Introduction to Purse Distribution
In horse racing, the concept of purse distribution plays a central role in determining how the prize money is allocated among the competitors. This system, which has evolved considerably over the years, reflects the changing dynamics of the sport, aiming to balance the interests of owners, trainers, jockeys, and race organisers. Purse distribution can refer to either the total amount of money disbursed to horse owners over a specified period or the specific breakdown of prize money among the top finishers in a single race. This discussion focuses on the latter definition, tracing its historical development, modern practices, and the variations observed in different racing jurisdictions.
The Early System of Purse Distribution
Historically, the distribution of purses in horse racing was much more rigid and limited than it is today. Before the 1970s, the standard practice in the United States was to allocate prize money only to the top four finishers in a race. This approach was particularly prevalent in Thoroughbred racing, where the purse was divided with 65% awarded to the winner, 20% to the second-place finisher, 10% to the third-place horse, and 5% to the fourth. This method was not without its challenges. For instance, inclement weather often led to smaller fields as owners withdrew their horses to avoid the risks associated with wet tracks or changes from turf to dirt races. This reluctance to race under adverse conditions prompted a re-evaluation of the purse distribution system.
The Need for Reform
The limitations of the early purse distribution system became increasingly evident as horse racing grew in popularity and economic significance. Smaller fields were less attractive to both spectators and bettors, which in turn impacted the overall revenue generated by the sport. To address this, various state racing associations in the United States began experimenting with new purse distribution models in the latter part of the 20th century. The primary goal was to incentivise participation by ensuring that more horses received a share of the prize money, thereby reducing the financial risk for owners and making races more competitive.
One of the most widely adopted reforms during this period was the inclusion of the fifth-place finisher in the purse distribution. The standard approach for this expanded distribution allocated 60% of the purse to the winner, 20% to the runner-up, 11% to the third-place finisher, 6% to the fourth, and 3% to the fifth. This model proved successful in attracting larger fields, and it remains a common practice at many tracks today. Some tracks further extended the distribution to include the sixth-place finisher, adjusting the percentages to 60% for the winner, 20% for second, 10% for third, 5% for fourth, 3% for the fifth, and 2% for the sixth.
The Great British Bonus (GBB)
Typically, prize money is deposited into Weatherbys Bank/BHA accounts within fifteen days after the race, following the completion of the required drug testing.
The Great British Bonus (GBB) is an industry-led incentive program designed to offer multiple bonuses of up to £20,000 per eligible race for British-bred fillies and mares. The primary goal of the GBB is to increase the number of British-bred horses in racing, thereby helping to secure the future of British breeding.
The GBB is targeted at breeders, owners, and winning connections of British-bred Flat and Jump fillies and mares that achieve success in Britain. It was developed and implemented by The Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association (TBA) with the objective of increasing the demand for British-bred fillies and mares as racehorses. Additionally, it encourages breeders to race fillies and owners to keep them, thereby supporting the economics of Thoroughbred breeding and ensuring that selection for breeding is based on proven racing performance at all levels.
Florida’s 1975 Model
A pivotal moment in the evolution of purse distribution occurred in 1975 when the state of Florida introduced a new model that would have lasting implications for the sport. Florida’s innovative system allocated 1% of the purse to every horse finishing lower than fourth place, effectively ensuring that all participants received some compensation regardless of their finishing position. This approach made the distribution of funds to the second, third, and fourth place finishers variable, depending on the size of the field. For example, in a race with twelve starters, the winner would still receive 60% of the purse, but the second-place finisher would receive 18%, the third 10%, the fourth 4%, and the remaining 1% would be distributed among the other finishers. Conversely, in a race with only six starters, the purse would be divided as 60% to the winner, 20% to the runner-up, 13% to the third-place horse, 5% to the fourth, and 1% each to the fifth and sixth finishers.
This system was groundbreaking in its flexibility and fairness, allowing for a more equitable distribution of prize money across all participants in a race. The model was so successful that it continues to be used at all of Florida’s thoroughbred tracks today, albeit with slight modifications made in 2005 to adjust the percentages for the second, third, and fourth-place finishers.
Evolution of State Practices
The success of Florida’s purse distribution model quickly gained the attention of horse racing authorities in other states, leading to widespread adoption of similar systems across the country. By the late 20th century, many states had implemented variations of Florida’s model, although the specific percentages and the details of implementation varied. For example, New York, which had long resisted the trend towards more inclusive purse distribution, eventually made significant changes to its system. In 1971, New York reduced the winner's share from 65% to 60% and redistributed the remaining percentages among the next three finishers. This was a precursor to more substantial changes that came later.
In December 1994, the New York Racing Association made a historic shift by including the fifth-place finisher in its purse awards for the first time, adopting the 60-20-11-6-3 format that had become popular elsewhere. A decade later, in December 2003, New York further expanded its purse awards to include all finishers, allocating the same 60% to the winner but redistributing the remaining percentages among the other finishers in a way that reflected the broader trends in the sport. These changes marked a significant shift in how purse money was allocated and reflected a growing recognition of the need to reward more participants in each race.