We — and only we — control our perception
Every so often, something happens outside of harness racing that quietly tells us more about ourselves than it does about the decision itself. It doesn’t come with a press release about the future of horse racing, and it isn’t framed as some referendum in front of the public on racing — but if we’re paying attention, it becomes one of the clearest signals we get.
The recent changes announced by FanDuel are one of those moments. Not because they define horse racing, but because they reflect how the broader market is choosing to engage with it — “it” being how the mainstream audience is ingesting racing.
There’s a moment most of us have had — whether we’re in the grandstand, the paddock, or watching from home (like many of us do nowadays) — when the favorite turns for home, opens up by three lengths, and the outcome feels all but certain before they even hit mid-stretch. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with a good horse winning. But at that moment, if you’re holding a ticket or thinking about making a wager, the question quietly creeps in: Was there really an opportunity here for wagering?
That question, more than anything else, sits at the heart of where racing finds itself today. Because as much as we are a sport built on tradition, horsemanship and community, we are also — whether we like to say it out loud or not — a wagering product. And in today’s environment, wagering products are judged every single day against a growing list of alternatives that are faster, simpler, and, in many cases, more engaging. That reality is not something happening around us; it’s something we’re operating inside of every day.
FanDuel’s decision to phase out its television network, long associated with racing under the TVG banner, is one of those signals. While its wagering platform remains intact, the move away from a dedicated, around-the-clock racing broadcast is significant. It would be easy to frame that decision as something happening to racing. But the most honest and useful way to look at it is this: It’s a response to the realities of the market we’re operating in. FanDuel didn’t step away from racing television because of racing alone. It responded to how customers are engaging, where attention is going, and how effectively the product performs in that environment. Driven by data, not emotion. And as an industry, we need to own our role in that reality.
Because, if we’re honest with ourselves, the challenges don’t begin with distribution. Instead, they begin with the product.
We know that field size matters. A race with six or seven horses doesn’t offer the same wagering depth as one with nine or 10. Don’t get me wrong — the winter has been rough for us all and expenses stack up, and as a horseperson myself, I too can appreciate the occasional short field for my own selfish reasons. But, as we know, the wagering combinations are fewer, the potential returns are less, and the overall experience is that the wagering scheme is diminished. We know that balance matters. When races feel predictable, whether that perception is entirely fair or not, bettors adjust. Oftentimes they adjust by wagering less or not at all. And we know that consistency matters. Bettors are remarkably perceptive. They recognize patterns, they recognize variance, and, over time, they respond to the experience they’re being given.
Layered on top of that is our continued discussion of fragmentation. Racing operates across many jurisdictions, many tracks, and many interests. Each entity is doing what it believes is right for its own operation, but collectively, we don’t always present the strongest or most efficient product to the market. That fragmentation doesn’t just affect wagering pools, it affects how the product is perceived and consumed. This isn’t a new topic.
Harness racing offers a daily cadence that, when presented correctly, can keep bettors engaged over time. But those strengths only matter if the product consistently delivers on them.
– TC Lane
Because the modern bettor has options. And I can assure you, they will have more in the future from our competition. They have access to products that are designed around them from the ground up. The experience is intuitive. The engagement is immediate. If racing doesn’t meet that standard — both in how the product performs and how it’s delivered — we fall behind.
And this is where the FanDuel decision becomes instructive.
It’s not that they walked away from racing. They didn’t. But they made a clear determination that a traditional television approach is no longer the most effective way to engage their customers, particularly when the underlying product isn’t consistently driving the level of participation needed to justify that format. I touched on this briefly in my previous column regarding television and our reach, so this isn’t a new topic for me either.
FanDuel is once again, as the customers have been doing, giving the racing industry a hard but useful signal: that we can’t rely on old distribution models to carry us forward, and that we can’t rely on content alone to compensate for a product that isn’t consistently compelling.
If the product were consistently strong — if it were reliably delivering full fields, competitive racing, and compelling wagering opportunities — then distribution would adapt to meet it. That’s how strong products behave in any market. Instead, what we’re seeing is a shift. The product isn’t driving the distribution model, and the distribution model isn’t strong enough to compensate for the product. It’s basic economics. This is the balance we have to address.
The path forward, then, requires us to look inward at both sides of the equation.
First, the product itself. We need to continue working toward fuller fields where possible, stronger competitive balance, and a racing product that consistently offers genuine wagering opportunities. We need to think carefully about how races are written, how they are scheduled, and how they interact with one another on a broader level, not leaving out our long-lasting issue of post time overlap. We need to prioritize consistency and reliability because trust in our product is one of the most valuable assets we have.
Second, the delivery. The way we present racing to the customer has to evolve alongside the way they consume everything else. That means embracing digital-first engagement and ensuring that information is presented clearly and at the moment it’s needed. It means recognizing that attention is no longer captured through hours of programming on Channel XYZ 24/7. And it means acknowledging that, while content still matters, it has to be integrated into the wagering experience, not separated from it.
There’s also an opportunity in how we use data. Today’s bettor expects insight and context that helps them make informed decisions. Tools that bring clarity to driver performance, race dynamics, and outcomes can enhance the experience in meaningful ways. When bettors feel informed, they engage with more confidence. When they feel disconnected, they disengage. This is something that internally we have been focusing on by bringing the “experience” to the public via our platforms. And we too can do much better in this area.
Through all of this, we have to remember what makes our sport unique. Harness racing still offers something few wagering products can match in terms of frequency, strategy, and complexity. It offers a daily cadence that, when presented correctly, can keep bettors engaged over time. But those strengths only matter if the product consistently delivers on them. And not to forget, we have to deliver it in a manner that “they” want to receive it, not how the generations before did. Today, they have many more options than in years and decades past.
The challenge is making “at its best” the standard, not the exception.
FanDuel didn’t change the trajectory of harness racing with one decision, but it did make something clear: The market will respond to what we deliver and how well we deliver it.
The opportunity in front of us is not to defend where we’ve been, but to improve what we offer. If we strengthen the product and modernize how we bring it to the customer, we won’t need to ask whether the industry is paying attention. Again, we must pay attention to the cues.
The market is telling us. It’s up to us to listen.
TC Lane
This column appears in the May 2026 issue of Hoof Beats, the official magazine of the USTA. To learn more, or to become a subscriber to harness racing’s premier monthly publication, click here.