PDA

View Full Version : Are Jockey's getting paid too much?


waytogo
11-17-2008, 01:46 PM
With the ADW mess and the scream for more money. I spoke to a jockey's agent down at my local track where the signal has been cut all season long.

They are (at least at this track ) denying that they want more money from the ADW signal, rather just a general increase in rates.

When asked for their pay scale, up came the wall. After further discussion, this ran into weeks, I was furnished with the full pay scale with the understanding the I would not publish. After reading through it I can quite understand!

What did happen is that an agreement was made with non-disclosure that I could publish the lowest class for running out of the money, which is where most rides are.

A $4,500 claimer.

A Jockey receives $40 for running out of the money (it's not that much more for finishing 2nd!). Then they have 35% in valet + Agent fees to pay, leaving them $26 and that's not taking into account any personal costs (travel expenses etc).... Then the IRS.

Even for a $75,000 NGS its not much better.

Winning a race is the only way to make any money at all.

Speaking to owners, who we all know get a raw deal, they are not willing to increase the riding fees and think that the para-pool should be the source. When mentioned that the para-pool is a bi product of the racing game and that it is already turning away not just new customers, but the old school as well, it did not seem to really make any difference.

OK. Time for a reality check and a silly example:

I run a a local school. - The product.
My teachers get paid to educate. - The Jockeys.
Its legal to bet where I live. - Silly legal example.
There is a para-pool on who will be the top pupil in each class. - The bi product.

So who should pay my teachers?

The answer the owners gave me was the school or at least the tax payer or someone else.

So, why should a bi product in racing be any different?

The owners want the quickly diminishing public to pay.
The public wants to see a horse race.
The Jockeys just need a re-evaluated pay scale.

saratoga guy
11-17-2008, 01:59 PM
I'm confused: The jockeys are being poorly compensated (according to your info) and the jockey's agent doesn't want this known?!?

waytogo
11-17-2008, 02:05 PM
It's not the jockeys agent. Its the Jockey. The non-disclosure was the part because a particular Jockey allowed the pay scale without other Jockeys consent.

Most people in this world would deplore having their pay scales published everywhere on the net especially if they low. Just think how unhappy you would be with a co worker giving this information to the world about how much you get paid, just because he is not happy with his.

The Jockeys agent would love to have this splashed around. The more they can make for their boys/girls then the more they earn.

saratoga guy
11-17-2008, 02:37 PM
Most people in this world would deplore having their pay scales published everywhere on the net especially if they low. Just think how unhappy you would be with a co worker giving this information to the world about how much you get paid, just because he is not happy with his.

I think it's too late -- the cat's out of the bag on this one already. Jockeys compensation fees have been published from various venues over the past few years -- and while they might vary from state to state, they basic formula is similar.


A couple of examples:

"Jockeys were previously paid a minimum of $45 for mounts that finish worse than third."

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2008/April/26/Hawthorne-jockeys-set-own-fees-for-losing-mounts.aspx


"Mount fees for a typical race are only $35 to $55."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/index.htm

waytogo
11-17-2008, 03:50 PM
Yes it looks the same in most states.

The owners pay around $100 per day to keep a horse in training, but are not willing to pay a Jockey that amount to keep his asset safe whilst steering it home! AND how many times will a horse run in a single month.


Most owners I know want the horses to run when they and their friends can make it to the track and are usually out of the money.

None of this makes any sense.

I see in a couple of he links in the previous post that some Jocks are negotiating their own fees. Not too sure on this one, but fees are usually set to a limit and anything above that is a "bung". Ask English Jockey Lester Piggot who did 3 years stir time for tax evasion.

Show Me the Wire
11-17-2008, 03:58 PM
I would have been happpy to give the jock $100 and not 10% of my purse winnings.

Imriledup
11-18-2008, 07:27 AM
I would have been happpy to give the jock $100 and not 10% of my purse winnings.

Exactly.

Compare sportsbetting to horse racing. If you bet an NFL football game, does part of your bet go to compensate the athletes?

All bettors care about is the bottom line..part of exhorbitant takeout rates go to compensate the participants that put on the product (owners, jocks, trainers, grooms, etc).

It comes down to this. Bettors pay way too much as it is for the 'right' to wager on horse races. Any more 'squeeze' will end the game altogether.

startngate
11-18-2008, 09:17 AM
Compare sportsbetting to horse racing. If you bet an NFL football game, does part of your bet go to compensate the athletes? You can't make that comparison. The NFL is not the one sponsoring the betting.

If you bet on a horse race through a bookmaker, does your wager compensate the athletes?

In most States, jockeys make 10% of the owner's share of the purse if they win, 5% for second and third, and a flat fee for finishing worse than 3rd. The flat fee usually varies depending on the type of race and the track. Most of these scales are public record (in the rules of racing, or condition books at the track) so I'm not sure why the OP's 'source' wanted them kept secret.

Of course, it looks better for them to only quote the bottom of the barrel rate. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of jockeys that are barely scraping by, and they deserve any increases they can get ... from the owner's share of the purse, not from increasing the takeout.


