Paying for Playing or Paying for Winning : The Logic of the Short Track Payout

I think the one thing I have heard more often in the pits then anything else in recent years is, I don't race for the pay, I race for the fun of it.

Most teams it would seem to me, would like to see the payout at least cover the basic costs of getting to the track. Tow costs, tires, racing fuel, and driver's pit pass.

Too often, when speaking to teams I hear the same words I might hear at a Casino. "I gotta finish in the Top 5 tonight or we can't race next week"; "I need a win or I'm done"; "We just can't afford to finish in the back half tonight".

That all sounds too eerily similar to "If I can hit just one big payout"; "I can feel I'm about to go on a run"; "One big pot and I'm back in the game".

In the NFL, probably the most successful sports franchise in the world, the owners all receive equal pay from all league revenues. TV contracts, stadium attendance (did you know teams share 50/50 the gate ?), a Salary Cap.. all designed so all the participants start and end on level playing field. The individual venues concessions. in stadium advertising, merchandise sales and other revenue producing items/services are left to the individual team, but the vast majority of the income in the NFL is even across all teams.

So why is it in Short Track Racing, the preponderance of the payout goes to the Top 5, while the balance doesn't even cover their costs ? Can the Top 5 successfully continue their operations without the balance of the field ? Can the track survive with only the Top 5 still in the game ?

If pride is the driving force behind short track racing.. would a payout which was more balanced top to bottom enhance car count, promote weekly participation and ultimately lead to improved car counts ?

Car counts drive attendance. No cars, no fans.

And the racing needs to be good. A Big 5, Little 20 (or worse, a Big One and little 19) isn't the type of action which motivates people to come back week after week. It would seem to me, that a track which incentivized good competitive racing through the field.. and not just at the top of the field.. would ultimately reap higher rewards in the form of increased car count and increased fan count. That in turn would result in higher payout top to bottom, further reinforcing participation and stimulating attendance.

Racing is expensive.. if you can't afford it, you probably shouldn't be doing it. We aren't talking about a socialized racing where first and twentieth pay the same.. but should first really be 5x or 10x last ?

In the various race shops I've been in.. when drivers have shown me their pride wall.. I don't ever recall seeing a photo copy of a check in a frame or a photo of a guy holding a fist full of cash. Rarely do I hear a driver saying "I won $3000" for that race. What I do see are trophies, photo's of teams holding checkered flags and newspaper clippings mementoing the event.

So what do you think would happen if a payout went something like this.. An area track has a $3315 purse for a 20 car field, with a payout which goes 1.)$460, 2.)$350, 3.)$275, 4.)$225, 5.)$185, 6.)$160, 7.)$150, 8.)$140, 9.)$130, 10.)$125, 14.)$110, 18.)$100. ((to save you some math, that's $13 per lap for the winner. $2.85/lap for last))

What would happen if the payout went something like this.. $5 per lap completed on lead lap, $4 per lap completed off lead lap, $2 per lap led, $75 bonus for 1st, $50 for 2nd, $25 for 3rd. $50 bonus for fast time. The max purse of this race is $3725. That's all cars finishing all laps on lead lap. Based on a summary of results, more often then not.. only the Top 10 to 12 finish all laps on the lead lap.. at least 2 to 3 cars don't finish half the laps. If just 1 car doesn't finish half the laps, that drops off $85 from the purse.. and if 2 cars don't finish half the laps and 4 cars run all the laps but half of them not on the lead lap.. your back to a $3400 purse. And of course, if a couple extra cars drop out, the purse is even lower.. BUT -- Any car which finishes 25 laps makes the same amount of money as they would have made for just starting.

Realizing that is a lot of math.. don't get bogged down so much in the actual number.. but in the theory.

Do racers race for the Money.. or do they do it for Pride ?

If the payout plane was more flat.. would it motivate more cars to participate ? Would a smaller payout cause drivers to not try as hard to win ? Does finishing races to collect full pay motivate drivers to take less big risks ? Would that result in better racing or worse racing ?

Thoughts, comments ?