Fixing the decline in horses,trainers and owners

[Nowornever]

If you strip harness racing back to first principles, the decline in numbers is not mysterious or cyclical, it’s mechanical. People are leaving because the economics no longer work at the entry and middle levels, and nobody new is replacing them because the risk profile is irrational. Owners and trainers are not walking away because they’ve lost interest in horses or racing, they’re walking away because the money going in versus the money coming out is no longer defensible under current conditions.

The sport keeps trying to fix the problem at the surface level by talking about marketing, promotion, engagement and “telling our story better,” but none of that matters if participation itself is financially unsafe. You cannot market your way out of a broken economic model. The root cause is that there simply isn’t enough money circulating among the people who actually supply the product — horses, trainers, owners — and the way stakes are currently distributed makes that worse, not better.

At the moment, the stakes structure is designed for a healthy, growing sport where new horses and new people are constantly coming in behind the established ones. In that environment, heavily rewarding winners makes sense because losing participants can be replaced. In a shrinking sport, that logic collapses. When you have fewer horses, fewer trainers, and fewer breeders every year, concentrating money at the top accelerates the exit of everyone else. The result is exactly what we are seeing now: fewer participants doing more work, burning out faster, and leaving gaps that are never filled.

The key mistake is treating stakes purely as prizes for success instead of as an economic tool to sustain participation. Winning should still matter, but participation must matter first. If finishing sixth or eighth in a standard race leaves a trainer and owner materially worse off than staying home, the system is telling them very clearly that development, learning and patience are not welcome. That is fatal for new owners, new trainers, and young people trying to establish themselves.

A basic fix does not require more money, only a different split of the money already being paid. The simplest workable model is to divide every race stake into two parts: a participation component and a performance component. The participation component is paid evenly to every starter, while the performance component is distributed traditionally based on finishing position.

For example, take a typical $10,600 race. Instead of paying over half of that to first place and token amounts to the rest of the field, the race could be structured so that around 35–40 percent of the total stake is allocated to participation. In a ten-horse field, that participation pool would be divided equally so that every starter receives a meaningful payment simply for competing. That payment should flow primarily to the trainer and owner, not be diluted through traditional splits, because it is designed to offset the real costs of keeping a horse in work and getting it to the races.

The remaining portion of the stake is then paid out through the normal finishing-order structure, ensuring that winning still matters and quality is still rewarded. Good horses and good trainers continue to earn more over time, but the gap between winning and losing is narrowed enough that losing no longer forces people out of the game.

Under this model, trainers gain predictable income every time they supply a starter, which directly addresses the issue of stable viability. It becomes rational to race horses through grades, to give young horses time, and to support owners who are learning. Owners, meanwhile, see their costs partially offset even when their horse is beaten, which changes the emotional and financial experience of ownership. Instead of every non winning start feeling like money wasted, it feels like progress being partially funded.

Importantly, this structure does not eliminate incentives for excellence. Trainers and owners who win still earn more overall because they collect both the participation payment and the higher performance rewards. What it does eliminate is the current situation where the bottom half of the field is effectively subsidising the top few runners through repeated losses. In a declining sport, that transfer is destructive.

This kind of stake rebalancing also has second-order benefits that are currently being ignored. Trainers are less likely to scratch horses for economic reasons, which improves field sizes. Better field sizes improve betting liquidity and confidence. Bettors respond to depth and competitiveness far more than they respond to marketing campaigns, and turnover improves naturally when the product becomes more predictable and robust.

The same logic applies to attracting new owners and trainers. Right now, entering the sport requires absorbing significant losses before any competence or confidence can be developed. No rational young person looks at that and decides to jump in. A stake model that rewards participation gives newcomers breathing room. It turns early ownership and early training into an apprenticeship rather than a financial stress test.

None of this punishes winners in any meaningful sense. Elite owners and trainers are the least sensitive to marginal reductions in winning prize money because they win repeatedly and at scale. New and mid-level participants are the most sensitive to repeated small losses. If the sport continues to design itself around the preferences of the strongest participants, it will continue to hollow itself out underneath them until there is nothing left to compete against.

