Are we really a minority sport?

A

ajn1610

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 March 2008
Messages
1,955
Location
Cheshire
Visit site
Reading the news section about equestrian employers got me thinking, so I did a couple of internet searches and this is what I found....

From H and H news: 19,000 equestrian businesses employer 41,000 (for comparison network rail employment figures are 32,000)
BHS: 2.4 million people ride regularly (1.5 million people play golf once a month or more)
150,000 people attend Burghleys and at Badminton in excess of 250,000 turn up for XC day making it the most attended of any paid entry sport event in the UK (wikepedia)
I haven't looked at SJ, Dressage or Race meets but I'm sure they have similar pictures.

So why is it equestrianism is continually classed as a minority sport? Is it purely because we don't get television coverage? I know the numbers aren't up there with something like football but even so I think our major events get sidelined because of this misconception, when other arguably less popular sports get hours of coverage. I know the cost of televising cross country is high but what we get still seem disproportionate to me.
Any thoughts?
 
Don't you think it has to do with despite many ride and compete, the fan base is tiny (except racing and that's fuelled by the gambling more than anything).

The established big events need to do more to draw crowds the likes of football and cricket and golf - how many fans of e.g. R. Whitaker are non-horsey? I bet it would be a small proportion. Not enough people know enough about it. It's a bit niche... e.g. American Football, badminton, ping-pong, downhill mb... and lets face it, the 'horsey-crowd' aren't well liked. Although Claire Balding is doing a great job out there actually.

There's not enough grass-roots type stuff being publicised - you only see the elite and there may be an ambitious few who strive to get there, the perception is that it's hostile.

It's a chicken and the egg, no fans without coverage, no coverage without the cash fans generate. Crap innit?
 
Last edited:
my brother is constantly telling me how he... the average guy loves rugby, likes football and cricket, bbut when it comes to horses 3 words.. no one cares!! :(
i think its because its generally not as exciting as the other sports if you look at it from their point of veiw.. people sitting on horses over jumps.. and thats how it comes across for them.. as the pro's make it look so proffesional, and easy, they think anyone can do it
however i was delighted when he said he enjoyed my birthday treat, going to the festival at gatcombe.. but im sure that was only cos he got to go on a land rover experience and was facinated by the arch of cars!!
 
Following on a little bit from what Tallyho said, along the lines of how many R Whitaker fans are non-horsey, I think that whilst we are large in population we are also a very inclusive community. I do not mean that we spur those "outsiders", quite the opposite as we want them, but we have been unable to be a wide enough draw to attract people with no horsey connection to see horsey events.

To be frank, you do have to be a fan of horses to be able to sit through a few hours of watching horses go round the same circuit. A bit like Formula one. People love it or hate it. They either find it exciting or similar to being put to sleep.

My partner is a complete non-horsey guy. I have asked him whether he wanted to go to events with me and his answer was a straight no. That's your thing, he usually says, and he has no interest in horses. Regardless of how I explain the complexities or excitement in some of the disciplines, it comes to down to whether or not he likes horses. He doesn't really find them interesting at all, so won't go.

That is similar in my mind to why we are a minority sport. We can't attract non-horsey people to come to our events that other main stream sports can because, at the end of the day, regardless of the event or the excitement that we might see ourselves, it is whether or not you are a horse fan which usual dictates whether you attend or not.
 
"To be frank, you do have to be a fan of horses to be able to sit through a few hours of watching horses go round the same circuit. A bit like Formula one. People love it or hate it. They either find it exciting or similar to being put to sleep."

But this is exactly my point. I'd rather put pins in my eyes than watch golf and F1 is dull, unless someone crashes and I can understand that people feel that way about horses too. So how is it that even though these sports have less people taking part in them, and you have to be a true 'fan' to watch them, they get HOURS of TV coverage and hence attract massive corporate sponsors even at lower levels? Is it the approach to PR or that it is accessible because it's on telly? (as someone else said chicken and egg)

I strongly feel there is not a concerted push on the part of equestrianism on the whole in terms of PR. Presumably we have people in place to represent our industry what are they doing to earn their money exactly? When (with the exception of racing) do you ever see equestrianism in the sports pages of the newspapers? A bit of coverage in a specialised publication doesn't cut it tbh.

In Eventing we have massive international sponsors such as HSBC and yet we are constantly the poor relation to 'proper' sport and get to pushed to one side for things like darts coverage, I think it's a joke. If we want to grow as an industry, retain Olympic status, maintain the sponsors we have and have the benefits of sponsorship filter down the levels and be taken seriously by government and so we don't continually get shat on in terms of legislation/taxation etc. this needs to be addressed.

