- This topic has 27 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I’ve changed my vote.
Today, I’d follow racing even if
I decided
not to bet. However:
As the OP’s question is written: "Would you follow racing if there were
no
betting"?
If there were
"no betting"
for anyone (as John and Mike say) racing would not exist in anything like the way it does today.
Value Is EverythingIn other words even the most stubborn of
mug punters
see no hope of profiting or even winning enough to maintain an interest in the sport.
There is "no hope of mug punters profiting" Woolfie, because they are mug punters. Does not matter if there was corruption in betting or not, they’d still think there was – because they lose.
Value Is EverythingRemove low grade racing or increase the prizes on offer and there may be greater incentive to win a race.
Something me and thee can agree on Woolfie.
Value Is EverythingA truly weird situation that could baffle the "brainiest" in economics.
BHA encourage wall to wall racing much of which is attended by less than 100 all in. The prizemoney cake struggles with so may mouths to feed. Course bookmakers are not taking enough bets to make ends meet. BHA openly endorse FOBTs to keep shops open so that keen horseracing fans can fritter away more money between races – that money once rapidly lost can’t go into racing.
This survey currently indicates that 72% of racing fans keen enough to bother with a racing forum are not too bothered with betting at all. The remaining 28% who do want to bet cant get more than £10 on at Corals etc as there are too many bookmakers solely opened to cash in on FOBTs. No UK based horserace betting – no levy.
Racing does not admit the main source of their revenue ie punters actually exists, so never even thinks to talk to them about the real issues.
A really crazy situation.
The example of non betting equine sports in this country suggests that racing would survive, just with fewer fixtures, less regulation and the loss of the AW tracks and probably some of the smaller flat turf tracks.
But no reason why NH racing wouldn’t revert to what it was pre-Levy, a country sport with a mainly amateur participation apart from the big tracks.
And equally, the big flat festivals would be self supporting and probably still capable of attracting business sponsorship. And the middling tracks would no longer be required to race on midweeek afternoons, so could concentrate on weekends and evenings.
Let’s not forget that the single biggest one day sporting crowd in this country every year is for the cross country phase of the Badminton three day event. It’s at least twice as many as attend Gold Cup day at Cheltenham, or the National, but there isn’t a bookmaker or a Tote window to be seen.
I find the question impossible to answer. If I as an individual stopped betting, or was forbidden by law as an individual, then yes, I’d still take an interest in it and ‘follow’ it.
But if betting were outlawed tomorrow, you are asking punters a different question – would we follow racing as it would end up without betting? It would end up, as a few have said here, as an almost zero profile sport in the media. Most tracks would close. I cannot think of one whose future would be assured, not even Aintree on National day. No betting means no media rights, means no broadcasting, means no newspaper coverage, no sponsors, no prize money except sweepstakes and a contribution from gate money. How would you even fund the raceday aspect? Medical teams, vehicles, groundstaff, administrators, integrity (even without betting, the sport would need to be kept drug-free for example).
That kind of racing – effectively the non-existent type – I wouldn’t follow.
Alan, you’re correct about Badminton. I think it attracts about a third of a million. But, as far as I know they have never had betting, so you are not removing something which underpinned the whole event.
With recent talk of charging newspapers and bookmakers for data rights, the straw is probably on its way to the camel’s back anyway, and we might all get a chance to see exactly what happens when racing has no betting.
Dont worry Joe , if the bookies turned their backs on racing tomorrow and closed all their shops ….the exchanges would still be in business ,,,,,
as for data charges , that was tried before and bombed ….it will bomb again ….the guys running our game are entirely clueless in my opinion
Lets just get on with losing !!!
imo
Some interesting answers here; too many for me to quote individually.
Apologies to Phil Bull but nobody is right all the time. Horse racing is essentially about which horse can cover the ground from Point A to Point B first. Betting is just an adjunct to that basic truth.
I’ve just been racing in Qatar (3 meetings this week) and of course no betting but lots of interest. Similarly I’ll be in Dubai in a couple of weeks and no betting (on course) there either but Meydan will be heaving.
The Badminton/Burghley analogy is interesting and accurate.
There isn’t tote betting at point to points, near me, either and maybe only a handful of bookmakers but they are really well attended.Similarly I’ve never had a bet on a football match (odd never appealed) but that hasn’t stopped me taking a massive interest ever since I was a child.
I’ve agreed that I would take an interest without betting but it would be a very different sport to the one we have now.
I went racing in Kuwait during the time I spent there in 1978 – 1980 and of course there was no betting. The crowd of several hundred shady looking locals that gathered at the top corner of the open stand in the minutes just before the off of each race were obviously just sheltering from the wind.
The racing was on rolled sand, the jockeys all looked like Fagin, the horses usually came back strung out over a couple of furlongs and the best thing about it was the stall behind the stand that sold chai or 7-Up to go with the local delicacy of sweet pastries soaked in syrup.
It was just like Southwell really …..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.