OTB | Horse Racing Free Tips

Letter to the Editor: First, Stop the Bleeding

T.D. Thornton's report on racetrack closures in California (TDN, 12/6/23) and Dan Ross's piece on Pat Cummings's research into Computer Assisted Wagering in California (TDN 2/13/24) are frightening for all tracks not supported by casinos/slots.

Santa Anita and Del Mar are high-profile tracks in trouble, but they are not alone. The problem? Host tracks are now receiving very little for their racing content.

Remember Napster, when a lot of people were stealing songs and nobody knew what to do about it?

I'm not Steve Jobs, who saved the music industry from Napster, but I'm going to tell you how to save Santa Anita and Del Mar and the rest of our tracks. When you understand how we came to this situation, you will see how easy it is to fix it.

I started working for the Thoroughbred Record in 1972. Then, the revenue from wagers was split 50/50 between the two “partners” in racing: half for the track and half for the racehorse owners' purse account. Each received about 8% of the on-track wager. It was a simple business isolated to the track location.

Off-track wagering across state lines was legalized with the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) in 1978. Although Congress has protected dairy farmers since 1946 with a “price floor” on milk, there was no price floor put into the IHA to protect the host tracks. A huge mistake!

After the IHA became law, Tommy Roberts, who pioneered simulcasting, negotiated a deal between Vegas sports books and some thirty tracks. Tommy told me Vegas said they could pay 10% of the wager to the host tracks. But, Vegas' actual offer was 2%. The tracks caved and accepted 2%, which meant the host track and purse account would only get 1% each and the bet takers in Vegas kept up to 15% of the wager. It was a very bad, upside-down deal.

The Vegas deal of 2% became the effective off-track distribution rate for every off-track bet taker, not just receiving tracks. As OTB's expanded off-track wagering locations, they cut into host track attendance, thus high-profit on-track wagering and concessions revenue dropped. Host track admissions and parking revenue vanished. Today off-track is more than 90% of all handle and host tracks and their purse accounts are suffering.

With the 2% rate in place, the major tracks were preyed upon by receiving tracks. NYRA, Keeneland and Hollywood Park all tried to increase the off-track rate for their races, but the hundred smaller tracks colluded to keep the rate as low as possible because they benefitted as bet takers on the major tracks' races. That was not the intent of the IHA.

The godsend of off-track wagering has now turned on racing and is devouring it. In the early days, most off-track bets were being made at receiving tracks and the money stayed in the sport. That ship sailed with computers and mobile phones. Today ADW's and robots are taking the most bets. What they pay the host tracks is so low they have enough margin to give up to 10% to whales. The money is bleeding out of host tracks and purses.

The first step for any business in trouble: Stop the bleeding.

Breeding, raising and racing Thoroughbreds is an agricultural business and sport. Over the years, Congress has responded with every possible advantage.

To stop the bleeding, Congress can establish a “price floor,” a minimum rate that off-track bet takers must pay host tracks. When Congress moved to save dairy farmers, lobbyists for the milk processors preying on them said the free market should set prices. But, the majority in Congress said “Sorry, we like milk and we are going to protect those who produce it.” There are many in Congress who like and care deeply about the Thoroughbred industry too.

Can we fix it? Yes, if Stuart Janney will commit to a “price floor” being put into the IHA, our tracks, purses and thousands of jobs in the industry will be saved. It is that simple.

Stuart Janney, chairman of The Jockey Club, personally committed to reduce the threat cheating has on the integrity of our sport. He worked with bi-partisan help from Andy Barr (R-KY) and Paul Tonko (D-NY) to pass the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA). You need someone who has been successful with Congress to get back in harness and repeat the process.

Congress is the fastest way to save California tracks and all other racing states that do not have casino/slots support. As Mr. Janney related in working to pass HISA, you cannot do it state by state, or track by track. It has to be done at the federal level.

Today, the “partnership” between tracks and racehorse owners is far from simple and far from fair. Tracks have created subsidiaries outside the partnership with racehorse owners to take bets on other tracks' races and exploit the high profit margin. As a result, the percentage of off-track wagers going to purses drops every year. Purses fuel foal crops and ours have dropped from 50,000 to 17,000. Nobody wants track closures to return us to the days of Man o' War with a foal crop of 1,680.

The IHA puts people with feet of clay in position to approve multi-million dollar off-track bet taking deals. Dan Ross's piece told of death threats and extreme pressure on these individuals. To reduce the threats and the grip bet-takers have on the integrity of the wager, we need a “price floor” to protect the people giving IHA approval. The price floor will become the non-negotiable base rate for most approvals.

I don't expect tracks with wagering subsidiaries to support a price floor being put into the IHA any more than we expected all trainers and horsemen to support HISA. I don't expect those receiving rebates now to support a price floor anymore than those who got free music with Napster wanted to switch to iTunes. Most times, leaders have to step up and piss off some people to do what is right for the sport.

