New Pay Scale For Jockeys

Grey

Grey

Senior Jockey
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
9,470
Location
Dublin
According to an article in the Racing Post, part of which is copied below, The Jockeys' Association will be considering a proposal to set a sliding scale of fees with the top jockeys on a higher rate than for their less successful and less experienced colleagues.

I would have thought the better jockeys already do well through being in greater demand and their share of prize money, and that many journeymen have to depend almost entirely on fees alone.

People often mention the solidarity that exists among jockeys, especially the jump jockeys. Each time they go out on the track they are risking their necks, but surely the camaraderie of the weighing room is based on the principle that no person's neck is worth more than a colleague's?


BRITAIN'S top jockeys are set to be paid more per ride than their lesser-ranked colleagues if a controversial plan hatched by their trade body comes to fruition.

The proposal for a sliding scale of payments for riders, based on status, was put to a meeting of Jockeys' Association members at Doncaster on Saturday by chief executive Josh Apiafi, as was the planned appointment of a doctor at a rumoured cost of £100,000.

It is not known exactly how the proposed riding fees scheme would be structured, or where it would leave the deals traditionally negotiated between the Jockeys' Association and Racehorse Owners' Association on fees. There would also appear to be the potential for serious unrest within the weighing room.

This year Flat jockeys receive £100.44 per ride, while for races under jumps rules the fee is £137.10, regardless of the jockey's stature, or calibre of race.

The argument in favour of the controversial new approach is that Premier League footballers earn more than League Two players, and that racing's star names, like their counterparts in the soccer arena, should be better rewarded for their talents and experience.
It is understood that the proposal includes the creation of possibly three or four grades under which fees would be determined by a points system decided on the number of winners, status of races, and amount of prize-money won by a jockey.

Three further meetings with jockeys are planned, concluding on February 19, after which an announcement may follow.
Click to expand...
 
I was tempted to discuss this with Mr. Fitzgerald today, but thought I would bide my time. I have to admit, I think Mick it is the best NH jockey (I would, wouldn't I?) but not sure that I think his neck is worth more than any other NH jockeys! shrug::
 
Originally posted by Grey@Jan 29 2008, 09:27 PM
I would have thought the better jockeys already do well through being in greater demand and their share of prize money, and that many journeymen have to depend almost entirely on fees alone.
Click to expand...
I agree with that Grey. Also, the lesser jockeys might only have the one mount at a meeting meaning the expenses will eat into his fee all the more. And why should Fallon get more for riding a non-trier than Ferris.
 
If there is to be a difference in the amount each jockey recieves for a ride it should be up to the indivudual jockey himself as a freelance/self employed person to decide what to charge, not that of a structure of divisions based on points gained as decided by a committee.

Therefore if McCoy wants to charge £200 per ride and Fitzgerald wants to charge £180 per ride and someone else £150 so be it, as long as the minimum charge exists. Some jockeys may choose to charge more for a novice chase ride than a national hunt flat race, so long as their prices are known at time of booking I see no problem.
 
That's an interesting point Uncle. Essesntially you pay for what you get.

I'm all for keeping the pay scales as is. the better you are the more rides you get on better horses meaning better prizemoney. I would prefer to compensate a jockey if he wins rather than if he rides the horse. A performance related pay but a flat riding fee. It would be similar to a commissioned job. It would be up to the jock to decide what his commission level is.
 
@ Unc - I agree.
@ Warbler - You say it like it is a bad thing? :D
@ HT - Because he gets off.
 
Originally posted by Cantoris@Jan 29 2008, 10:55 PM
That's an interesting point Uncle. Essesntially you pay for what you get.
I'm all for keeping the pay scales as is. the better you are the more rides you get on better horses meaning better prizemoney.level is.
Click to expand...
As quoted: and and what Warbler said:
<< Symptomatic of society really. The rich get richer etc >>

Could not agree more with Warbler; and with those who have made the point about *every* jock esp NH risking his/her neck
Whatever has been proposed, and I've not looked into it in detail tonight it being being Tuesday - sound appalling... and all too open to corruption. Shall we see jocks selling their rides? What woudl any ride be worth, if a gamble is going down. What a stoopid fercking notion
 
Seriously I completely disagree.