I'll put my drum down now I've finished banging it ;-)
 
Last edited:
I do tend to agree with the OP. Just look at the fuss and furore surrounding the World Cup last year? Team GB so to speak did not exactly acquit itself with flying colours did it, and look at the publicity surround the whole thing. However, look just how well we did at WEG? Did it get any major coverage in both the press and newspapers? It didnt. Our senior eventing team does well most year at the euros, plus our YR and Juniors dont do too bad. Do they get any publicity? No they dont.

I dont know what the answer is. Maybe some good looking celebrity riders who can pose in Hello magazine, endorse some designer brands, have affairs left right and centre, go on a celebrity diet, basically do all the inane stuff which most of the so called celebrities get up to.
 
TheoryX1 said:
I dont know what the answer is. Maybe some good looking celebrity riders who can pose in Hello magazine, endorse some designer brands, have affairs left right and centre, go on a celebrity diet, basically do all the inane stuff which most of the so called celebrities get up to.
Click to expand...

LOL not many riders have much to lose though! Can you imagine if they dropped 5 dress sizes in 5 months a la Hannah Waterman, there'd be nothing there?!
 
ajn1610 said:
"To be frank, you do have to be a fan of horses to be able to sit through a few hours of watching horses go round the same circuit. A bit like Formula one. People love it or hate it. They either find it exciting or similar to being put to sleep."

But this is exactly my point. I'd rather put pins in my eyes than watch golf and F1 is dull, unless someone crashes and I can understand that people feel that way about horses too. So how is it that even though these sports have less people taking part in them, and you have to be a true 'fan' to watch them, they get HOURS of TV coverage and hence attract massive corporate sponsors even at lower levels? Is it the approach to PR or that it is accessible because it's on telly? (as someone else said chicken and egg)

I strongly feel there is not a concerted push on the part of equestrianism on the whole in terms of PR. Presumably we have people in place to represent our industry what are they doing to earn their money exactly? When (with the exception of racing) do you ever see equestrianism in the sports pages of the newspapers? A bit of coverage in a specialised publication doesn't cut it tbh.


I'll put my drum down now I've finished banging it ;-)
Click to expand...

Darts is a cheap production- Even though I think it is one of the most boring "sports" on TV as well snooker, what darts and snooker share is a cheap production cost for TV. Unlike eventing for instance, where we are probably most successful medals wise, you don't need to have 20 odd at least cameras stationed over a couple of hundred acres and at different angles to show a darts match. Much cheaper to air. The average folk understands more about darts than they would about horses as well. My father doesn't play darts but, for some reason, he will watch it. He in fact said once that he watched it because the dart players earning big money looked really normal and he could be just one of them. I think that plays into it as well: Perception. It does go back to people assuming all riders are Rupert Campbell black. It is often what I get from my non horsey friends. They must be all rich and lots of Tiggys, Wiggys and Piggys.

F1- What draws people to F1 is the money involved in the sport. The glamour. The F1 drivers, lets use Hamilton and Button for examples, are akin to Hollywood celebrities because their private lives are fodder for the tabloids. They date supermodels, etc. Plus, whilst the sport may be boring now (and I do turn on now really only at the start to see if there are any crashes plus the end to see who wins) a lot of men would kill to be in Jensen's boots....Paid £3m plus a year, models hanging on to you, jetting all around the world, just for driving a car! Top gear men love it!

The horse world needs to get media savvy. It needs to promote the "pretties" and get faces recognised. It needs to draw people in by creating media names. It needs to broach the void between sports media and national media to get a chance to draw off the main stream vein of publicity.

We need figureheads. We need more WFP/AN affair debacles. It sells, it draws attention, it heightens the status of the sport in the media and then people will see what it is and decide whether they would be interested.

Horse sports need to be seen as glamorous, sexy and exciting before the main stream tunes in.

I say bring it on. The old school may back away but I think the future of the sports needs new outlooks.

Tweeds just are not going to cut it. The SJ's with the bling actually might have the right idea.
 
Agree with everything you said HuggyBear.

Who ever is in charge of PR/media coverage needs a kick up the backside.

I think we have all the elements you've mentioned, they just need promoting correctly.
 
