I am a numbers person. Write me a story – I’m happy. Draw me a picture – I’m happier. Show me a spreadsheet – I’m thrilled.
Understandably you can imagine how pleased I was to pour over the figures after our Trot team completed 57 interviews of trainers, drivers, breeders, owners, track operators and horseplayers from across the country this past month to ask them what they believed racing would look like in 2050.
I enjoyed all the opinions and the data, and we spent some time ensuring averages were fairly calculated. But one part of the body of information struck me as bizarre and extremely telling (p. 56).
When stakeholders were asked what they thought the odds were of harness racing being self-sustainable in 2050 (remember that’s 41 years from now), the average response from industry participants was 60-to-1. That means, according to this cross-section, if we were to live through this next 41 year period 61 independent times, only one of those tries would result in a self-sustainable harness racing industry.
Furthermore, the sector that offered the lowest odds, a still unimpressive 43-to-1, was the track managers – often considered to be the most cynical of racing’s constituents. In all, ten people put the number under 10-1 and only one person said there is greater than an even-money chance of self-sustainability in 2050. Conversely, 17 people said the chances were 100-to-1 or worse.
At the same time, we went on to ask the question: what are the chances that there will be no harness racing in 2050? This same group said that the probability of closing shop by 2050 was 58-to-1. This time track managers came in at the top of the scale with a figure of 74-to-1. Once again only one person saw the chances of no industry as a better than even money proposition.
So, follow me through this. The same people who almost unanimously pronounced that we won’t be self-sustainable in 2050 would be completely and totally shocked if the harness racing business didn’t exist at all in that same year.
While I respect the opinions and the passionate responses we received, and know how well-meaning this group is, something doesn’t add up. Isn’t it a little delusional to believe that harness racing will live on subsidies for the next five decades, and not face the real threat of a total shut-down?
I understand much of the rationalization for these answers revolve around a feeling that while racing may lose much of its lustre and funding, it will soldier on in some form.
In the last year alone, I’ve seen harness racing face the possibility of a total collapse in Quebec largely due to racing’s inability to be self-sustainable. I witnessed a similar near collapse at Fort Erie, one of only two thoroughbred tracks in Ontario. I’ve seen a state ban of greyhound racing in Massachusetts and a high profile animal rights campaign to outlaw horse-drawn carriages in several major cities around the world.
Within the industry, I see calls for real, systemic change but I often wonder why the words are not backed with meaningful funding and a ‘do it at all costs’ approach. As is often the case, the numbers don’t lie.
As I see it, the chances of harness racing being self-sustainable in 2050 is about 3-to-1. Let’s remember, horse racing is self-sustainable and quite profitable in most of Europe, throughout Asia and Australia. Our dreadful business model is still more the exception than the rule and certainly no reason to throw in the towel
As for the chance of harness racing not existing at all in 2050, I peg the odds at 8-to-1
A lot can happen in 41 years. My hope is that the State of the Industry issue in 2050 will have a reprint of our odds, and a light story titled: “Proving them wrong: Why the industry in 2009 had so little faith in its future.”