It's impossible to debate the question of exporting horses without looking at the broader picture. The question of poor marketing does, to some extent, come into this. Better marketing may lead to improved turnovers which lead to higher stakes, which make it at least slightly more attractive to race at home.
There is no doubt whatsoever that bookmakers are part of the reason why stakes are unattractive. In an ideal world all racing jurisdictions would be Tote monopolies,but betting with bookies is so integral a part of racing in this country that it's fruitless to even debate this point. It is a fact that countries without bookmakers enjoy by and large more lucrative racing than those that do.
Despite the never-ending bashing of French racing that goes on on this site (sorry, Scotia), racing in France is on a much better financial footing than racing in England. These are two first world democracries with largely similar populations and reasonably similar lifestyles, disposable incomes etc. Mike de Kock made the point that English racing is in financial trouble even though 20 000 people will go to Redcar on a weekday to watch mediocre horses.
In racing terms, the major differences between the two are a) France has no bookmakers and b) virtually all of France's major courses are centred around the capital city (where the people are and the money is!) and not scattered all over the countryside. By a country mile, France is the most attractive country in the EU to race horses. Their punters, without the benefit of those overrated betting moves, are paying for it. As are their Japanese etc. counterparts.
Only point a) is relevant to this discussion, but it is a doozy. The idea that bookmakers are a vital cog in racing's wheel is made a complete and utter nonsense of by the success of such Tote monopolies as Japan, Hong Kong, etc. However, I can only repeat that they will remain part-and-parcel of SA racing, so we may as well live with it. Not that bookmakers are always to blame for everything - Italy and Germany are also Tote monopolies and (a few major races aside) their stakes are woeful.
Whatever the reasons, SA stakes are miles inferior to what is on offer in many other jurisdictions, the rand is weak, and our horses have proven they can run pretty damn fast. It all adds up to a no-brainer of a debate. It is impossible to resist the lure of big $$$, whether in the form of an owner selling a good horse or exporting it to race it himself. I can only repeat, this is a no-brainer deluxe.
The notion that people would flock to the course if our best horses all stayed at home is laughable. For a start, the 30 or so horses exported annually to the northern hemisphere quite obviously cannot race every week, let alone every day. Those MR 65 handicaps which Andrew Harrison dislikes writing about (as do I!) would remain an integral part of racing's backbone whether J J The Jet Plane and Russian Sage race in South Africa, Dubai, or the moon. Most horses in any population of thoroughbreds are mediocre, and having the cream of the crop exported or not makes absolutely no difference.
What doesn't help the marketing of our races is that the premier track in the richest province is a shithole in the arse end of town. Most of the other SA courses are rather dingy plants in need of at least a coat of paint, better service, a more varied food menu, and so on. If we ever get a racecourse in the affluent area north of Joburg we may actually see more people in attendance, but not for long if the experience isn't a pleasant one.
This is a minor issue, though. It's all about the money. Whatever we do, we will never be able to compete with on anything close to a level footing with the world's more affluent nations. It's simple economics. SA's disposable income just isn't there, so any comparisons with countries like Japan in particular are of the apples-and-oranges variety.
The fact which nobody specifically mentioned as such during the show is that the owning and breeding of horses has veered from a sport to a business over the past 30 or so years. If you haven't read the outstanding book about Robert Sangster titled "Horse Trader" I sincerely recommend that you do. It will give you a better idea of what it is that makes the global thoroughbred market tick these days. To talk about what happened with Gambit in 1947, as Charles Faull did at great lengths, is obsolete. The game may rely as much now as it did then on betting turnover, but that is about where the similarity ends. It's a whole different ball of wax in the 21st century, and I mean that in the global sense.
Good horses, be they for racing or breeding purposes, have become a commodity. Racing may have lost some of its romance from days gone by, but the world has changed and big-money sports have changed with it. Television has also had a great deal to do with it. You no longer have to go to the venue, be it a horse track, a stadium or a car track, to watch the action. It doesn't mean people are no longer interested. It means they are less inclined to get off their armchairs to show their interest.
In any case, the vast sums of money being spent in SA these days have not only kept many breeders afloat, it has led to the importing of better quality stock. For instance, Right Approach now stands at stud in this country, at Mary Slack's Wilgerbosdrift. Would he be here if De Kock had not trained him to win the Dubai Duty Free? Would De Kock had been given the chance to train him if he hadn't first made his name abroad with ex-SA horses like Ipi Tombe, Horse Chestnut, and Victory Moon? Quite possibly not.
In the final analysis, to argue against the exporting of SA's best horses is like trying to stop the sun from rising. It is quite simply, pointless.
Topic Author