They are (at least at this track ) denying that they want more money from the ADW signal, rather just a general increase in rates.Of course they are :lol: , but trust me, they will love anything that increases purses, because their fees go up when purses do.


OK. Time for a reality check and a silly example:

I run a a local school. - The product.
My teachers get paid to educate. - The Jockeys.
Its legal to bet where I live. - Silly legal example.
There is a para-pool on who will be the top pupil in each class.Yep, a silly example, because you are assigning the wrong values.

I run a local school = The owners run their stables
My teachers get paid to educate = Trainers and jockeys get paid to educate my horses and get them to perform at their peak
It is legal to bet where I live = The tracks provide wagering and accounting services.
There is a para-pool on who will be the top pupil in each class = The para-pool provides funding for the owner's stables, which is based on the stable's performance.

The owners pay the jockeys and trainers with the revenue they receive from the bettors making wagers. The track does not employ either of them, the owners do. The track can't decide who trains which horse, or who rides each horse, and therefore you can't make a logical argument as to why the tracks should be paying them.

cj
11-18-2008, 09:55 AM
There really is an easy answer to this. If the jockeys are really concerned, just cut the rate they charge for a winner from 10% to 7%. Then owners could use that extra 3% to boost the also rans. I'm sure the top jockeys that win a lot can afford it.

Or, why not this? The tracks take 8% of the purse right off the top as jockeys purses. So, a $50,000 purse has $4,000 taken off the top. Then, distribute that according to finish position. It would be field size dependent, but maybe it would be incentive to get riders to actually ride the horses out to the finish for 4th and 5th.

8 horse field as such:

1-2,000
2-700
3-500
4-300
5-200
6-150
7-100
8-50

startngate
11-18-2008, 10:26 AM
Actually, this is a great idea, but the owners should do that for themselves. The tracks don't want to pay the jockeys directly because it might legally imply they are employees of the track.

Even better, since the owners are complaining about not making enough money themselves, why not divide purses up that way too.

On the PGA and ATP tours, the winning player only recieves about 18%-19% of the total purse for the tournament. Everyone that makes the final cut/draw gets paid something. The World Series of Poker only paid 14% to the winner this year, but you had to make it to the top 666 to cash anything.

In racing it's 60% to the winner, and in most States you have to finish 5th or higher to earn anything. Granted, the others are paying a lot more people than a 12 horse field, but maybe if the scale was changed there would be more money for everyone and fewer horsemen would be struggling to make ends meet.

Cangamble
11-18-2008, 10:35 AM
I think jockeys are underpaid for second and third and fourth money.
The way the scales work, jockeys get 10% of the winners share, but it drops off to something like 6 or 7% of what the owner earns for second or third (except in stake races where they get 10%), and a lot less for fourths.
I think they should get 10% of what owners get for place, show, and fourth (fourth in superfectas at least).
I want them to have a little more incentive to try harder for these positions, plus when you think of how dangerous their job is and the fact that their agents get 25% of what they make, I think upping 2nd and 3rd percentages a tad, will only help the game overall.

Show Me the Wire
11-18-2008, 10:36 AM
It is not up to the owner. The owner never sees that money, the track's bookeeper pays the jock directly form the purse money earned by the horse.

Tom Barrister
11-18-2008, 10:38 AM
For those who aren't familiar with how jockey fees work:

While it varies from one jurisdiction to the next, in most jurisdictions, a jockey gets:

1st: 10% of the horse's share of the purse.

2nd or 3rd: A flat mount fee set for that finish position for purses up to a certain level, or 5% of the horse's share of the purse if over that level.

4th or lower: A flat mount fee based on the size of the purse.

Some jurisdictions dictate the 5% share of the horse's earnings (if it's more than the mimimum mount fee) for all places paid.

Some jockeys (if permitted by the jurisdiction) set their own minimum fees for mounts. Earlie Fires set his to $100 per mount towards the end of his career.

Some jockeys have a contractual agreement with certain owners and/or trainers to ride for a set fee and percentage. Some jockeys have their own minimum fees; for example, Earlie Fires set his minimum fee to $100 towards the end of his career.

The minimum fees vary from state to state. Some states have laws that set the minimum jockey mount fee, others allow the racing commision to set the minimum fees; other jurisdictions are set by agreement betweent he jockeys and horsemen's associations.

Doing a simple search on the internet for "jockey fees" turned up several articles. The minimum fee varies greatly and was as low as $25 (Idaho bush tracks) or as high as $100 (Aqueduct).

Whatever they get, they earn every penny of it, in my opinion.

cj
11-18-2008, 10:45 AM
Of course they earn it, no argument there.

I am saying rather than try to milk the bettors for more money, just look at how the purses are distributed and fix that. Some jockeys are better than others of course, but the pay scale wildly exaggerates the differences in abilities.

onefast99
11-18-2008, 05:20 PM
It is not up to the owner. The owner never sees that money, the track's bookeeper pays the jock directly form the purse money earned by the horse.
In fact some trainers ask the owners to have the horsemans book hold their winnings also.

proximity
11-18-2008, 05:51 PM
Actually, this is a great idea, but the owners should do that for themselves. The tracks don't want to pay the jockeys directly because it might legally imply they are employees of the track.

