ALL FRESHMAN SHOULD BE REDSHIRTS (except Hail to Reason)

The trash talking between a couple of prominent American based owners provided an amusement to the climax of the European sales season. The leading protagonists claim to have a vision for the promotion and improvement of racing there. This may be little more than a ripple at present, but in the tiresome manner that European sheep look westwards and emulate Stateside practices, it may well become a wave. I can envisage one development that may be of immense benefit to racing in these parts, however implausible it may seem.

American sports is remarkably introverted and their major domestic competitions rejoice under the laughably grandiose titles of "World Championships."

In the sense that for a century no other country had a serious structure for these sports, that would be defensible. In year 120 of the World Series, however, the MVP is a Japanese star, who began his professional career in his home country. Far more important for the sport's purists, is that he is a throwback to the days when the great stars played both sides of the ball. Deliverance from a former satellite?

In order to maintain public interest and in the hope that their major sports do not become stale with predictability, American sports operate a draft system and a salary cap. The salary cap was in place in British Football until the late sixties, when an ex player organised the staffs to force club owners to scrap this antique rule. Jimmy Hill is rightly celebrated for this achievement, though his passion for foxhunting has sadly been airbrushed from most biographies. Perhaps that sport would receive more appreciation if every eight years old with a pair of boots thought that kicking a ball was only a path to riches if they could also ride to hounds! 

I digress.

The brave new era of professional Rugby Union was scarred by escalating salaries and club bankruptcies. Now leading owners are using the equine stars to promote their own personae. The most successful owners in Europe have usually been modest to the point of reticence and though they underwrite the whole show, are rarely covered by the media as anything other than bit part players. The industry media may attempt to raise the profile of those who are key to its structure, but rarely showcase an enthusiast.

The racecourse is the last major sporting arena where there is no regulation attempting to level the playing field by limiting the scope of the big spenders. 

Is this beneficial?

It is certainly preferable for those who dream of getting rich by trading within the industry; but I do not believe that it is beneficial to the sport that sustains that industry. The approach of some of the biggest spending outfits may be cloaked in press releases advancing science and judgement, but it comes far closer to "If we throw enough ****, some will stick!" It is in nobody's interests to point this out. Not if you want to sell them a horse, or buy a horse for them, or train a horse for them. That pretty much just leaves the independent press, which is also virtually extinct and in thrall of being granted an interview, or beholden to advertisers.

The industry still and always will depend on the health of the sport. The sport could only gain were numbers to be limited for stallions, trainers and yes, even owners. All change is regarded with fear by those familiar with an established system. No doubt the spectre of losing stallion prospects to overseas jurisdictions would be raised. No doubt that would occasionally happen, but Britain's breeders chose to let the racing nation making the fastest progress (Japan) take her highest rated graduates last year.

I hope that US Racing appoints a commissioner, who restricts the size of stallion books, the number of charges a trainer is entitled to and imposes a draft system on the yearling sales. Then we would properly see which "team" really knew what they were talking about. I do not think that it would result in a less profitable industry. The richest players would be more than prepared to pay 35% more for their service fee, or yearling, if they felt that there were 60% less examples by the same sire. Think that doesn't add up? Within five years there would be twice the number of players bidding, because the profile of the sport and the horses as a tradeable investment vehicle would have risen.

What better time to initiate these changes than the year in which the Detroit Lions clinched a playoff berth so early in the season? They have surely blown a few multi million dollar yearlings and backed some useless first crop sires over the last forty years, but it should give everybody with a $15,000 claimer (and a lot of patience) hope!