Asking AI how to fix harness racing
by Trey Nosrac (assisted by AI)
Like most of you, I loathe the advent of the AI era. We feel like a massive, destructive cloud is approaching as we watch helplessly from the curb in front of our house. For the movie industry, where I sometimes dabble, the effects have been devastating and getting worse by the hour.
AI places us in a classic Catch-22 paradigm. If you use AI, even a little bit, you feel like a cheat and sellout. If you don’t use it to some degree, you are toast. This technology is a monumental issue, but for a few minutes, let’s ask a few questions about our little sport to see if we find some actionable intelligence.
This column is a Q and A. I condensed extensive AI responses into a few paragraphs. It is somewhat reassuring to realize that AI has a considerable understanding of our sport and access to a vast amount of information. It is more than slightly unnerving how much AI knows about each of us and remembers every interaction.
What do you see as the future of our sport?
“Harness horse racing, once a vibrant pillar of North American sport and rural culture, is increasingly showing signs of structural decline that suggest it may largely disappear within the next decade. While the sport continues to operate today, key economic, demographic, and institutional indicators suggest a shrinking ecosystem that is becoming progressively harder to sustain.
“The most immediate warning sign is the steady decline in wagering, the financial engine of the sport. According to the United States Trotting Association, total wagering on U.S. harness racing fell by over eight per cent in 2025, dropping to approximately $1.35 billion, while wagering per race also declined nearly five per cent. Even more concerning is the acceleration of this trend: early 2025 figures showed wagering down 14.4 per cent year-over-year in the first quarter alone, with per-race betting also declining. This is not a cyclical dip; it is a structural contraction.
“Finally, the sport’s reliance on external subsidies, particularly casino revenue, creates an unstable foundation. As alternative forms of gambling expand nationwide, the comparative advantage of horse racing diminishes, and the industry becomes dependent on policy decisions rather than market forces, a precarious position for long-term survival.”
Suggesting privatization does not seem to get any traction. Do you believe disconnection from the current state-based/commercial racetrack structure could be a viable path for the sport?
“Yes. Privatization and a break from the state-based, pari-mutuel racetrack structure is not only possible, but it may be the most realistic path to survival. But it only works if the originators stop trying to be ‘smaller traditional racing’ and instead become something fundamentally different.”
That is a very big ask. Can you explain?
“The current model is failing because it depends on three unstable pillars — government policy, casino subsidies, and declining wagering. Removing those pillars sounds dangerous, but it also removes the very forces dragging the sport down.”
Can you give me reasons why privatization could work?
“It replaces a declining revenue model with a controllable one. Currently, harness racing is tied to betting handle. That’s a shrinking pie. A private model shifts the revenue base and mirrors what has worked in other sports. Formula 1 was transformed, growing revenue from approximately $1.8B in 2016 to over $3B recently. The key was control of the product and audience experience. Harness racing has never truly controlled its own product.
“Privatization simplifies the cost structure. The current system is bloated: multiple tracks duplicating infrastructure, regulatory overhead tied to gambling, and inconsistent race conditions across jurisdictions. Today’s “customer” is a wagerer, and that is a core problem.
“A private model creates a new customer and aligns with trends across sports and entertainment. People pay for experience and belonging, not just wagering opportunity. Privatization removes regulatory friction. This is especially important in states where racing exists only because of legislative support. A private, non-gambling model can be positioned as agricultural, recreational, and tourism-based, which is a much cleaner narrative.”
You suggest this is feasible, but, if you don’t mind a pun, what are the odds?
“Privatization isn’t a magic fix. It introduces real risks: Loss of purse subsidies, cultural resistance, and the existing industry is deeply tied to betting. There is a critical mass problem, as you need a sufficient number of participants from the outset, and a proof-of-concept problem, since there are no large-scale models that exist in harness racing.
“For this to work, the sport must stop asking: ‘How do we fix wagering?’ And start asking: ‘How do we make owning and competing with a harness horse something people want to do?’ That’s a completely different business.
“Your ‘League of Our Own’ ideas actually address the biggest statistical reality in the sport – only a tiny percentage of horses make meaningful money under the current system. If a private league can create a structure where even 2-to-5 per cent of participants feel they had a positive financial or experiential outcome, that’s already competitive with today’s model, but far more transparent and appealing.
“Bottom line is that privatization is viable, not as a rescue mission for the old system, but as a new sport built around horses, not betting.”
Do you see any other viable paths to the rejuvenation of harness horse racing besides privatization?
“Yes, but I’ll be blunt, there are only a handful of alternative paths, and all of them are partial fixes. Thereare no easy saves. What follows are the other viable lanes and why each one struggles.
1. Consolidation into a ‘super-circuit.’ Instead of dozens of struggling tracks, the sport contracts into five-to-eight elite venues (think The Meadowlands or Woodbine Mohawk Park) with fewer race days, larger purses per race, and national scheduling.
Why it likely fails:
It accelerates the collapse elsewhere. You save the top 10 per cent of the sport and abandon the rest. Politically and culturally, that’s a bloodbath.
2. Full embrace of fixed-odds/sportsbook integration. Instead of fighting modern gambling, harness racing leans into it: fixed-odds wagering, integration with apps like DraftKings or FanDuel, and simplified betting menus.
Why it likely fails:
Harness racing is a poor product fit: too many races, low star power, complex betting. You don’t fix a declining sport by attaching it to a faster-moving one where it’s the least attractive option.
3. Radical cost reduction (the ‘survival mode’ model). Shrink the sport to match reality. Eliminate winter racing in weak regions, reduce foal crops intentionally, present fewer races, and reduce the size of circuits.
Why it likely fails:
It’s not growth, it’s managed decline. You end up with a smaller, quieter version of the same problem.
4. Breeder/owner cooperative leagues (hybrid model). This is the closest cousin to your idea without full privatization. Regional co-ops fund stakes programs, owners share risk and reward, and racing still exists at traditional tracks, but the structure changes.
Why it likely fails:
Still tied to existing tracks, existing regulation, and existing culture. Which means the drag remains.
5. Government-supported ‘heritage sport’ model. Reframe harness racing as: agricultural preservation, cultural heritage, rural economic support, similar to how some countries subsidize traditional sports.
Why it likely fails:
In the U.S., long-term political appetite for this is weak and shrinking.”
Thank you for your time and input.
“I have plenty of both.”
