrinking purse revenues amid declining economic benchmarks couldn't be a more pressing issue in California right now, where the industry attempts to piece together a revised racing framework in the wake of Golden Gate's impending closure in June.

At the end of the day, therefore, those arguably most impacted by decisions around managing CAW play are the industry stakeholders attempting to eke out a living from the sport.

When asked for comment on the story, the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) wrote in a prepared statement how, “based on Del Mar's representations and the TOC's confirmation of how the purse account there has been managed, we can only say we're disturbed and confused. In January of 2021, at a CTT Board meeting, we attempted to question TOC leadership at the time about how purse levels were being funded, and were angrily rebuked by those in charge.”

At that point in time, Greg Avioli was TOC president.

“Since purses are the lifeblood of our sport, and are fueled by the public's interest and its confidence in the integrity of pari-mutuel betting, the apparent lack of transparency we're hearing about now has to be remedied immediately,” the CTT added.

Scott Chaney | courtesy of the CHRB

According to CHRB executive director, Scott Chaney, the agency is “keenly aware of the questions, importance and interest surrounding CAWs and plans to place the topic on our meeting agenda in the next month or so.”

Chaney added how “the concepts of purse accounts and structure are also vitally important to racing in California, therefore in order promote understanding and transparency, we are in the process of amending our race meet license application to include additional questions in this area.”

All of which leads to this question: Will Elite 17 be offered the same deal this year?

“No. Negotiations are ongoing across the entire customer sector,” wrote Nader.

“High-volume players will agree that two key deliverables to make their business models more attractive are access and liquidity to commingled pools,” added Nader. “Our racetrack partners should also understand the collective upside and if everyone can take a step back and look at this thing holistically, we can work it out.”

The post Computer Assisted Wagering: Anatomy Of A Deal appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

“TOC appreciates the contributions he has made to the organization and to the California Thoroughbred community as a whole and wishes him well in his future endeavors,” read a TOC statement Friday. “TOC is focused on the continued success of the organization and has already begun the search for a new President and CEO.  We are confident that the candidate chosen to fill this role will bring continued success to the organization and will continue to advance the best interests of its members and the sport.”

The post TOC President Greg Avioli Resigns appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Company (CDTIC) filed the suit on Tuesday in United States District Court Central District of California's Western Division, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief while alleging that the arbitration provisions of California Business & Professions Code section 19604 are invalid and unenforceable because they violate the U.S. and California Constitutions' Due Process and Contracts Clauses.

The dispute centers around a hub agreement reached on Dec. 22, 2020, between Santa Anita Park and CDI's two online wagering companies, TwinSpires and BetAmerica. The agreement specified the percentage the ADW companies would receive on each dollar wagered by California residents using their platforms. By California statute, the maximum an ADW company may receive to facilitate a wager is 6.5%. The agreed-upon percentage in the agreement between the ADW companies and Santa Anita is redacted in the court filings. According to the lawsuit, TOC asked that the hub fee be reduced to 4.1%, which the complaint said “would cost Churchill Downs Technology millions of dollars and upset almost a decade of an established course of dealing between the contracting parties.”

TOC is not a party to the contract. By law, according to the complaint, an ADW provider can choose to enter into a hub agreement with a racetrack, a horsemen's organization, or both. However, under section 19604, the horsemen's organization (or racetrack) may file a written demand for arbitration within 10 days of receiving a copy of a hub contract. TOC did so on Dec. 31.

Two months earlier, on Oct. 28, the suit alleges, TOC president and CEO Greg Avioli asked Churchill Downs Inc. executive Mike Ziegler to “voluntarily return the equivalent of 1% of the total” wagered on the company's ADW platforms in 2020. “TOC threatened that if Churchill Downs Technology did not comply with its 'voluntary' request, it would demand arbitration pursuant to section 19604,” the complaint alleges, calling the effort a to retain additional revenue a “shakedown.”