Harness racing does not need to abandon excellence or ambition. It needs to recognise that sustainability comes first. Stakes must keep people in the game before they reward people at the top of it. Until the economics are rebalanced so trainers and owners can survive without winning every second start, the vicious circle will continue regardless of how well the sport is marketed.

 

 

[Brodie]

3 hours ago, Nowornever said:

If you strip harness racing back to first principles, the decline in numbers is not mysterious or cyclical, it’s mechanical. People are leaving because the economics no longer work at the entry and middle levels, and nobody new is replacing them because the risk profile is irrational. Owners and trainers are not walking away because they’ve lost interest in horses or racing, they’re walking away because the money going in versus the money coming out is no longer defensible under current conditions.

The sport keeps trying to fix the problem at the surface level by talking about marketing, promotion, engagement and “telling our story better,” but none of that matters if participation itself is financially unsafe. You cannot market your way out of a broken economic model. The root cause is that there simply isn’t enough money circulating among the people who actually supply the product — horses, trainers, owners — and the way stakes are currently distributed makes that worse, not better.

At the moment, the stakes structure is designed for a healthy, growing sport where new horses and new people are constantly coming in behind the established ones. In that environment, heavily rewarding winners makes sense because losing participants can be replaced. In a shrinking sport, that logic collapses. When you have fewer horses, fewer trainers, and fewer breeders every year, concentrating money at the top accelerates the exit of everyone else. The result is exactly what we are seeing now: fewer participants doing more work, burning out faster, and leaving gaps that are never filled.

The key mistake is treating stakes purely as prizes for success instead of as an economic tool to sustain participation. Winning should still matter, but participation must matter first. If finishing sixth or eighth in a standard race leaves a trainer and owner materially worse off than staying home, the system is telling them very clearly that development, learning and patience are not welcome. That is fatal for new owners, new trainers, and young people trying to establish themselves.

A basic fix does not require more money, only a different split of the money already being paid. The simplest workable model is to divide every race stake into two parts: a participation component and a performance component. The participation component is paid evenly to every starter, while the performance component is distributed traditionally based on finishing position.

For example, take a typical $10,600 race. Instead of paying over half of that to first place and token amounts to the rest of the field, the race could be structured so that around 35–40 percent of the total stake is allocated to participation. In a ten-horse field, that participation pool would be divided equally so that every starter receives a meaningful payment simply for competing. That payment should flow primarily to the trainer and owner, not be diluted through traditional splits, because it is designed to offset the real costs of keeping a horse in work and getting it to the races.

The remaining portion of the stake is then paid out through the normal finishing-order structure, ensuring that winning still matters and quality is still rewarded. Good horses and good trainers continue to earn more over time, but the gap between winning and losing is narrowed enough that losing no longer forces people out of the game.

Under this model, trainers gain predictable income every time they supply a starter, which directly addresses the issue of stable viability. It becomes rational to race horses through grades, to give young horses time, and to support owners who are learning. Owners, meanwhile, see their costs partially offset even when their horse is beaten, which changes the emotional and financial experience of ownership. Instead of every non winning start feeling like money wasted, it feels like progress being partially funded.

Importantly, this structure does not eliminate incentives for excellence. Trainers and owners who win still earn more overall because they collect both the participation payment and the higher performance rewards. What it does eliminate is the current situation where the bottom half of the field is effectively subsidising the top few runners through repeated losses. In a declining sport, that transfer is destructive.

This kind of stake rebalancing also has second-order benefits that are currently being ignored. Trainers are less likely to scratch horses for economic reasons, which improves field sizes. Better field sizes improve betting liquidity and confidence. Bettors respond to depth and competitiveness far more than they respond to marketing campaigns, and turnover improves naturally when the product becomes more predictable and robust.

The same logic applies to attracting new owners and trainers. Right now, entering the sport requires absorbing significant losses before any competence or confidence can be developed. No rational young person looks at that and decides to jump in. A stake model that rewards participation gives newcomers breathing room. It turns early ownership and early training into an apprenticeship rather than a financial stress test.

None of this punishes winners in any meaningful sense. Elite owners and trainers are the least sensitive to marginal reductions in winning prize money because they win repeatedly and at scale. New and mid-level participants are the most sensitive to repeated small losses. If the sport continues to design itself around the preferences of the strongest participants, it will continue to hollow itself out underneath them until there is nothing left to compete against.

