Blame it on the Rain
From the Thoroughbred Times:
The announced crowd of 41,781 at Monmouth Park wagered $12,726,622, down 43.5% from the $18,259,971 bet on the 2006 Breeders’ Cup at Churchill Downs.
Saturday’s total handle was $111,903,685, lowest for the traditional Breeders’ Cup day since the 2002 card at Arlington Park that was also conducted under wet conditions, and down 20.3% from the Breeders’ Cup record of $140,332,198 from last year.
With 75,132 people at Churchill Downs in 2006, and 41,781 at Monmouth in 2007, there were 44.4% fewer people on site.... and your on-track wagering dropped by 43% -- this looks like a pretty solid correlation to me.
While the Oceanport area certainly benefited from the event and while there were certainly a series of improvements for Monmouth Park (particularly to the infrastructure such as the turf track), one would have to think that the drop in on-track and total wagering would certainly (and unfortunately) prove this Breeders' Cup host small-venue experiment a bust. No one expected attendance records with Monmouth's seating limitations, but it doesn't take a math expert to understand that the larger venues (if sold out) like Belmont, Churchill Downs and Santa Anita are the places that can make the most money for the Breeders' Cup. In the bottom line world of horse racing, it may be a long time before we see another experimental venue like Monmouth or Lone Star again.
Maybe one trick is to hold the Friday event at the smaller venue and
the Saturday races at the larger track. Is it a little crazy? Sure it
is, and while it will probably never happen, maybe getting two cities
excited about (and reaping benefits from) one of
racing's
marquee weekends is just the kind of boost that the sport needs.
As far as the larger venues are concerned, while it will return to Santa
Anita next year, it looks like the chances of it returning to Churchill
Downs -- the place that has hosted the event the most -- in the near
future is in question since the Louisville track doesn't think enough
money is made off of the event.
From The Courier-Journal:
Breeders' Cup President Greg Avioli said event officials have had informal discussions with Churchill about alternative financial arrangements for being host again.
"I would be disappointed if Churchill told us they have no intention in hosting any future Breeders' Cup," Avioli said. "I don't think we're at that point yet."
Churchill officials declined to comment, other than to confirm the informal discussions.
But immediately after last year's event, Churchill officials complained that the Breeders' Cup didn't give the host track enough of the proceeds.
"It's a tremendous amount of work on the behalf of our staff ... for what we think is a small return," track President Steve Sexton said last year.
No other tracks have complained about the revenue split, said Breeders' Cup spokesman Jim Gluckson.
While event revenues are not disclosed, the Breeders' Cup receives the bulk of the wagering revenues on the day of the championship races, while Churchill makes what it would on a regular Saturday -- or a little more, Sexton has said.
Instead of welcoming the Breeders' Cup to the Commonwealth every three-to-four years, what Churchill is saying is that while we make money, we don't make enough.