In a statement issued by Avioli after the TOC learned of the lawsuit, he said: “ADW wagering in California increased by over 40% year over year statewide in 2020 while purse generation from live tracks and OTBs dropped substantially due to COVID-19 closures and restrictions. In 2020 CDTIC received over $7 million of hub fees from ADW wagers by California on Thoroughbred races. TOC's decision to exercise its arbitration rights under California law came after CDTIC declined to reach a voluntary settlement of the matter.”

The complaint suggests that California racing – not TwinSpires or BetAmerica – was the real beneficiary when wagering shifted from on-track to online during the pandemic.

“Online and telephonic wagering, known as advanced deposit wagering, has transformed horse racing in the state, and allowed the many stakeholders involved in horse racing to continue to prosper,” the complaint states. “This has been particularly true since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to limited races and limited spectators for months.

“ADW providers, such as TwinSpires and BetAmerica, make significant investments in technology, marketing and customer service to bring horse racing to as many fans possible, attract new fans, and make wagering on horses fun and easy,” the complaint continues. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, the ADW distribution not only kept fans engaged when they could not otherwise go to a racetrack, but also attracted and created many new fans of horseracing. Rather than appreciating this necessary and growing distribution outlet, the TOC has treated the ADW providers as competition, not as valued partners. This is bad for racing fans and horseracing as a whole.”

TOC's Avioli said the statute concerning arbitration is long established and clear.

“The specific provision in California law (Business and Professional Code 19604 et. seq.) authorizing the arbitration of hub fees is nothing new and, in fact, has been unchanged in California law for more than two decades,” Avioli said in a statement. “We intend to move forward with the hub fee arbitration in an expedited manner and believe the attempt to disrupt the arbitration by CDTIC with this last-minute federal lawsuit has no merit.”

According to section 19604, the arbitration must take place within 60 days of a formal request. The arbitrator has 15 days to render a decision on whether to maintain the contract as signed or to change the fee to the percentage requested by TOC.

The post Churchill Downs Subsidiary Sues Thoroughbred Owners Of California Over Simulcast Fee Dispute appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

In a chain of events that plaintiff Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Company (CDT), which operates the TwinSpires and BetAmerica wagering platforms, termed a “shakedown” in its 22-page complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, the dispute arose Oct. 28, 2020, when TOC president and CEO Greg Avioli allegedly asked CDI's then-executive director of racing, Mike Ziegler, to “voluntarily return the equivalent of 1% of the total” amounts generated from California residents wagering on those platforms in 2020.”

In addition, according to the complaint, “Mr. Avioli proposed that all ADW providers agree to a 3% hub fee for the 2021-2022 term–a rate CDT has never agreed to in its history of operating in California. Indeed, at such a rate, CDT would be operating at a significant loss, and it would make little sense to do business in California or with California residents.”

The complaint does state the fees that are currently under contract between the CDT platforms and Santa Anita, but the United States District Court (Central District, California, Western Division) has allowed those rates to be redacted at the plaintiff's request. Santa Anita itself is not a defendant in the suit.

The complaint continues: “TOC threatened that if CDT did not comply with its 'voluntary' request, it would demand arbitration pursuant to [California Business & Professions Code] section 1960447. Contrary to Mr. Avioli's false characterization, the revenue ADW providers earned in 2020 was not a 'windfall,' but the result of increased demand for online wagering.”

Avioli responded to a request for comment on the lawsuit by emailing a statement, which read, in part, “On Dec. 31, 2020, TOC notified CDT that TOC would pursue the statutory remedy (available to both racetracks and horsemen in California) to seek arbitration of the amount of the hub fee retained by CDT from wagers from California residents for the calendar year 2021.
“ADW wagering in California increased by over 40% year over year statewide in 2020 while purse generation from live tracks and OTBs dropped substantially due to COVID-19 closures and restrictions.

