Trainer Aristocracy/ Priviledged Class?

[VigorsTheGrey]

2016 Purse Total for North America (per Jockey Club data)

1,172 Million ($) or $1,172,000,000 ($1.172 Billion)

5,680 Trainers Listed (Per Equibase)

TOP 10 (.002% of trainers)
143.5 Million or 12.2% of Total Purses

TOP 50 (.08% of trainers)
316.8 Million or 27% of Total Purses

TOP 100 (1.7% of trainers)
432.2 Million or 36.8% of Total Purses

TOP 200 (3.5% of trainers)
573.4 Million or 48.9% of Total Purses

TOP 300 (5.2% of trainers)
662.4 Million or 56.5% of Total Purses

[cj]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

2016 Purse Total for North America (per Jockey Club data)

1,172 Million ($) or $1,172,000,000 ($1.172 Billion)

5,680 Trainers Listed (Per Equibase)

TOP 10 (.002% of trainers)
143.5 Million or 12.2% of Total Purses

TOP 50 (.08% of trainers)
316.8 Million or 27% of Total Purses

TOP 100 (1.7% of trainers)
432.2 Million or 36.8% of Total Purses

TOP 200 (3.5% of trainers)
573.4 Million or 48.9% of Total Purses

TOP 300 (5.2% of trainers)
662.4 Million or 56.5% of Total Purses

Wouldn't this be similar if you did it by horses?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by cj

Wouldn't this be similar if you did it by horses?

No...everything would be a lot different.

Unless you are referring to Robert Fisher's curve, then maybe, but we would have to see...there are 53,245 horses listed for 2016...the concentration seems to be more extreme for Owners, percentage wise, because there are so many more Owners than Trainers but the Elite trainers could well best 2016 numbers this year as well...no surprise here but sort of moot without adjusting for inflation and other costs, I guess...to see clearly, stuff I don't know about...

[Dahoss9698]

Is there a point to this?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

2016 Purse Total for North America (per Jockey Club data)

1,172 Million ($) or $1,172,000,000 ($1.172 Billion)

5,680 Trainers Listed (Per Equibase)

TOP 10 (.002% of trainers)
143.5 Million or 12.2% of Total Purses

TOP 50 (.08% of trainers)
316.8 Million or 27% of Total Purses

TOP 100 (1.7% of trainers)
432.2 Million or 36.8% of Total Purses

TOP 200 (3.5% of trainers)
573.4 Million or 48.9% of Total Purses

TOP 300 (5.2% of trainers)
662.4 Million or 56.5% of Total Purses

I think it'd be a better list if you put the percentage of trainers based on full-time trainers. Thousands of trainers with 1-20 starts skew that percentage.

[outofthebox]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

2016 Purse Total for North America (per Jockey Club data)

1,172 Million ($) or $1,172,000,000 ($1.172 Billion)

5,680 Trainers Listed (Per Equibase)

TOP 10 (.002% of trainers)
143.5 Million or 12.2% of Total Purses

TOP 50 (.08% of trainers)
316.8 Million or 27% of Total Purses

TOP 100 (1.7% of trainers)
432.2 Million or 36.8% of Total Purses

TOP 200 (3.5% of trainers)
573.4 Million or 48.9% of Total Purses

TOP 300 (5.2% of trainers)
662.4 Million or 56.5% of Total Purses

I can't seem to crack the top 500. Tough to make a living at this game..

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Is there a point to this?

I don't know yet but probably nothing we don't already know...racing began as the sport of kings and maybe still is in England and Dubai..

But in America, racing has had much more of a blue collar feel...in fact, the rags to riches paradigm is built into it as one of its chief selling points...sure anyone can get lucky but I'm more interested in the day to day reality...and what I sense is an elite class steadily gaining on the backs of racings' starting gate "fodder"....

Stuff that needs to be there for the illusion of " sport"...but it is clear to me that there are really two sports here, the one the elite dominate and thrive in....and the "sport" of racing's "great unwashed" AND that this trend has reach a critical mass that could spell the end of the fiction of belief, that a living can be made here for "the little guy"...

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I think it'd be a better list if you put the percentage of trainers based on full-time trainers. Thousands of trainers with 1-20 starts skew that percentage.

This absolutely needs to be done.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I don't know yet but probably nothing we don't already know...racing began as the sport of kings and maybe still is in England and Dubai..

But in America, racing has had much more of a blue collar feel...in fact, the rags to riches paradigm is built into it as one of its chief selling points...sure anyone can get lucky but I'm more interested in the day to day reality...and what I sense is an elite class steadily gaining on the backs of racings' starting gate "fodder"....