Harness racing does not need to abandon excellence or ambition. It needs to recognise that sustainability comes first. Stakes must keep people in the game before they reward people at the top of it. Until the economics are rebalanced so trainers and owners can survive without winning every second start, the vicious circle will continue regardless of how well the sport is marketed.

 

 

Sustainability comes first?

How can we have sustainability when We are currently being operated by a gifting of millions from Entain and being very poorly utilised?

Where do the owners and trainers stand when that money is stopped?

They will not be attracting new people into those ranks when the stakes are halved and that is decidedly probable.

There are many issues that need addressing including the encouragement for wagering from the loyal punters rather than restrictions!!

This needs prioritising well before bonuses being dished out to owners, aswithout the wagering there is no racing.

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Brodie said:

Sustainability comes first?

How can we have sustainability when We are currently being operated by a gifting of millions from Entain and being very poorly utilised?

Where do the owners and trainers stand when that money is stopped?

They will not be attracting new people into those ranks when the stakes are halved and that is decidedly probable.

There are many issues that need addressing including the encouragement for wagering from the loyal punters rather than restrictions!!

This needs prioritising well before bonuses being dished out to owners, aswithout the wagering there is no racing.

It is not about restricting the @Brodie 's it is about distributing the revenue to where you get the most sustainable return.  As a Railway Sleeper salesman you know @Brodie that is basic economics/business.

[Brodie]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

It is not about restricting the @Brodie 's it is about distribruting the revenue to where you get the most sustainable return.  As a Railway Sleeper salesman you know @Brodie that is basic economics/business.

They need to increase revenue and restricting turnover has a detrimental effect.

There used to be punters that went on course but now I would suggest there are very few  punters on course wagering large amounts since the restrictions were applied.

Just makes absolutely no sense to have the NZ TAB applying an AML limit of $1k, as that is such a pathetically low amount in todays money!

For the TAB to want to know who is winning $1k is hindering wagering and reducing turnover and profit for them.

They seriously have made some poor decisions for the industry but then Entain does not seem to care!

[Chief Stipe]

53 minutes ago, Brodie said:

For the TAB to want to know who is winning $1k is hindering wagering and reducing turnover and profit for them.

It's not about who is winning $1k it is who is betting more than $1k in cash.  We realise that your successes with the TAB was gambling your railway sleeper cash sales but the laws have changed.  So @Brodie adapt or give up.

[Gammalite]

32 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

It's not about who is winning $1k it is who is betting more than $1k in cash.  We realise that your successes with the TAB was gambling your railway sleeper cash sales but the laws have changed.  So @Brodie adapt or give up.

can't see the sense in it. weeks wages in one bet ? 

If you've got $1000 to spend/lose , just have 10 x $100 bets. 👍💰💰 is 10 x the fun. is 10 x the challenge. support for 10 races and fabulous horsepeople. Bound to get at least one Winner then?? . (law of averages in 10 horses fields )  

They don't even take $1000 on one thing/game at the casino . and they've got millions and millions 💰. It's just a simple restriction that helps people stop LOSING money so fast they 'dig a Hole' for themselves. Most people would lose VERY QUICKLY without the great limits that are imposed at TAB and/or Casino.

Better to have a lot of ' little bets' at casino or TAB,  and they are a chance of calculating their losses as they go,  before the 'Hole they Dig' Buries them altogether in unretrievable debt.  9 out of 10 people LOSE is what Brodie forgets. 

[PeterLambFan]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

It's not about who is winning $1k it is who is betting more than $1k in cash.  We realise that your successes with the TAB was gambling your railway sleeper cash sales but the laws have changed.  So @Brodie adapt or give up.

It does strike me as odd that I take a $4 easy bet trifecta, hit it and win $1200 and I have got show Id to collect it. 

[paleface adios]

15 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

It is not about restricting the @Brodie 's it is about distributing the revenue to where you get the most sustainable return.  As a Railway Sleeper salesman you know @Brodie that is basic economics/business.

I think he's  farewell the railway  sleepers  just like hrnz  farewell  craig  railway 

[Brodie]

13 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

It's not about who is winning $1k it is who is betting more than $1k in cash.  We realise that your successes with the TAB was gambling your railway sleeper cash sales but the laws have changed.  So @Brodie adapt or give up.