“In 2020 CDT received over $7 million of hub fees from ADW wagers by California on Thoroughbred races. TOC's decision to exercise its arbitration rights under California law came after CDT declined to reach a voluntary settlement of the matter. The specific provision in California law… authorizing the arbitration of hub fees is nothing new and, in fact, has been unchanged in California law for more than two decades. We intend to move forward with the hub fee arbitration in an expedited manner and believe the attempt to disrupt the arbitration by CDT with this last minute federal lawsuit has no merit.”

CDT, according to the suit, disagrees: “There is simply no basis for TOC to earn more money when California's horse-racing industry already retains a large majority of the revenue generated from online wagers. TOC has not contributed a single cent or ounce of effort in 2020 to the efforts and success of www.TwinSpires.com and www.BetAmerica.com, and has no right to a greater portion of their revenue.

“Although TOC wishes to confuse the issue to make it appear more sympathetic, California law already ensures that TOC is handsomely compensated any time a wager is placed on races occurring inside or outside of California,” the complaint continues. “Indeed, Section 19604 ensures the California horse racing industry, including TOC, receives the majority of the money available, after winning bets are paid out, earned from a race, and that the California horsemen and horsemen organizations do far better than their colleagues in every other state or nearly every other state.”

The complaint explains this is because “When an ADW accepts wagers from California residents on an out-of-state race, the track hosting that race, which is not in California, also collects a 'host fee' as compensation for conducting it. California law caps the host fee amount at just 3.5%, in addition to capping the hub fee rate. By capping the out-of-state track's host fee and the ADW provider's hub fee, Section 19604 ensures that California's horsemen groups and racing associations receive the vast bulk of revenue earned from wagers placed by California residents, regardless of where the race actually takes place.

The complaint states that CDT did not agree to the 1% return of money to TOC, nor the demand accept a “substantially lower” hub fee in 2021. Instead, in December, CDT and Santa Anita negotiated an ADW agreement for 2021 at a hub rate “far below the statutory maximum of 6.5%.”

The complaint states that same day that TOC received a copy of that hub agreement, “Mr. Avioli demanded that CDT voluntarily return approximately 0.9% of its 2020 handle, equal to $1.23 million, and reiterated TOC's intent to use Section 19604's arbitration provisions to set a hub fee rate of 4.1% or lower.”

Again, CDT refused. The complaint states that TOC then sent two letters dated Dec. 31 (one for each ADW platform; referenced above by Avioli) demanding that CDT “pick one of three options: (1) abandon its hub agreement with Santa Anita Park; (2) accept an alternate hub fee of 4.1%; or (3) proceed with a hub agreement arbitration.”

On Jan. 13, 2021, the complaint states that TOC did file an in-state demand to officially start the 60-day clock on a “rushed” arbitration process.

“CDT now faces nothing but untenable options,” the complaint states. “It could abandon the hub agreement, meaning all of its investment in building and promoting its websites in California will be lost. It could accept TOC's unreasonable and unsustainable hub fee, which would effectively cause the same result since it is highly questionable that CDT can profitably operate at 4.1%. Or it could go to a binding, unconscionable arbitration process, which would deprive CDT of its right to access the courts, force it into a rushed process without any standards guiding the arbitrator's decision, and allow a third-party to use California law to upend its contractual rights.

“Additionally, TOC has already threatened to attempt to use these arbitration provisions in future years. This sets the stage for a continuous, protracted, and inefficient legal dispute between TOC and CDT.”

The complaint sums up: “Lacking clarity, and recognizing that none of [the] 'options' provided by Section 19604 were actually fair or viable choices, CDT was forced to bring this lawsuit, seeking a declaration that TOC cannot force it to proceed to a fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional scheme and enjoining the organization from utilizing Section 19604 to force CDT to choose between abandoning its agreement, submitting to TOC's proposed rate, or arbitrating.”

The post Alleging ‘Shakedown’ over ADW Fees, Churchill Takes TOC to Federal Court appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Just last week, the Southern California Stabling & Vanning Racing Committee announced a set of stop-gap funding measures to grapple with a $2-million deficit and maintain the stabling status-quo in the southern portion of the state during 2021.