OK so I'm really struggling to explain what I mean so if this comes across wrong I appologise! (I've retyped it like 5 times!)
I think the problem in our sport is that to get to the top you need such an inordiante amount of money the average joe bloggs finds it hard to look at any of our figure heads and go, I want to be like him, because it's just not possible, they're never going to have that sort of money. Where as you look at your average footballer/darts player/F1 driver, they're seen to be normal people who have worked hard to get to where they've got and done it on their own, because of their talent. I think in our sport non-horsey people find it very hard to differentiate the talent from the money and therefore struggle to appreciate it.
If your going to try and use 'pretties' to forward our sport the only one I can think of (and one that IMO is a role model to us all) that would be suitable is Phoebe Buckley, as people can see just how hard she's worked to get to where she is, but there just aren't that many of her around! And TBH I'm not sure how much she's appreciate the limelight, we're a very media-phobic sport!
Hope that makes some vague sort of sense! Appologies for the waffle!
 
I think that the media create demand. When Pippa F (wanting the Grand Slam) was competing against Zara at Burghley (I think) it was a nailbiting finish. Completely non horsey colleagues at work came up to me and said how much they had enjoyed it.

IF horse events were publicised and show then more people would get interested, back in the day, the non horsey public LOVED SJ.

The reasons they now don't I think are primarily twofold.

1. the BBC is leftwing and riding sports are seen as elitist and so get no coverage/ positive publicity
2. Horse events are expensive to stage. Compare the cost of filming Badminton to the cost of filming at the Crucible and it looks like a no brainer. It may be unfair but I think that's the way it is.
 
With other sports I think the fans can imagine themselves doing it. Playing soccer, rugby, cricket, everyone drives a car so can see themselves as a racing driver. So they find it interesting. Darts and snooker are cheap to televise and have their moments. But if you have no interest in horses and do not understand the complexities, then I can see why people don't find it interesting.

I think I read somewhere that racing draws as many spectators as football, don't know if that is true. Think there are racing tips given every day on Radio 4, alongside football, tennis, ruby, cricket news, so racing is given a lot of publicity.
 
vallin said:
OK so I'm really struggling to explain what I mean so if this comes across wrong I appologise! (I've retyped it like 5 times!)
I think the problem in our sport is that to get to the top you need such an inordiante amount of money the average joe bloggs finds it hard to look at any of our figure heads and go, I want to be like him, because it's just not possible, they're never going to have that sort of money. Where as you look at your average footballer/darts player/F1 driver, they're seen to be normal people who have worked hard to get to where they've got and done it on their own, because of their talent. I think in our sport non-horsey people find it very hard to differentiate the talent from the money and therefore struggle to appreciate it.
If your going to try and use 'pretties' to forward our sport the only one I can think of (and one that IMO is a role model to us all) that would be suitable is Phoebe Buckley, as people can see just how hard she's worked to get to where she is, but there just aren't that many of her around! And TBH I'm not sure how much she's appreciate the limelight, we're a very media-phobic sport!
Hope that makes some vague sort of sense! Apologies for the waffle!
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I understood you.

A quick point though. To get to F1 it is actually a very expensive hobby. Racing cars, even at the lower levels, can be very pocket destroying BUT the rewards of top level are in relation to the costs. I refer back to the F1 wages. It is not the same with most horse sports. Most professional riders make their money selling horses, not from the sport they take part in.

What do people want? Money. Glamour. They want a better life and they want something which other people will esteem them for. Why do you think so many boys want to be premiership football players? For the sheer love of football? Nah, don't kid yourself. They see the media image of the football player, we hear about it on TV all time, £100k plus a week. Sponsorship deals....Money. Glamour. Fame. Same with F1.

For equestrianism to be main stream, it needs to become financially viable and tempting. How we do that is the good question to ask.

As quite rightly said before: We DO have the basics already, we need to just learn to use what we have more intelligently.

People want someone to cheer for, they want recognisable faces that they can name them without looking at the small print under the picture. They want idols. They want the underdog, the pin up and the "bad guy".

When Katie Price made her equestrian interests more public, the response by some horsey people was disappointing. I say bring on more Katie Prices. If they can raise the sport up in the public's minds, bring it on.
 
siennamum said:
The reasons they now don't I think are primarily twofold.

