In my last blog I raised the issue of getting a fair return for breeders – the people who take high risks to produce their product (a racehorse) which goes on to be an integral part of the wider industry product (a race on which betting can take place).
What is a fair slice of the pie for breeders of successful racehorses?
Other major players in the production line charge for their time and expenses – a recognition of the resources that go into a performing horse regardless of whether it wins or comes last. For example, drivers have a set fee for each drive no matter where the horse gets in the field, currently at $75 +gst I think. And trainers have their daily rate for training charged to owners, plus other costs like gear and track fees, vitamins, worming, transporting etc which are also reimbursed. Then on top of that, both trainers and drivers receive a bonus each time the horse performs well in a race. This bonus is a part incentive and part reward. The trainer receives 10% of the stake money payable to the owner, and the driver 5%. That’s all good and I have no argument with it.
All I ask is that a small percentage is also tagged for the person who started it all in the first place – the breeder. Currently, their need for a return on investment is recognised only once, when (and if) a sale takes place to the first owner. Or possibly over a long time as the mare builds a reputation – although having good siblings is no guarantee that a particular yearling will sell for a reasonable price. Often, the return to the breeder will hardly cover costs. If the horse goes on to be successful, there is no bonus for the breeder.
How can breeders get a fairer slice of the pie?
It is tempting to say, as some do, that increasing the overall stakes will give a bigger return to breeders because so many breeders are also owners.
I have two main objections to that:
- It makes the breeder role invisible once again, just when we are starting to get some traction into the specific needs and interests of breeders in their own right. It takes away a clear separation between different roles. Many trainers are also owners in a horse, so why not merge them into common “owners” group as well and take away the trainer bonus? And what about the drivers who are also trainers and part owners, like Mark and Natalie – maybe they want to give up their drivers and trainers percentage bonuses in exchange for bigger owner returns? I doubt it…
- It ignores the fact that many breeders may be owners of horses not by design but by necessity because an young untried young horse is damn hard to sell. For many smaller breeders, an early sale is unlikely to cover their most basic service fee and raising costs. Breeders often end up carrying their foals for another year or so until they get to a point where they are able to be trialled for racing – and then sold, if lucky. In the past, carrying that cost was easier as there was more access to cheaper land. That is no longer the case.
What is an alternative?
We all contribute to the end result.
A breeders bonus, but
- one that rewards the original breeders of racehorses rather than those who buy a mare.
- one that is tagged to performance.
- one that is partly self-funding and partly a fair payment by the industry to those who produce the raw material of our industry success stories.
- one that can be tweaked as necessary to encourage desirable breeding trends.
Next blog, I look at how it could work.
b4breeding 