On Wednesday, the Thoroughbred Owners of California (“TOC”) announced a new “purse enhancement” program with TVG, Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, and The Stronach Group’s 1/ST Racing to inject up to $15 million into California Thoroughbred purses in 2021 and 2022.

“California racing has always been very important to TVG, and we are committed to continuing our support of the racing industry here, especially given the challenging circumstances the industry faced in 2020,” said TVG CEO Kip Levin, in the press release. “We feel the right strategy is to partner with the stakeholders to further strengthen what has always been a premier racing circuit in the United States.”

In October, the TDN reported that during the first eight months of 2020–when compared to the same period in 2018–the number of races had declined 30%, and while the overall handle declined 18.8%, purses dropped more than 26%.

During that time, overall purses in the state dropped from about $87 million in 2018 to around $64 million in 2020–a near 30% decline. The press release, however, makes a number of financial projections under the new agreement.

Santa Anita Park recently announced a 10% across the board purse increase for its 2020-2021 Winter/Spring Meet, putting the daily purse average around the $533,000 mark, making Santa Anita Park “competitive with the top circuits in the U.S. despite not receiving any casino revenues or government subsidies,” the press release states.

Under the new program, the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club is projected to increase average daily purse levels to over $600,000 in 2021.

“This is a great development for California horse racing,” said Craig Fravel, The Stronach Group’s CEO of Racing. “Along with our horsemen and regulators, we instituted historic safety reforms starting in 2019. We believe these reforms and the enhanced purses previously announced have created a great racing environment that has already attracted top stakes horses, trainers and riders from all over the country to our current Santa Anita Winter/Spring meet.”

Del Mar’s president, Josh Rubinstein, said that, “Coming off our extraordinarily successful summer and fall meets in 2020, these increased purses, coupled with the growing excitement for the 2021 Breeders’ Cup World Championships, sets us up for a fantastic 2021.”

According to TOC president, Greg Avioli, “This unprecedented level of partnership among California’s horsemen and women, FanDuel/TVG, The Stronach Group and Del Mar is just the beginning. With sports wagering on the horizon and its potential to both add millions more to purse accounts and to create new horse players, combined with the successful safety and welfare measures instituted over the last two years by our race tracks, we are well on the way to returning California to its historic place as the country’s premier racing circuit.”

There is pushback, however. According to the Paulick Report, Churchill Downs Inc.’s ADW company, TwinSpires, does not go along with the agreement-prefaced upon ADW platforms accepting a lower fee on all wagers from California residents-and the matter will reportedly go to arbitration.

The post California ADW Agreement Set to Boost Purses by $15 Million appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Thoroughbred Owners of California (“TOC”), Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, The Stronach Group's 1/ST Racing and FanDuel Group's TVG have announced a new purse enhancement program that will inject up to $15 million into California Thoroughbred purses in 2021 and 2022.

The parties to the agreement, all major stakeholders in California Thoroughbred racing, believed that working together on additional sponsorship and purse enhancements would help support the state's racing industry in light of the loss of purse revenue due to the cessation of live racing in California in 2020 and the restrictions on on-site attendance due to public health requirements. The parties also share a commitment to support and promote the significant equine health and safety advancements made by California racing interests over the last two years.

“California racing has always been very important to TVG, and we are committed to continuing our support of the racing industry here, especially given the challenging circumstances the industry faced in 2020,” said TVG CEO Kip Levin. “We feel the right strategy is to partner with the stakeholders to further strengthen what has always been a premier racing circuit in the United States.”

In anticipation of the program, Santa Anita Park recently announced a 10% across the board purse increase for its 2020-2021 Winter/Spring Meet. With a daily purse average of $533,000, Santa Anita Park's purses are now competitive with the top circuits in the U.S. despite not receiving any casino gaming revenues or government subsidies.

