Finding the gain: How redistributing prizemoney can put us back on track

Cover image courtesy of Sportpix

In our Breeding Drain or Racing Gain series, we have examined the breadth of the problems facing the Australasian racing industry; from European imports sniping our top prizemoney to rising costs pushing breeders out of the game, it’s clear that either costs need to be driven down or returns needs to be driven up if we want to protect the sport’s future.

A recurring concern at almost all levels of the game is rising costs. Everything from staff to feed is getting more expensive, making sales preparation and training fees skyrocket, all while the market increasingly shies away from buying middle-distance and staying-type yearlings who won’t bring as fast a return. We have to even the odds.

“It's a real knife's edge at the moment for owners,” said form analyst Nic Ashman, who has watched training costs almost double over 15 years of racehorse ownership.

“The problem is, yes, the prizemoney has gone up for the big races and, to be fair it’s improved on a Saturday level, but if you buy a horse that's not good enough to win those races, then you're getting burnt big time, because you're paying a lot of money for a horse and a lot of money to get it trained.”

Do we need as much at the top?

Racing Victoria announced ahead of this season that country maidens state-wide would receive $5000 increases to their prizemoney pools, which is a promising start for owners and trainers looking to recoup costs on an expensive hobby. Can we maybe extend this idea further?

More than $20 million was given to black-type and feature race increases in the 2023/24 season, including $10.5 million between just six races and a further $5 million added to the G1 Everest for its Group 1 elevation last year.

Are those prizemoney increases really improving the spectacle of races? Rob Waterhouse isn’t convinced.

“There’s been no increase in field sizes or whatever else with increases in prizemoney,” he said. It isn’t doing much for wagering either, at least in relation to the scale of prizemoney.

“If you compare the amount of prizemoney on offer to the turnover, the worst performing races are the Everest and the Golden Eagle,” Waterhouse continued. “The Caulfield Cup turns over almost twice as much as the Everest, even with all the hype. In the old days, prizemoney was determined by the betting, and if that still happened, the Everest would be worth a fraction of what it is today.

“Does the Golden Eagle need to be $10 million, or can it still be five? The fields would be no different. Whilst they can say, ‘unless we have the Golden Eagle worth that much, the overseas horses won’t come’, does that really benefit the racing and breeding industry in Australia? Our job is not actually to make it easy for overseas raiders.”

“Are you not going to go to the Golden Eagle because it’s only $5 million?,” Ashman posed the question. “They (owners) are either interested in winning a Golden Eagle or they’re not, and the only reason they wouldn’t go there is because it’s not a Group 1 and perhaps you're looking at an entire or a mare that has greater residual value if they win another race.”

It’s worth noting that the Everest boasts that it’s the world’s richest race on turf, but the next richest turf races are the Golden Eagle and the G1 Melbourne Cup, followed by the G1 Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe at €5 million ($8.9 million). Reclaiming $5 million from the prizemoney wouldn’t affect its title at all.

More money, more distance?

So if we were to redistribute some of that prizemoney, where would we put it? Ashman believes the best use would be a bonus system rewarding investment in locally-bred middle-distance horses.

“I think you’ve got to address what are the key issues in the industry and probably the one at the moment within Australia is that we're not breeding stayers,” Ashman said. “There's no incentive to breed them. You're better off just going to Europe and buying one and bringing it out here. If I were in charge, I'd be creating a bonus for horses that break their maiden or win a Class 1 over 2000 metres.

“So at a grassroots level, there's an incentive for people to go and buy a stayer for $150,000 from the sales, knowing that they can win a provincial maiden and maybe bag $50,000 straight up for winning a 2000-metre maiden.”

The dangled carrot of a maiden stayers’ bonus would have everyone sitting up, including the clubs, who would feel obliged to program more middle-distance races; if you missed the 1900-metre Benchmark 72 handicap at Canterbury on Wednesday, your next shot at a similarly rated race is 10 days later at Rosehill Gardens.