1. the BBC is leftwing and riding sports are seen as elitist and so get no coverage/ positive publicity
2. Horse events are expensive to stage. Compare the cost of filming Badminton to the cost of filming at the Crucible and it looks like a no brainer. It may be unfair but I think that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

But see, horse riding at this level IS an elitist sport, and tbh even to a certain extent at the lower levels, even a 1/2 hour riding lesson these days is ~£20 and very few people can afford that regularly, compared to a few pounds an hour for footy coaching. IMO to be able to enjoy a sport you have to have some understanding of it, and in horse riding I think a massive amount of that understanding comes from actually having ridden, and in this day an age I think very few people are lucking enough to be able to afford to have had the opportunity to try it and as such until it's more accessible the numbers just aren't going to be there-hence it's a minority sport.
Again apologies for the rambling hope it makes sense (neuroscience revision is scrambling my brain :rolleyes: )
 
siennamum said:
The reasons they now don't I think are primarily twofold.

1. the BBC is leftwing and riding sports are seen as elitist and so get no coverage/ positive publicity
Am in agreement with the above comment. I also tend to agree that it's just not something that appeals to that many people. Also if there were only one discipline alligned to horses then it would probably get more publicity because there are a hell of a lot of people interested in horses/who ride and it would be their only way of enjoying it. But it's split into so many disciplines. I.e. I don't really watch racing or much dressage, but do like to watch SJ and Eventing.

I can empathise with those who aren't that interested in it too. My OH used to be a professional windsurfer and he is as passionate about it as I am about my riding. But when I go to his windsurfing races etc I find it SO very boring and feel just like a fish out of water (excuse the pun). I can imagine with equestrianism being an even more "money" sport (a hundred times over) and elitist that people who don't do it or know the scene feel pretty uneasy esp at smaller events where there isn't a big shopping village etc more aimed at the general public like there is at the big events. In fact my mum has no interest in horses but put us through the whole of pony club etc and still seems to feel like a fish out of water. Yet she loves to watch snooker on the TV!!!! She would never tune in to badders voluntarily.

However, at times it seems like a good quarter of the population owns a horse, so there must be more of a market for it that just isn't being PR'd properly like others have said.

Really interesting debate. Definitely send in to H&H you might get yourself a bottle champers!!!! :D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
HuggyBear said:
Don't worry, I understood you.

A quick point though. To get to F1 it is actually a very expensive hobby. Racing cars, even at the lower levels, can be very pocket destroying BUT the rewards of top level are in relation to the costs. I refer back to the F1 wages. It is not the same with most horse sports. Most professional riders make their money selling horses, not from the sport they take part in.

What do people want? Money. Glamour. They want a better life and they want something which other people will esteem them for. Why do you think so many boys want to be premiership football players? For the sheer love of football? Nah, don't kid yourself. They see the media image of the football player, we hear about it on TV all time, £100k plus a week. Sponsorship deals....Money. Glamour. Fame. Same with F1.

For equestrianism to be main stream, it needs to become financially viable and tempting. How we do that is the good question to ask.

As quite rightly said before: We DO have the basics already, we need to just learn to use what we have more intelligently.

People want someone to cheer for, they want recognisable faces that they can name them without looking at the small print under the picture. They want idols. They want the underdog, the pin up and the "bad guy".

When Katie Price made her equestrian interests more public, the response by some horsey people was disappointing. I say bring on more Katie Prices. If they can raise the sport up in the public's minds, bring it on.
Click to expand...


The problem with the F1 example is, yes to compete in the sport it is very expensive, but how many of us haven't put the accelerator on just a little bit more than we should have, or taken a corner a little bit to fast and felt that thrill? (please note I'ma acutally a very sensible driver, besides my little 106 take about an hour to get to 60 never mind anything faster :rolleyes: lol ) People can understand F1 without the money, I think it's very hard for people to understand horse riding without the money to have tried it and as such that's when people struggle to distinguish the money from the sport.
 
ORRRRRR (and this is quite synical) is it because dressage and eventing in particular are more "female" sports????? SJ and Racing are more male dominated and seem to get the most airtime!
 
Hels_Bells said:
ORRRRRR (and this is quite synical) is it because dressage and eventing in particular are more "female" sports????? SJ and Racing are more male dominated and seem to get the most airtime!
Click to expand...

But along the same lines racing and SJ are a lot easier to understand than dressage and eventing....
 
vallin said:
The problem with the F1 example is, yes to compete in the sport it is very expensive, but how many of us haven't put the accelerator on just a little bit more than we should have, or taken a corner a little bit to fast and felt that thrill? (please note I'ma acutally a very sensible driver, besides my little 106 take about an hour to get to 60 never mind anything faster :rolleyes: lol ) People can understand F1 without the money, I think it's very hard for people to understand horse riding without the money to have tried it and as such that's when people struggle to distinguish the money from the sport.
Click to expand...