“This is a great development for California horse racing,” said Craig Fravel, The Stronach Group's CEO of Racing. “Along with our horsemen and regulators, we instituted historic safety reforms starting in 2019. We believe these reforms and the enhanced purses previously announced have created a great racing environment that has already attracted top stakes horses, trainers and riders from all over the country to our current Santa Anita Winter/Spring meet.”

With the support of these purse enhancements, the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club is projected to increase average daily purse levels at its summer meeting to more than $600,000 in 2021, Del Mar officials indicated. Josh Rubinstein, Del Mar's president, stated, “Coming off our extraordinarily successful summer and fall meets in 2020, these increased purses, coupled with the growing excitement for the 2021 Breeders' Cup World Championships, sets us up for a fantastic 2021.”

The purse enhancements come as a result of new hub agreements involving TOC and the advance deposit wagering companies TVG and 1/ST Bet, also known as Xpressbet. With the coronavirus pandemic eliminating virtually all on-track wagering, the ADW companies enjoyed a financial windfall for most of 2020 and into 2021, as betting shifted online. In recognition of that, TVG and 1/ST Bet agreed to accept a lower fee – 4.1% instead of 5% – on all wagers from California residents through their platforms. Other, smaller wagering platforms have also agreed to the new terms, according to TOC.

Churchill Downs Inc.'s ADW company, TwinSpires, did not agree to the fee reduction and the matter will go to arbitration in accordance with California Business and Professions Code 19604.

“This unprecedented level of partnership among California's horsemen and women, FanDuel/TVG, The Stronach Group and Del Mar is just the beginning,” said TOC President Greg Avioli. “With sports wagering on the horizon and its potential to both add millions more to purse accounts and to create new horse players, combined with the successful safety and welfare measures instituted over the last two years by our race tracks, we are well on the way to returning California to its historic place as the country's premier racing circuit.”

The post New Agreements With ADW Companies To Increase California Purses; TwinSpires Lone Holdout appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

In a nutshell, as compared to a comparable period in 2018, the number of races this year has declined 30%. Although the overall handle has declined 18.8%, purses have dropped more than 26%.

To discuss these findings, we spoke with Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) president and CEO Greg Avioli. Prior to joining TOC, Avioli served as president and CEO of The Stronach Group (TSG) and of Breeders’ Cup Limited. Prior to that, Avioli was the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA)’s COO and general counsel, and is the founding president of the organization’s political action committee.

The following Q&A is from a longer, more discursive conversation. Any edits have been done in such a way as to streamline extraneous portions. The remaining text has been edited only very lightly for clarity.

DR: What are your main takeaways from the data?

GA: We’ve seen a fundamental shift in the economics of the industry in California.

DR: What are the most noteworthy changes you see?

GA: I think it jumps off the page at you: For the projections for the whole year, you’re looking at purses generated in California, excluding Breeders’ Cup, dropping from about [$87] million in 2018 to around [$64] million in 2020. That’s a [near] 30% decline.

I do not expect to see the on-track generated purse levels or the OTB-network generated levels come back to where they were pre-COVID. I believe this now has some permanence to it.

DR: During the initial months of the pandemic, racing was pretty much the only betting game in town. Has the reintroduction of other sports into the marketplace impacted handle on racing?

GA: Of course. If you just look at Golden Gate as an example, during the early days when Golden Gate was one of the few tracks running, they had record handle for them–as much as $4 to $5 million a day. Now that you have the return of most of the other major sports, it has returned to its traditional $1- to $2-million-a-day range. That’s the case, order of magnitude, with all of racing.

More recently, it was a bit of a shock to folks within the industry to see the [roughly] 50% reduction in total handle for both the Derby and the Preakness. If those had been run earlier in the year during COVID, I expect those declines wouldn’t have been so great.

The advent of sports wagering in the major population markets of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Illinois, coupled with the return of live sports, has definitely resulted in a decrease in the overall rate of ADW handle. But [ADWs are] still going to have a fantastic year.