“Clubs would program these races, because they know they would get a few good horses coming out to bag that extra $20,000 or $30,000 in prizemoney,” Ashman said. “Currently you can get a reasonably well-bred stayer for about $150,000 to $200,000, whereas to get a sprinter of a good pedigree will probably cost you double that.

“So if you can spend $150,000 and halfway through your 3-year-old season in your first prep, go to an easy venue and bag a $25,000 bonus on top of the $20,000 first prize, that's a pretty handy payday.”

Ashman proposes going a step further and creating Class 1 or equivalent races at 2000 metres or beyond where horses can claim a second bonus if they received the maiden bonus.

“There would be a real incentive at a grassroots level to breed these types,” he said. “That'll then drive the price up of the stayers at the sales a little bit as well. It'll probably let the sprinters simmer off a bit and we can get a much more balanced view of racing.”

Reclaiming just $5 million from the state’s largest prize pools could provide 250 $20,000 bonuses every year - that’s one stayers bonus every second day for the whole season. There are other ways to split it, but that simple breakdown gives an idea of what could be so easily achieved.

How could we raise revenue?

“If I were in charge of prizemoney, I would want to ensure I cover all bases,” said Waterhouse. “I would put more money into developing staying races, which punters love to bet on, and they have been continually reduced. I would like less money for set weight races, more money for handicaps.”

Keeping wagering revenue rolling in is vital to sustain prizemoney across the board, and both Waterhouse and Ashman were in favour of more open handicaps on race cards with a wider spread in the weights to draw in a crowd.

“I resent the fact we don’t have much open class racing in Sydney,” Waterhouse said. “The open handicap has suffered terribly. Everything is benchmark racing and I think they should be made to go through their classes more. When they run well in six benchmarks and then are still in the benchmark races, they should be forced into different class races.”

It is difficult to find a true open handicap, particularly in New South Wales - outside of country cup races, a 1280-metre open sprint at Canberra on August 8 is the next best thing, with a 10.5kg spread between the top and bottom weights. Ashman sees the weights being stretched further still.

“This is a really good opportunity to have a true weights race,” he said. “Imagine a 2000-metre race at Canterbury on a Wednesday where the top weight is 62kg and the bottom weight is 47kg, and there’s a stayers bonus up for grabs on top. The public love a big spread in the weights, everyone loves betting on races with a big spread of weights in a big field where there's a lot of punting angles.”

To install one prizemoney-boosted open handicap a week at both New South Wales metropolitan meetings would be relatively cheap; adding $40,000 for first prize would cost a total of $4.16 million per year, leaving $840,000 to be divvied up elsewhere if the Golden Eagle returned to being a $5 million race.

Ashman outlined that it would benefit all manner of industry participants, including the jockeys; “There are plenty of jockeys who can ride at 47kg. People may say they’re not as good, but they can still ride to the weight, and there's only one way they're going to get good, and that's through opportunity.”

In tandem, Waterhouse proposed more scrutiny be given to how imports are handicapped.

“As a form analyst, I think the form is stronger overseas, especially for staying races, and I think they're too kindly handicapped when they come to Australia,” he said. “I think the handicappers would say, ‘oh, we want to encourage them to come, so we keep them light in the weights’, but that doesn't seem right to me.”

Tweaks to the handicapping system would give local-breds more of a fighting chance to go through the grades.

The key takeaways

A broader breeding and racing scene benefits everyone. We can even the playing field by making it more valuable - and attainable - to win our distance races, and we can keep wheels in the industry turning by making more prizemoney available to the every day owner.

We cannot forget that, by Racing Australia’s annual reporting, just 5.9% of starters nationwide earn $100,000 or more annually, and we need to move the needle to keep moving forward. Reassessing our prizemoney and programming is the first logical step.

“We've got to have a more sustainable model that keeps a greater portion of the public involved,” Ashman said. “The one that we seem to be heading towards and using at the moment is rewarding the top end, and I don't think that is going to be good for the industry in the long run.

“It might look great to start with because it's flashy and sexy, but I think all it does is increase the number of people that get completely burnt.”

If you would like to contribute to this series - especially as we turn to discussing solutions, send your thoughts or ideas to vicky@ttrausnz.com.au.