Quite right. Horse sports can get confusing for some of us who are involved in it, let alone civilians! Haha.

Don't worry, I shall not tell anyone about your Stig impressions whilst driving. :D

Also, I just wanted to say with regards to perception, some of our top riders perpetuate the image of it being a sports area for a certain type of person.

William Fox-Pitt, his name sounds posh, he is posh and looks posh. He is pretty but put him as an image for horse sports and you won't disband the notion that horse sports is for snobs and rich people. The fact is, as people have mentioned and you only need to read the "do you need money to compete at the top" thread, you DO need money. Equestrianism will be a very small sphere for people who can afford it by either their own pockets or someone elses.

The someone elses choice is what we can work on. Right now, because of the lack of media coverage and financial viability, we just don't get enough people investing in the sport and riders. If we did, more people from average backgrounds would be able to do more and get to the top with a good dose of luck and talent and you would find more average people wanting to get involved with horse sports.

To see it, you need to believe but to believe it, you need to see it.

Confusing but true. We need to set the ball in motion. Baby steps, it won't be an overnight thing, but every little steps count. It probably won't be in our lifetime, we have a long way to go, but it is important we get it started that it will happen eventually.
 
HuggyBear said:
The someone elses choice is what we can work on. Right now, because of the lack of media coverage and financial viability, we just don't get enough people investing in the sport and riders. If we did, more people from average backgrounds would be able to do more and get to the top with a good dose of luck and talent and you would find more average people wanting to get involved with horse sports.

To see it, you need to believe but to believe it, you need to see it.

Confusing but true. We need to set the ball in motion. Baby steps, it won't be an overnight thing, but every little steps count. It probably won't be in our lifetime, we have a long way to go, but it is important we get it started that it will happen eventually.
Click to expand...

And to be able to work on the someone elses we need to be able to offer them something in return and if we again refer to the 'do you need money to compete at the top' there is very little we can currently offer. Most companies need the average persons business, the average person doesn't do horse riding so why invest you money in riding? Or if your not a business, the only person that is personally going to invest is someone with masses of money that already has an interest as there's no chance of financial return, and that sort of person few and far between, and probably already invested!
So round in a very big circle we go :rolleyes:
 
I think it's seen as a very elitist sport, and people don't always understand. One year at work I got Olympia put on the tv, and a bloke said to me "Oh people chasing foxes in their poncy coats?" Then it came on, and it was the puissance. By the end everyone was really into it, and asking which the British riders were, and standing up to work out the height of the wall. Mum loves watching showjumping and she isn't remotely horsey

Another quote I had from someone at work was "I thought horseriding just gave you bigger thighs, I mean it's not exactly hard work or cardio is it?"
*sighs*
 
It seems to me we are all arguing the same point, public perception of equestrianism ranges from disinterest to out right hostile. Why are the professional bodies and the FEI not using some of their revenue to generate a more positive public images? 2012 is a perfect back drop for this to happen, if we keep on as we are funding is not going to improve and is quite likely to deteriorate.

I agree that we are perceived as a minority sport, but I think it's not really the case and my point is why isn't there a concerted effort to do something about that?
 
Last edited:
vallin said:
And to be able to work on the someone elses we need to be able to offer them something in return and if we again refer to the 'do you need money to compete at the top' there is very little we can currently offer. Most companies need the average persons business, the average person doesn't do horse riding so why invest you money in riding?
Click to expand...

The reasons that companies endorse or sponsor sportmen or celebrities is to increase public awareness. When you can broach the divide between sport and public media (by using the "pretties" and the points already raise, etc) companies will see opportunity.

Coca Cola spends tens of millions a year on advertising and endorsements with various people. They don't know whether they will actually make that money back but what they do know is that it increases brand awareness.

You can stop the circle, as you eyerolled, by making it a sport that outside (not just already horsey rich people) investors want to attach their name to for the point of widening their brand base. They don't do it to see a certain percent return, they do it knowing that if more people know of their brand than the next time they go shopping for one of the products they sell they will be more likely choose that brand because it is "known" to them.

Start creating publicity friendly names in the sport first, get them into the main stream media and then watch as companies come forward wanting to attach itself to their name. XYZ drinks 123 brand, so if you want to be like your favourite idol, drink XYZ.

It doesn't matter who invests, or why they attached it to a certain person (could be that they are just fantastic at what they do or because they are celebrities in the media and are attractive), as long as the money comes into the sport.