DR: How do we fix the hit to purses, though? As Pat Cummings of the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation (TIF) has said, the splits on betting need to be reviewed. At the same time, he warns that a takeout hike would only “hasten racing’s handle decline.” Do you agree with him?

GA: I believe that both need to be reviewed. I don’t agree that you cannot review takeout in the context of looking at everything else. When you’re looking at almost [30%] reduction in purse generation in the largest racing market in California over 48 months, you owe it to my constituents, the owners, to look at “X.”

The whole point of this economic model is that it was derived 20 years ago for ADW. There’s no question it’s had its benefits for California. It’s also been extremely lucrative for the operators. So, we’re just looking at: What is the model that is sustainable going forward?

One thing the folks who operate the major ADWs in the state–TVG and TwinSpires and Xpressbet–these are business people, right? They understand business numbers. None of this is personal. Right? If we went to the ADWs and said, ‘Guys, we’re off [30%] of our revenues–of our income–essentially for two years, we need to change the model.’ Of course, everyone has to look at the model.

DR: This period has proven to be a windfall for the ADW companies like TwinSpires and Xpressbet who, at the same time, have seen operating expenses at their tracks slashed due to the reduction in racing. The TIF calculated that Churchill Downs’ online wagering profits rose 39% in the second quarter of this year, even without the Derby. How does this dynamic factor into things moving forward?

GA: Which dynamic are you referring to?

DR: Where’s the short-term financial incentive for companies like The Stronach Group (which owns Xpressbet) to bring patrons and bettors back to their brick-and-mortar facilities?

GA: I think that there are significant reasons. Look at Del Mar, for example. They have one of the most robust food and beverage operations in the whole country when it comes to racing. On-track wagering is the most lucrative form of wagering–of course you have incentives to bring fans back to your facilities.

The Stronach Group makes more money on a dollar wagered at Santa Anita than they do bet on Xpressbet. So, I disagree with that premise.

If your question is: How do we address the reality that Churchill Downs as a racetrack owns an ADW, as does The Stronach Group? I’m really not as focused on Churchill Downs as [I am on] The Stronach Group because they own two of the largest tracks in California.

DR: But that’s a different dynamic than Del Mar, though. Del Mar doesn’t own an ADW-The Stronach Group does.

GA: Correct. I’m not privy to–they’re a private company–all the books and records of The Stronach Group, but I know for a certainty that that entity is significantly better off if people are wagering at that racetrack–particularly at California where they have a relatively minor market share for ADW. I’d say [almost] 80% of [ADW wagering] in California is TwinSpires and TVG.

DR: So, where are you looking to make fixes?

GA: If you go back to what I said about purse generation projected about $85 million this year, what is coming out of that? There are two sides to the equation. One is how can we reduce expenses that are paid out of the purse account right now so it can go back to purses, right? And big expenses that we have right now for that would be the CHRB [California Horse Racing Board], whose budget will be over $18 million this year, with $9 million coming from purses.

That’s a budget that has increased on its own by 50% over the last five years from somewhere around $12 million. Even though the number of horses, the number of races, number of owners, number of trainers, everything that they regulate has declined 10 to 30%, their budget has gone up 50%.

We’ve made it very clear to them–to the board members and the legislators–that’s not good government. We need to work on that. There is some funding in the recent bill that’s just passed–the animal welfare bill in Sacramento [AB 1974]–that will allow some of the [state revenues from racing licensing and fines] that previously went to the general fund, to go to fund expenses at UC Davis that were previously paid for by the CHRB. So, it’s a first step in a long journey, but that’s about [$1.2] million a year that will unburden the horse industry right now.

We have the stabling and vanning fund that will be operating at almost a [$3.7]-million deficit this year, because it is primarily funded from wagering at the OTBs and the satellites, which have been largely dormant. We cannot continue to pay $5 million a year out of the purse account for stabling and vanning, particularly when we are funding a capacity of stalls of approximately 3,200 while dealing with horses in those stalls of approximately 2,400. We’ve got to restructure that program.