$1k cash or betting vouchers is not a large amount in todays money!

No problem with having a limit but needs to be higher as it is hindering wagering.

Do you really believe that money launderers would be gambling on horses to launder money  for $1k?

 

[Brodie]

13 hours ago, Gammalite said:

can't see the sense in it. weeks wages in one bet ? 

If you've got $1000 to spend/lose , just have 10 x $100 bets. 👍💰💰 is 10 x the fun. is 10 x the challenge. support for 10 races and fabulous horsepeople. Bound to get at least one Winner then?? . (law of averages in 10 horses fields )  

They don't even take $1000 on one thing/game at the casino . and they've got millions and millions 💰. It's just a simple restriction that helps people stop LOSING money so fast they 'dig a Hole' for themselves. Most people would lose VERY QUICKLY without the great limits that are imposed at TAB and/or Casino.

Better to have a lot of ' little bets' at casino or TAB,  and they are a chance of calculating their losses as they go,  before the 'Hole they Dig' Buries them altogether in unretrievable debt.  9 out of 10 people LOSE is what Brodie forgets. 

The TAB are happy for punters to lose, that is whythey advertise for punters and give bonus bets etc.

If punters want to offload $100 bets then that is fine but if others want to offload larger amount  then that should be great for the TAB!

Gambling business I thought the TAB was?

In life people do things at different levels and different abilities!

[Withadream2]

2 hours ago, paleface adios said:

I think he's  farewell the railway  sleepers  just like hrnz  farewell  craig  railway 

I’m extremely sceptical that Brodie is the railway sleeper person that people seem to think he is. 

[the galah]

3 hours ago, Withadream2 said:

I’m extremely sceptical that Brodie is the railway sleeper person that people seem to think he is. 

i think it was hunterthepunter who said he thought brodie was the railway sleeper man.that was a few years ago now.I've never read brodie ever say he was,whether he is or not,who knows. either way,whoever brodie is,hes nearly always on the money.Hunterthe punter used to like guessing who people were. i think sometimes he was right,but often he was wrong,but he never stopped guessing.What did happen to hunterthepunter. Does he have another alias on here these days. One poster sounds like him. Who knows.

 

[Brodie]

11 hours ago, Withadream2 said:

I’m extremely sceptical that Brodie is the railway sleeper person that people seem to think he is. 

Why spoil the fun. Lol

 

[mikeynz]

7 hours ago, the galah said:

i think it was hunterthepunter who said he thought brodie was the railway sleeper man.that was a few years ago now.I've never read brodie ever say he was,whether he is or not,who knows. either way,whoever brodie is,hes nearly always on the money.Hunterthe punter used to like guessing who people were. i think sometimes he was right,but often he was wrong,but he never stopped guessing.What did happen to hunterthepunter. Does he have another alias on here these days. One poster sounds like him. Who knows.

 

You often wonder about some posters, after a while not hearing you wonder what become of them, just like talk back callers, some just lose interest and some die, not easy to post then, we do miss old TAB man, i couldnt convince him that Auckland is the biggest arsehole place, but I can assure you if I die I will no longer post, lol. But there could also be other interest that tickle me fancy lol if I disappear.

Edited 22 hours ago by mikeynz

[Gammalite]

11 hours ago, mikeynz said:

we do miss old TAB man, i couldnt convince him that Auckland is the biggest arsehole place,

TABman one of the only Positive Posters on here. Because he went to the trots and the gallops frequently and enjoyed himself there , meeting with your great racing people. so am glad you miss him.

you're Wrong about Auckland though. Maybe you're a grumpy South islander that not enjoying the sport anymore , like so many New Zealanders these days. thankfully the Aussies here just get on with it , even though the sport runs in Debt here in most States as well . Just get a Horse and race It . easy fix for those that really care.

As far as Auckland goes, I thought it was fantastic living there for a few years. And it's still Ranked Very High in the world Mikey . Better that over 99% of the planet . give it a go old mate lol 😎 here's some Google stats >

Auckland is consistently ranked as one of the world's most liveable cities, placing 7th globally in the 2025 Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report, highlighting its high standards in culture and environment. Known for its exceptional work-life balance and natural beauty, it previously held the top spot in 2021. 