Having a market situation for jockeys is win-win. It allows the elite to continue to earn their living without the need for burnout or unnecessary risk taking - meaning they are more likely to be fit for the hallmark races. Whilst it allows those making their way or naturally less talented an opportunity to offer their product at a price which makes it more appealing than it does in a fixed rate market.

What we have at the moment is the best jockeys taking all of the rides a) because they need to in order to earn top-whack and b) because once a claim is ridden-out there is little incentive for owners/trainers than to take the best on offer.

With a freed up payscale perhaps as a punter I might lose some opportunities to see the elite quite so freqently, but surely as an industry racing would benefit?

It could even help to share the wealth more equitably... Those that could afford it would pay the elite, who in turn would ride less thus giving more opportunities to the non-elite.

There is nothing fairer than market price.
 
The laws of supply and demand already apply. Good jockeys get the best rides, win the most prize money, and can launch into outside earnings and endorsements on the back of their profiles, be it restruants, pasta ranges or BBC Question of Sport contracts. What the current structure does is create nothing more than a safety net (we're hardly talking about mega payouts afterall). Nothing wrong with that. The market has proven to be kak handed in many areas of life in allocating wealth, and the creation of 'haves' and 'have nots' is both devisive and corrosive on many levels. I think this egalatarian aspect of racing is something that they can be quite proud of, and it makes a pleasent change from a sport that's consumed itself in its own greed and vainglorious egos such as football where the participants have become aloof, distant, unapproachable and pretty well treat their public like dirt.

As has been pointed out, this proposal would remove a lot of the incentive to new jockeys starting out, (there must be easier ways of earning a living etc). Ultimately it might also leave those struggling, vulnerable to other merkier ways of earning money.
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Jan 30 2008, 12:05 AM
Never had you down as a socialist, Headstrong :P
Click to expand...
I decide every question/situation/premise on its own merit Gareth. There are situations in which market forces work for the public good, and others where they decidedly do not.

I don't cut my cloth according to fashion, nor to a a pre-ordained pattern. I've no time for those who do
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Jan 30 2008, 12:49 AM
I don't cut my cloth according to fashion, nor to a a pre-ordained pattern. I've no time for those who do
Click to expand...
So no pictures of Headstrong wearing a mini skirt made from a pattern in the Womans Weekly then. Boo! :D
 
The problem with disadvantaging the jockeys at the lower end of the scale is that if you make the entry level salary into the sport too unattractive you will end up with a shortage of jockeys.

Personally I think that if the "top" jockeys are to be given more per ride they should also be penalised financially when they make an almighty c*ck up.
 
Personally I think that if the "top" jockeys are to be given more per ride they should also be penalised financially when they make an almighty c*ck up.
Click to expand...

Under betsmate's free market rules, a jockey who made mistakes would become less desirable and have to charge less in order to secure bookings.
 
Just maybe those that have to fight harder to get rides will get more opportunities, and those that think they're worth more than other people will get less!

The so called top jocks should remember that owners ultimately have a say too, and if I don't want to pay Fitz, AP and co an extra £50 to ride on a Tuesday at Folkestone they will have to find other rides to make the payrise actually count in their pocket.

Racing is expensive enough for owners as it is, so if they think there won't be somesort of trade off for the payrise they propose giving themselves they are letting pound signs cloud their judgement. Not every horse is a ready made winner because a top jock rides it so why would a smalltime owner want to pay more just for the privellage.
 
Originally posted by useful@Jan 30 2008, 01:09 PM
The problem with disadvantaging the jockeys at the lower end of the scale is that if you make the entry level salary into the sport too unattractive you will end up with a shortage of jockeys.
Click to expand...
...except that if this was to happen, the demand for jockeys would increase allowing them to charge more for their services and at the same time make the job attractive to newcomers.

Simple, balanced and fair.
 