We have taken significant steps in the last 12 months to shore up and improve the safety of the backside for live racing and training, so that we can stabilize if not reduce the cost of workers’ compensation, which is another multi-million-dollar hit to the purse account.

We’re doing the things we can do on the big picture numbers and the expense side. Obviously, the way to grow a successful business is, long-term, not to cut costs but to increase revenues. So, on the revenue side, first and foremost, and this is a longer-term effort, but we have to increase our field size.

You’ve seen the decrease in the number of days of racing, and now that we are down to three days of racing [a week], we have to have stronger field sizes for those three days. And that’s a topic of conversation for another day: How do you go about doing that? But the days of providing free year-round training, and yet having horses participate as the trainer chooses without regard to the broader economics, that can’t continue.

DR: You mean there might be some kind of stabling fee imposed?

GA: One way or another, we have to come up with a shared vision between the racetracks and the trainers in order for the business to survive. There has to be a minimum number of horses participating on a regular basis in the state. Right now, we’re much more old school, where everyone does their own thing. I run when I feel as though my horse is ready to run–can’t rush them. If in fact I have a couple horses in training for a year that don’t make a start, but the industry is paying for [them], that’s a challenge to my business. That kind of stuff probably has to be addressed.

DR: That’s a tricky thing to address though. All we’ve got to do is look back at the Santa Anita welfare crisis–that was a big concern, trainers being compelled to run.

GA: There’s a big difference between a heavy handed–“you run or you’re gone”–and an educational process where everybody starts nodding their head and going, ‘I never realized.’ And if we collectively don’t do “X,” we’re not going to make it.

DR: At the end of the day, it’s the horsemen who are being crushed by the purse retention rates with ADWs. What should they be doing right now?

GA: The first is philosophical–we’re an ecosystem. There’s no way to significantly improve California racing as an industry and as a product if it’s not done together. Almost any party can block something. If the horsemen go to Sacramento and they want something and the tracks don’t, it’s not going to happen. Vice versa.

We have got to get leaders to emerge from all segments who can say, ‘What can we all do together?’ And really take the time to understand the complex economics. What can we do to fix this? Until there’s a commitment to work together and realize that things are going to have to change–already have changed–then we’re just wasting a lot of energy trying to convince people of your idea.

DR: The ADW contracts expire at the end of the year. What’s the status of the negotiations?

GA: The way the ADWs work in California is another most remarkably Byzantium deal that legislators set up in 2000. All those licenses are set to expire by December 31st. So, the requirement for accepting wagers after your license is granted is that you have to have what is known as a hub agreement with one of the following parties: either the TOC or with a Thoroughbred racetrack running at least five weeks. That would be Santa Anita, Golden Gate, Los Alamitos, [Del Mar].

There’s a statutory cap on the amount that [an ADW provider can receive from an ADW wager made by a California resident, which is 6.5%]. All the ADWs can go to The Stronach Group, Del Mar, Los Alamitos. If they go to one of the racetracks and they work out an agreement with them, it comes back to the TOC to approve it, and the only thing we can approve or disapprove under the law is the rate. And if we think the rate is inappropriate, we can propose a different rate. And if that rate isn’t agreed to, then there is a very short specific arbitration process.

DR: Have you made any projections on what those rates should be?

GA: You can do the math. ADW [handle] is going to be $800 million in California this year, and every point of fee paid to the ADWs is $8 million. So, add a 5% fee which has been a standard rate for the last decade out here on the larger ADWs, that is $40 million that they’re getting in terms of post revenues–out of ADW–that would otherwise be going to the purses and commissions. If there was 4%, then it would be $32 million. Three percent, $24 million. We have not determined what an appropriate rate is–all this is happening in real time right now with us analyzing these numbers [and making] projections into the future.

The post “This Now has Some Permanence”: TOC’s Greg Avioli on California Handle, Purses appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post