Key Rankings for Auckland:

• Liveability (2025): 7th in the world (joint with Osaka, Japan).
• Liveability (2024): 9th in the world.
• Work-Life Balance (2023): 5th in the world.
• Best Cities (2025): 47th overall (ranking 3rd for air quality and 18th for nature and parks). 

 

[the galah]

i heard  andy mccook yesterday commenting that its going to be a sad time in the next couple of months with others as relates to employment.One can only guess what he means but the comment was made after he wished rail the best.So he did say couple of months. The greyhounds still have 6 months to go.

when greyhounds shut down,that will be a very sad and difficult time for the over 1000 people employed in that industry.

I would be good if there could be greater transparency from the government,the greyhound industry and the likes of the spca as to what actually is going to happen to all the greyhounds.That surely is a story that media should be highlighting and bringing to the attention of the public.

as to the commentators dropping in numbers.

theres other excesses that you would think will impact harness racing coverage.I know friday lights thing is enjoyed by people and is very good,but if i was a cost cutter,i would be asking myself,why are we paying 2 people tio sit in the studio when obviously only 1 is needed. Thats nothing against o'connor or graham,they are both very good,but the pressure you would think will come on entain to cut costs to return as much as they can to the industry as the indudustry is clearly spending more than they should and will themselves be making cuts in the next couple of years you would think. That would be my guess for something that will happen in the next year or so.

Edited 9 hours ago by the galah

[Brodie]

33 minutes ago, the galah said:

i heard  andy mccook yesterday commenting that its going to be a sad time in the next couple of months with others as relates to employment.One can only guess what he means but the comment was made after he wished rail the best.So he did say couple of months. The greyhounds still have 6 months to go.

when greyhounds shut down,that will be a very sad and difficult time for the over 1000 people employed in that industry.

I would be good if there could be greater transparency from the government,the greyhound industry and the likes of the spca as to what actually is going to happen to all the greyhounds.That surely is a story that media should be highlighting and bringing to the attention of the public.

as to the commentators dropping in numbers.

theres other excesses that you would think will impact harness racing coverage.I know friday lights thing is enjoyed by people and is very good,but if i was a cost cutter,i would be asking myself,why are we paying 2 people tio sit in the studio when obviously only 1 is needed. Thats nothing against o'connor or graham,they are both very good,but the pressure you would think will come on entain to cut costs to return as much as they can to the industry as the indudustry is clearly spending more than they should and will themselves be making cuts in the next couple of years you would think. That would be my guess for something that will happen in the next year or so.

Cuts are inevitable the way they are blowing the money from Entain!

.The truth of the matter is that Entain being brought in as the White Knight to save racing in NZ wouldve been ok if the industry hadve used the money wisely, and not like a kid in a lolly shop!!

Can not talk about the gallops as I not interested in them but I have yet to meet a single person that has confidence in the ones making the decisions!

nothing personal but they have acted extremely irresponsibly with industry money and not their own!

All the time being paid big salaries and ultimately they will be down the road.

Does anyone actually believe that the ones making these decisions have ever had any success running a business, as that is what harness racing is?

 

 

 

[Gammalite]

31 minutes ago, the galah said:

The greyhounds still have 6 months to go.

 

39 minutes ago, the galah said:

I would be good if there could be greater transparency from the government,the greyhound industry and the likes of the spca as to what actually is going to happen to all the greyhounds.

the NZ Government probably only has 9 months to go?😉  . with election called NOV by Luxon. so that is more the problem for them . 

The Australian opposition Coalition party just imploded the past 2 weeks with Nationals and Liberals ripping themselves apart and not getting on at all. with each other or internally . they have been swept aside since nearly taking the country to ruin in Covid  and being absolute landslide polled against the past 2 elections 2022 and last May. . NZ might do better too? , and be looking for a 'Non - Coalition' government to get back on track ?. Might even help harness racing get back on track if getting so dire there that no one is competing much anymore ? .

Labor government just bailed Victoria out of the 'hole' it was in . (in the short term anyway) maybe they can help patch up NZ harness a bit. Help with the ATC debt and that ? 

2 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Does anyone actually believe that the ones making these decisions have ever had any success running a business, as that is what harness racing is?