I believe a price floor on off-track wagers will allow host tracks to refocus on live racing that people want to see and they will be able to sell their product at a good price in the off-track market, something they cannot do today.

There's nothing magic about taking bets. Lotteries pay gas stations a 5% fee for punching in the customers' numbers and taking their wager. A price floor in the IHA is the first step for host tracks to change off-track wagering from a “buyers' market” to a “sellers' market,” where those producing the racing content drive down the costs of bet taking.

Is it more important for us to save Santa Anita, Del Mar and other tracks, or to let the money from their racing content go to Fan Duel and Draft Kings?

What is the fair rate for a price floor?

I believe it is 10%, meaning 5% of the off-track wager goes to the host track and 5% to the racehorse owners' purse account. Blended with on-track handle and imported handle, the host track and purses could exceed 15% of the total wagered on their races.

With a flat rate of 10%, mandated by federal law taking precedence, the states will not be able to pass laws to get a competitive advantage in the off-track market. We've had enough of that. (NJ passed a law prohibiting their receiving tracks from paying more than 3% to a host track.) Each host track would still have the freedom to negotiate a higher rate than the price floor for their racing content.

That's how you stop the bleeding and allow Thoroughbred racing to be turned around.

I doubt most of you give much thought to track business and off-track wagering revenue. But, in the changing world of Thoroughbred racing, that's make or break for our sport. Take the time to learn how who gets what from racing impacts the breeding shed.

And right now, for Santa Anita, Del Mar and the life you love, contact Stuart Janney at The Jockey Club and voice your support for a price floor of 10% to host tracks on all off-track wagers be put into the IHA. Quickly.

The post Letter to the Editor: First, Stop the Bleeding appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Multiple Moving Parts in Monarch, AZ Simulcasting Morass

For over two years, the simulcasting signal from 1/ST-operated racetracks, along with several others around the country, has been missing in Arizona–the residual fall-out from a long-simmering dispute between the owners of Arizona Downs and the arm of The Stronach Group (TSG) tasked with distributing the company's signal.

In both California and Arizona, stakeholders argue that this simulcasting blackout has hit both the bettors and the industry–by how much appears open to debate.

A recent analysis by the Arizona Horseman's Benevolent & Protective Association (AZHBPA) of the projected lost revenue to California purses between 2020 and 2021 pinned the number at more than $1,1 million, and another nearly $900,000 in lost track commissions.

The estimated loss to Turf Paradise alone between the years 2021 and 2022 amounts to more than $1 million, said Vince Francia, general manager of Turf Paradise. For Arizona Downs, however, the impact has been “negligible,” say track operators.

Scott Daruty, president of TSG's Monarch Content Management, also downplays the impact of the hamstrung signal to Monarch's bottom-line, saying that the resulting lost fees is only a fraction of Monarch's total business. He also disputes the AZHBPA's projected losses to the California purse account.

Monarch's umbrella extends over several California tracks–including Santa Anita Park, Del Mar, Golden Gate Fields and Sonoma County Fair–as well as Turf Paradise, Lone Star Park, Gulfstream Park, Laurel Park, Pimlico, Rosecroft Raceway, Monmouth Park, and Meadowlands.

Against the backdrop of this ongoing dispute, there are indications that 1/ST is eyeing potential inroads into the Arizona marketplace.

Within recent months, representatives of 1/ST have visited Turf Paradise with the intention of possibly purchasing the facility, said Francia. AZHBPA executive director, Leroy Gessman, said that 1/ST recently did the same at Arizona Downs.

According to two sources familiar with the situation, 1/ST has made a thus far unsuccessful bid to purchase Arizona Downs.

Daruty declined to comment whether 1/ST has indeed made any formal bid to purchase Arizona Downs but called the Arizona marketplace “one that appears to have potential.”

“At that point, you're negotiating with a terrorist, right?”

The genesis of this rather convoluted simulcasting dispute goes back years.

In summary, when Arizona Downs reopened for live racing in 2019, Monarch sent its signal to the track itself but not to the track's network of Off-Track Betting parlors (OTB), and at a higher rate than its Arizonan neighbor, Turf Paradise.

In contrast, Monarch distributed its signal to Turf Paradise and its network of some 60 OTB's.

When asked about the contracting disparities between both Arizonan tracks, Daruty said at the time that Arizona Downs had been “consistently delinquent in its payments to our racetracks.”

In an effort to resolve industry stakeholder disgruntlement, the state passed in 2019 a law requiring all simulcast providers that send their races into Arizona to offer the products uniformly among all tracks and all their OTBs.

The following January, the Arizona Racing Commission passed a motion requiring the three racetracks in the state–Turf Paradise, Arizona Downs and Rillito Park–to comply with that law.

