Cliff Williams, Contributor
IT WOULD seem that the Trevor Simpson/Brian Harding battle for the 2005 championship is going to be sharing the spotlight with impending action by the Jockeys' Guild in pursuit of increased remuneration for their services to the owners as we enter the home stretch of this racing year.
Through its executive the guild is now seeking to increase fees for mounts finishing outside the purses positions, first to sixth, from $400 to $2,000 and further that exercise riders and jockeys be remunerated with a payment of $200 for each workout.
From what I can gather there has been ongoing discussions with the Jamaica Racing Commission (JRC) over this and other issues concerning the welfare of the reinsmen but something must be amiss at this point. I suppose we will be told in due course why a threat of withdrawal of service has become necessary now.
It would seem to me that serious questions can be raised as to the justification for the demand being made by the jockeys and whether or not it is affordable, based on the resources of the already overburdened owners.
In terms of remuneration, jockeys have come a long way since horse racing was formally organised in the British isles nearly 250 years ago. At the outset there were no set percentages of purses paid as commission and the arrangements for remuneration was more or less determined at the whims and fancies of the owners.
SAME SITUATION
In Jamaica, prior to 1973 when founding chairman of the JRC Sir John Mordecai and his advisers directed otherwise, pretty much the same sort of situation prevailed.
The entire purses were paid over to owners who presumably would disburse the relevant percentages of the funds to the trainers and jockeys, but this proved over time to be most unsatisfactory, as mean-spiritedness and outright dishonesty in too many instances deprived professionals of their income on a timely basis.
Apprentice riders suffered most in this regard and there are even a couple of notable cases when the masters could not account for the substantial earnings of their wards when the age of majority was reached by these boy jockeys.
The responsibility of disbursing payments to the professionals was wisely removed from the owners and given to the promoters who withheld the relevant percentage of purses and paid it directly to the earners.
Sir John and his commissioners set earnings from purses at an incredible 15 per cent for trainers, 10 per cent for jockeys and an outrageous five per cent for grooms as these stable-hands were virtually full-time employees receiving a weekly stipend for each horse in their care.
This was quite revolutionary at the time and probably still is. I am not aware of any other racing capital in the world where a rate applies that gives an owner paying 100 per cent of the bills 70 per cent of the prize money earned.
AMATEUR STATUS
It has to be said, however, that given the amateur status of our racing industry at the time, the professionals had to be reasonably rewarded for their efforts. It could also be argued that proper remuneration for successful practitioners was a possible means of lessening the incidents of corrupt practices.
Absolutely nothing would be wrong with a new demand for better rates of remuneration if it was affordable. But clearly, it cannot be at this point in time, given the prevailing economic circumstances of the country generally.
Collectively, the riders will earn about $36.5 million in commission this year, representing the stipulated 10 per cent of total purse money.
The last time I checked there were about 80 licencees in this category with approximately 20 of these earning over 80 per cent of the available prize money, leaving three-quarters of the jockey colony to scrap for the remainder.
Guaranteed income is highly desirable and is the ideal situation but in this sport/business of horse racing, it is performance as a professional that ultimately determines the level of remuneration received and there can be no other way in a competitive environment.