Stuff that needs to be there for the illusion of " sport"...but it is clear to me that there are really two sports here, the one the elite dominate and thrive in....and the "sport" of racing's "great unwashed" AND that this trend has reach a critical mass that could spell the end of the fiction of belief, that a living can be made here for "the little guy"...

Hasn't this always been the case instead of a current trend?

Do you wish for it to be where losing horses get paid as much as winning horses? Horses who run at the bottom should be paid as much as those winning a G1? Trainers who are crappy at their job should be paid as much as those who are good at it?

I actually thought your stats, while they shouldn't include the bottom couple thousand, looks pretty reasonable. I get as tired as the next person at seeing Baffert, Brown and Pletcher and their multiple entries in top races, but the rest of it looks as it should.

In other individual sports, are the stats similar? I suspect the Williams sisters rake in a lion's share of the purses out there.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Hasn't this always been the case instead of a current trend?

Do you wish for it to be where losing horses get paid as much as winning horses? Horses who run at the bottom should be paid as much as those winning a G1? Trainers who are crappy at their job should be paid as much as those who are good at it?

I actually thought your stats, while they shouldn't include the bottom couple thousand, looks pretty reasonable. I get as tired as the next person at seeing Baffert, Brown and Pletcher and their multiple entries in top races, but the rest of it looks as it should.

In other individual sports, are the stats similar? I suspect the Williams sisters rake in a lion's share of the purses out there.

Just a side note, "the Lion's share" means All of It" not the largest portion.

But my concern here is looking at the numbers from the Jockey Club stats regarding purses, number of horses/ starters, trainers/ owners in the game, etc....to evaluate now, after years of data collection where we are, what has happened, where the trends are leading, and what may result if trends continue...

This thread is meant as a starting place for that discussion to begin, so I don't what to jump to any conclusions yet ( I'm very good at that )...

It could very well be that the continuing concentration of racing resources into fewer and fewer hands is a principal cause of racings' steady decline...not the only one by any means, and it could be more a result than a cause....

I tend to view competition in racing as a good thing, but as the costs of staying in business rise, only the leading barns can weather the changing climate and as more and more barns drop out, the remaining ones acquire more "irons in the fire" leading to ever more concentration....

And as more and more races have entries trained or owned or both by the same entities, unbalances continue to gain footholds and competition decreases....so yes, unfortunately, some alteration in purse dispersal seems necessary to address the obvious over-concentration of valuable resources...

[VigorsTheGrey]

Since 1989, the number of races run, 74,071, has been in continuous decline year over year. In 2016, there were 37,614 races run, a decline of 50%. Meanwhile, purses have remained basically flat for the last 16 years, hovering between 1 Billion to 1.2 Billion dollars per year.

I'll do some research to see what the rate of trainer attrition is, or how many are leaving the game versus new trainers coming into the game...

[VigorsTheGrey]

Since the year 2000, when Equibase reports there were 9884 trainers, trainers left the game an average of 262 trainers per year.

In 2017, Equibase reports 5153 trainers...this is a decline of 4731 trainers over 18 years, a 48% drop since year 2000.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thoroughbred racehorse Ownership was steady between 2000 and 2006 hovering between 38,000 and 39,000 Owners per year.

In 2007 there were 37,879 Owners, then a steep decline is noted year by year until 2016, when there were 25,937 Owners.

2017 reports an even lower number of Owners at 22,862, but the year is not over yet and more owners may still come on board as 2 yr olds begin their racing careers..... Still, it will be another year of substantial decline in Ownership.

[Track Phantom]

I like where your mind is here. This is excellent analytical thought and could produce many hypothesis.

What it says to me is what I figured the data might....it is bad for horse racing to have too many horses concentrated into few too many hands (both trainers and owners).

Also, quite startling, is 50% less races offered per year but purses have been the same. This tells me that purse money has increased by 50%. I just glanced at a Racing Form from 1990 and the purse for a MSW from Churchill was $16,650. The same race in 2017 is $51,000. Horses are not required to run as often because the purse money is high enough to be more selective now.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I like where your mind is here. This is excellent analytical thought and could produce many hypothesis.

What it says to me is what I figured the data might....it is bad for horse racing to have too many horses concentrated into few too many hands (both trainers and owners).

Also, quite startling, is 50% less races offered per year but purses have been the same. This tells me that purse money has increased by 50%. I just glanced at a Racing Form from 1990 and the purse for a MSW from Churchill was $16,650. The same race in 2017 is $51,000. Horses are not required to run as often because the purse money is high enough to be more selective now.

In other news the sun will rise in the east tomorrow