You might see WFP promoting hair care for all we know- companies may want to use his luscious locks :p- but it will be money invested regardless.


The more opportunities there are for people to make money, the more they will want to get involved.

Use the celebrity culture for the sports gain. It is not going to go away and is a huge industry in itself. Work on self promotion and using all avenues available.
 
Like Orangehorse said, non-horsy people don't really connect with it, because they can't imagine themselves doing it. If I were to watch a foorball match (and that would be right after poking my eyes out with hot spoons), and had the urge to have a go at football, its a heck of a lot easier to find a ball and have a quick kick about. F1 is expensive and elitist, but virtually all of us drive.

Another problem is that really great horemanship looks effortless (as it should), but a lot of sport (like athletics), looks hard and a real acheivemnt. I took very non-horsey people to Badminton, they were enjoying themselves and clearly thought it was all pretty and nice. They were right by a fence where someone had a fairly crashing fall and were totally shocked- they simply had not appreciated the speed, strength and skill required.

How you translate that to on tv I don't know- although I think things like hat-cams help.
 
ajn1610 said:
I agree that we are perceived as a minority sport, but I think it's not really the case and my point is why isn't there a concerted effort to do something about that?
Click to expand...


I am going to say something that perhaps a few will not like. I think parts of the equine world like the sport as it is. Exclusive, only for certain people. I think my opinion of that spurns from the reactions to Katie Price.

We all know that it takes money to get to the top, millions even, but people don't talk about it. Those riders you see on TV are riding expensive horses, with expensive tack. They got there because of lots of money. Along comes Katie Price, who is more in the public eye and her spending on her horses is more documented (yet no more than other riders pay and I would say even less) who is vilified. I saw it here, I read it on threads. People disliked her for trying to buy her way in but they seemed to forgot that ALL the riders have bought their way in to get to the top. The people who go out to auctions and buy £250k youngsters are no different to Katie. They are using the money they earned/were given to give them a competitive advantage. That is what Katie did but, due to her background and image, people threw their hands up in horror.

The people who are on top at the moment already have the money, that is why they are there, so they are not going to sell themselves to make more. However, to give the chance for the average folk to follow on in their lead they will need to help start the ball rolling.

The reason nothing has happened is because few people seem to be inclined to do what is needed.
 
paisley said:
How you translate that to on tv I don't know- although I think things like hat-cams help.
Click to expand...

I love helmet cams! I enjoy it when you watch the Grand National through the eye of a jockey and you are reeling just watching it.

I do think this is one point that may be hard to work out- Do you push on promoting the sport as difficult, highly skilled and show how great the riders truly are and thus alienating the armchair watches by perhaps scaring them off as they couldn't imagine themselves doing it. Or do you promote how easy it is to ride and how it is open to everyone and therefore make the achievements of the top look easier to obtain. More likely to make people feel like giving it a go but also making the top sports less engaging because they don't see it as anything special.

A hard one, what would you do?:)
 
I think one of the things I have enjoyed the most on TV in recent years was the programme where they took non-riding celebrities and taught them to show jump (was it with Geoff Billington?) for charity. I think that reached out to a lot of non riding people and I think it was a great way to make people understand the skill and nerve required, whilst inspiring them to take up riding themselves. I don't know why there hasn't been another series!!?? I think this sort of "reality" thing could be a great starting point for getting the "someone elses" involved!
 
HuggyBear said:
I am going to say something that perhaps a few will not like. I think parts of the equine world like the sport as it is. Exclusive, only for certain people. I think my opinion of that spurns from the reactions to Katie Price.
Click to expand...

This I agree totally with (and the rest of the post), I don't know KP, I have no reason to dislike her, but equally I wouldn't say I'm a fan. However what she did was no more than what most of us would do it we had the choice (though possibly not with some much pink :p ) The problem is whilst KP loves the limelight and could have been very useful from a PR point our exclusivity wouldn't allow it. Also I don't see any of the elite athletes within our sport putting themselves forward to promote the sport, I don't see WFP doing the hair adverts, possibly because he doesn't need the money and therefore sees no reason to. If you look at the effect people like Victoria Pendleton have had for there sport. How many of us watch the cycling (I do, but I assume most don't) but because her face is out there doing the Hovis ads, I bet a lot of people can now name an Olympic cyclist. But although our sport needs the money and the coverage, the people at the top don't and therefore aren't prepared to do things like advertising to get names/faces known. Follow? lol (I am agreeing with what your saying, just trying to vaguely explain possibly why IYSWIM...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top