ENTAIN are a hugely successful business Brodie. HRNZ have been hugely successful for near/over a century too, and produced a world class product.  That the Aussies are currently plundering the past 3 years as your Top Combatants (like Mark Purdon and Barry Purdon) near retirement and their numbers dwindle.  

[Brodie]

40 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

 

the NZ Government probably only has 9 months to go?😉  . with election called NOV by Luxon. so that is more the problem for them . 

The Australian opposition Coalition party just imploded the past 2 weeks with Nationals and Liberals ripping themselves apart and not getting on at all. with each other or internally . they have been swept aside since nearly taking the country to ruin in Covid  and being absolute landslide polled against the past 2 elections 2022 and last May. . NZ might do better too? , and be looking for a 'Non - Coalition' government to get back on track ?. Might even help harness racing get back on track if getting so dire there that no one is competing much anymore ? .

Labor government just bailed Victoria out of the 'hole' it was in . (in the short term anyway) maybe they can help patch up NZ harness a bit. Help with the ATC debt and that ? 

ENTAIN are a hugely successful business Brodie. HRNZ have been hugely successful for near/over a century too, and produced a world class product.  That the Aussies are currently plundering the past 3 years as your Top Combatants (like Mark Purdon and Barry Purdon) near retirement and their numbers dwindle.  

Was actually talking  about HRNZ rather than Entain, but Entain  only wanted the TAB for sports and online gambling and we can see that clearly.

Not talking about HRNZ back in their hey day, it is the current way that they have been operating for the last decade!

Yes harness racing is a great product not denying that, unfortunately the best of it bas been and dramatic change is close.

Gamma, in the next year or so, I would be betting my last cent that you will be coming on BOAY and saying that yes Brodie you were totally on the money.

No way on earth can a business be run the way it has been over the past few years and succeed!!!!!

I repeat that the only way the can pay the current level of stakes is thru the hundreds of millions that they have been gifted, when that dries up???????

Edited 7 hours ago by Brodie

[curious]

19 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Was actually talking  about HRNZ rather than Entain, but Entain  only wanted the TAB for sports and online gambling and we can see that clearly.

Not talking about HRNZ back in their hey day, it is the current way that they have been operating for the last decade!

Yes harness racing is a great product not denying that, unfortunately the best of it bas been and dramatic change is close.

Gamma, in the next year or so, I would be betting my last cent that you will be coming on BOAY and saying that yes Brodie you were totally on the money.

No way on earth can a business be run the way it has been over the past few years and succeed!!!!!

I repeat that the only way the can pay the current level of stakes is thru the hundreds of millions that they have been gifted, when that dries up???????

Don't worry. Exactly the same applies to NZTR, so we'll all be at the same soup kitchen.

[mikeynz]

9 hours ago, Gammalite said:

TABman one of the only Positive Posters on here. Because he went to the trots and the gallops frequently and enjoyed himself there , meeting with your great racing people. so am glad you miss him.

you're Wrong about Auckland though. Maybe you're a grumpy South islander that not enjoying the sport anymore , like so many New Zealanders these days. thankfully the Aussies here just get on with it , even though the sport runs in Debt here in most States as well . Just get a Horse and race It . easy fix for those that really care.

As far as Auckland goes, I thought it was fantastic living there for a few years. And it's still Ranked Very High in the world Mikey . Better that over 99% of the planet . give it a go old mate lol 😎 here's some Google stats >

Auckland is consistently ranked as one of the world's most liveable cities, placing 7th globally in the 2025 Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report, highlighting its high standards in culture and environment. Known for its exceptional work-life balance and natural beauty, it previously held the top spot in 2021. 

Key Rankings for Auckland:

• Liveability (2025): 7th in the world (joint with Osaka, Japan).
• Liveability (2024): 9th in the world.
• Work-Life Balance (2023): 5th in the world.
• Best Cities (2025): 47th overall (ranking 3rd for air quality and 18th for nature and parks). 

 

 Being positive as you claim TAB to be,  think TAB man was often taking the piss, but on some things i aint but I'm sure the Auckland that was 25 or 30 years ago is a lot different to the Auckland of today, those same trends happening there are slowly drifting through the rest of NZ.

Edited 1 hour ago by mikeynz