The commission also sent a letter to Monarch to “stop sending any simulcast signals to Arizona permittees racetracks and/or their additional wagering facilities.”

To all intents and purposes and despite various legal maneuverings in the interim, that state of affairs has remained, and Monarch has not beamed its signal into Arizona since.

At the start of Santa Anita's most recent winter meet, Monarch approached the operators of Arizona Downs with an offer of all Monarch content to the entire Arizona marketplace, including to Arizona Downs' network of OTBs, said Daruty.

According to Daruty, the operators of Arizona Downs made several unilateral modifications to the contract which were unacceptable. They included reducing the fees paid to Monarch tracks below the previously contracted rate between them, and a requirement for Monarch to “pre-approve” new simulcast locations without the ability to conduct legal and regulatory due diligence, said Daruty.

“At that point, you're negotiating with a terrorist, right?” said Daruty, once again raising Arizona Downs' reported history of delinquent payments.

“We can't abandon our principles and abandon our reasoned business approach to distributing our signals,” Daruty added.

Detailing a back-and-forth process of negotiations, Tom Auther, an Arizona Downs owner and partner, said that Monarch initially offered Arizona Downs a contract with non co-mingled pools–what he described as an immediate non-starter–and then an offer charging the track overall as much as twice what Turf Paradise was paying.

Monarch subsequently declined Arizona Downs' counter-offer, which was to pay Monarch 20% more in fees than Turf Paradise, said Auther.

“Twenty percent's still a lot of money,” Auther said. “If we paid what they want us to pay, the horsemen would not approve it because there'd be no money left–only three percent left in horse purses.”

When asked about Arizona Downs' reported history of defaults, Auther said that they had offered Monarch to escrow an adequate amount of money to offset the anticipated costs. “They refused it,” said Auther.

In an effort to understand the impact from the nixed signal into Arizona on California's horsemen, the Arizona HBPA contracted the firm Global Racing Solutions–founded and operated by Pat Cummings–to run the numbers.

According to GRS' calculations, California horsemen lost $1,115,000 in purse contributions between 2020 and 2021, and California track operators missed more than $877,000 in commissions during that same period.

To put that into perspective, California's purse total in 2021 was some $118 million.

TDN reached out to Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), who declined to comment.

As for Monarch, when they last ran the numbers, “the host fees that the Monarch tracks received out of the state of Arizona were less than one percent of the total host fees received by the Monarch tracks,” Daruty said. “It just doesn't move the needle for us.”

Daruty also said that the AZHBPA's projected California purse loss numbers were over-estimated, though added that Monarch hadn't run their own calculations.

And what of the potential impacts on the Arizona tracks? Again, there are mixed-signals.

Between 2021 and 2022, Turf Paradise lost an estimated $1,011,317 due to the missing Monarch signal, the estimated loss to the purse account was $944,915, and the estimated loss to the Regulatory Wagering Assessment (RWA)–a wagering tax used to fund the state racing department–was $61,139, according to Francia's calculations.

Auther, however, shared handle numbers with the TDN–taken, he said, from the state commission's website–comparing the year 2021 with 2018, when Turf Paradise received the Monarch signal.

According to Author's numbers, Turf Paradise lost in 2021 more than $8 million in overall handle compared to 2018. Turf Paradise operated in 2021 with 13 fewer OTBs than in 2018, however, and those OTBs were closed for 1038 days more than in 2018, according to Auther's calculations.

Auther also estimated that the annual hit to Arizona Downs' business without Monarch has been negligible. “It exists,” said Auther, about the loss. Horseplayers, however, have simply adjusted their betting patterns to other available options, he said, adding that the loss of the Monarch product to Arizona Downs was one of quality rather than numbers.

More broadly, Arizona HBPA president Bob Hutton broached what he sees as some of the more deeply felt impacts to the state's racing industry.

“With the state of racing the way it is, when we're trying to get fans to the sport, why is this good?” said Hutton, critical of Monarch's part in the negotiations. “This is costing horsemen all over the country money, and why? I don't get it.”

Turf Paradise, it should be noted, has been for sale since at least 2020.

According to Francia, 1/ST representatives recently toured the track with a potential eye to purchase the facility. “They have not made an offer but they have looked at the track,” he said.

According to Gessman, representatives from 1/ST have similarly toured Arizona Downs, adding that he was present at the visit.

According to two sources who wished to remain anonymous, 1/ST made the owners of Arizona Downs an offer for the facility which was subsequently declined.

Both Auther and Daruty refused to comment on any possible offer that 1/ST has made for Arizona Downs.

Though calling the Arizona marketplace one with potential, Daruty added that “I think all the infighting and frankly some of the regulatory dysfunction has just left it in a place that's not healthy.”

The post Multiple Moving Parts in Monarch, AZ Simulcasting Morass appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post