Even better, since the owners are complaining about not making enough money themselves, why not divide purses up that way too.

On the PGA and ATP tours, the winning player only recieves about 18%-19% of the total purse for the tournament. Everyone that makes the final cut/draw gets paid something. The World Series of Poker only paid 14% to the winner this year, but you had to make it to the top 666 to cash anything.

In racing it's 60% to the winner, and in most States you have to finish 5th or higher to earn anything. Granted, the others are paying a lot more people than a 12 horse field, but maybe if the scale was changed there would be more money for everyone and fewer horsemen would be struggling to make ends meet.



there are dangerous implications here. people on the pga and atp tours who finish second don't "still have the condition." tiger woods can still come back and beat you again in the next tournament and winning doesn't force you up into a tougher tournament where your share of the purse might be zero....

startngate
11-19-2008, 09:51 AM
there are dangerous implications here. people on the pga and atp tours who finish second don't "still have the condition." tiger woods can still come back and beat you again in the next tournament and winning doesn't force you up into a tougher tournament where your share of the purse might be zero....There are multiple golf tours you know. Players play the events where they think they can make the most money. Unfortunately, owners want to be able to see their horses run, and sometimes keep them at tracks where they can't be competitive.

Still, I'm not sure where you are going with this. I was trying to pay everyone in the race, so there would never be a zero share.

Yes, a horse that blows a condition has to move up in class (in theory) where it might not be able to win at first asking. But guess what, the owners are going to make more money than they would under the current scale when the horse runs out of the top 4-5. And the total purse is going to be higher in that race to begin with. Remember, there are a lot of horses running in 'open' races without conditions now.

I'm not advocating the winner's share of the purse drop from 60% to 19% since there are far fewer 'athletes' to pay. What if the winner's share was 30% to 40% of the purse, and the extra was pushed down the scale? Would that help more horsemen be profitable?

I don't know the answer, but I'm sure with statistics from the Jockey Club as to number of starts and %'s of winning and finish positions, I'll bet someone smarter than me could figure out a purse distribution scale that would help keep people in business.

proximity
11-20-2008, 02:31 AM
Still, I'm not sure where you are going with this....

since in the not too distant past on this forum YOU yourself have posted about saving conditions, but on this thread seem to be advocating something that would further encourage running 2nd relative to winning, i was simply seeking clarification of your view.

as for the owner making more money when the horse runs out (after graduating from the lower condition), i would hope so since their percentage of the purse for the race they won would have been lower. and also at many tracks the "total purse" of the race for the next level is hardly higher at all. pen right now is giving $22,400 for msw and $22,900 for n1x. (wow)

in the end though, you mention "keeping people in business" and i agree. but in doing this, i just think we need to look at the way the entire purse fund is distributed (macro) before we delve into how we split up the purse within a given race (micro).

startngate
11-20-2008, 09:10 AM
since in the not too distant past on this forum YOU yourself have posted about saving conditions, but on this thread seem to be advocating something that would further encourage running 2nd relative to winning, i was simply seeking clarification of your view.I certainly don't doubt that this could occur if the difference in purse between running first and second gets compressed. If it happens now, it will happen then too. But keep in mind, the main reason why some trainers don't like blowing conditions is because they don't believe the horse can make any money at the next level. If you divide the purses differently, this might not be the case, and you might be able to get rid of many of the conditioned races like non-winners of the year for the bottom claiming price.
as for the owner making more money when the horse runs out (after graduating from the lower condition), i would hope so since their percentage of the purse for the race they won would have been lower. and also at many tracks the "total purse" of the race for the next level is hardly higher at all. pen right now is giving $22,400 for msw and $22,900 for n1x. (wow) Adjusting the purse scale can be done at any track if that's necessary to make it work. At many tracks, the majority of races don't have any conditions because they are open claiming races. However, since a horse can only win at each condition once before moving up, the goal of setting this up would be to make the math work out so that the owners do better overall. This might include different scales for allowance and claiming races, I don't know.
in the end though, you mention "keeping people in business" and i agree. but in doing this, i just think we need to look at the way the entire purse fund is distributed (macro) before we delve into how we split up the purse within a given race (micro).I would agree. I've thought for a long time that at many tracks the percentage of the purse fund put into stakes races is too high. This is especially true at the low and mid level tracks where shippers win many of the stakes and therefore hurt the local owners.

The macro level problem is that wagering is declining, and that means the purse levels are declining also. Unfortunately, instead of trying to figure out how to get wagering to increase, many horsemen's groups and racetracks are trying to grab a bigger piece of the takeout for themselves. This squeezes the customers (by restricting access to signals, lowering rebates, preventing takeout reductions), which doesn't mean an increase in wagering.

Patrick333
11-21-2008, 06:22 PM
What percentage does the jockey agent get?

startngate
11-21-2008, 09:14 PM
The agent gets 25% in most cases.