Originally posted by betsmate@Jan 30 2008, 12:16 AM
It allows the elite to continue to earn their living without the need for burnout or unnecessary risk taking - meaning they are more likely to be fit for the hallmark races.
Click to expand...
One fatal flaw in your argument there. Can you see AP sitting at home watching the racing??!! It ain't all about the money. I'm not sure AP would give up all his rides in a year just to ride the Grand National winner. I think he loves riding winners full stop, irrespective of where or when. I think a few of the top jocks are like that. Most multi milionaires are not driven by a desire to make another buck but the desire to achieve.
 
That is a fair point Cantoris, but then compare the likes of Sanders and Spencer who were jetting off around the country in a desperate hunt for rides at the back end of last season, with those jockeys like Frankie who chose quality over quantity. I know that there was a prize at stake but it proves that jockeys are already making a conscious decision not to ride in every race possible.

Obviously a lot will be down to personality, but I bet you would find a few takers who would ride (or perhaps more pertinently travel) less if they could still make a good living out of the game.
 
It's hard enough for small or out of form yards to get a decent jockey as it is, to give their horse a chance. I've watched trainers spend hours on the phone over 2/3 days trying to get a horse with a chance a half-decent ride, only for the jock to call off on the day with so little warning, the trainer has to take whichever plonker is cooling his heels in the weighing room. That situation would only get worse too

This would put even more power into the hands of the big yards which can afford a retained jockey.
In turn this would send smaller trainers and owners to the wall - it's not just the jockeys' income at risk here. The more I think about this idea the more downsides I see
 
"The problem with disadvantaging the jockeys at the lower end of the scale is that if you make the entry level salary into the sport too unattractive you will end up with a shortage of jockeys."

There's gotta be a smart answer to shortage of jockeys, shirley!!!!! :D
 
Remembering that jockeys such as AP and Mick Fitz can presumably pick and choose what horses they ride already. I realise that if Brendan Powell hadn't been supplying Mick Fitzgerald with lots of rides this season, the chances of me getting Mick on Bay Hawk was always going to be pretty remote. Bay Hawk was probably in the right place at the right time. If Mick asks nicely, he can have another go on Bay Hawk if he likes. Do you think I should charge him? shrug:: :D
 
Headstrong - if there wasn't a fixed payscale then in your example the trainer could offer a higher, more tempting amount to a particular jockey in order to secure the ride. They don't have to of course, they could just pay a lower amount for the plonker in the weighing room - which as you say is what they are getting now anyway. Critically the choice is theirs which it isn't at the moment.
 
Well obviously a trainer having spent hours on the phone to get a decent jock, mostly they do stay on board! - but under the regime you are proposing it would be almost impossible for a small yard/owner to get one of the decent jocks, they would all be hanging on for a price from the bigger yards. Most small owners wouldn't be able to compete with the rich owners with a strings of horses - so concentrating winnings even further into the hands of the already wealthy and successful. As Warbler said.

It's a non-starter imo. As already pointed out the top jocks already earn a huge amount more, by getting on the better horses, commanding retainers and sponsorships, prize money etc etc etc
 
Going round in circles here. A couple of points.

- Don't forget, a jockey would probably only ride one of the horses that you describe now if they didn't have a better offer. Just because their pay would be negotiable under a market-based system does not mean that they wouldn't still be available (at a cheap price) if they were at a track without a ride.

- Jockeys obviously want to ride winners for both sporting and financial reasons. If a small yard has a fancied/talented horse then jocks will want to ride it (and this puts the trainer in a strong position).

Crucially, and hopefully my final point on this matter:

There seems to be an issue here with stables not getting access to "top jocks". It is my belief that the current structure is stifling the emergence of future talent (or specifically the depth of that talent). There is no incentive once a jockey has lost his claim for a trainer to put them up in preference to one of the established guard. Perhaps if the system was fairer, with a broader range of incentives that riders could offer to owners/trainers, then a wider base of jockeys would get more chances to develop. This would surely deepen the pool of jockey talent available to pick from?
 
Back
Top