[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

History shows that money paid has no bearing on "race quality", ask any local short track fan.
Just looking at 2004 earnings stats, which are probably double that now, the top drivers would still give 100% regardless of purse, but being sponsor driven, as you say, if there is a claw-back in money coming in, who knows.


According to Forbes magazine,
Dale Earnhardt, Jr. made $20 million in 2004.
Jeff Gordon made $19 million.
(For race car drivers overall, the highest paid was Michael Schumacher with a whopping $80 million in 2004.)

Of those numbers how much was actually earned racing ??? Trinkets sold has nothing to do with race earnings.

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Of those numbers how much was actually earned racing ??? Trinkets sold has nothing to do with race earnings.

Quick Google search....

AVONDALE, Ariz. -- Even though he has an annual income estimated at around $50 million, Dale Earnhardt Jr. sees himself as a normal, everyday guy.
And the most popular NASCAR driver for three years running in fan voting is pretty convincing when he downplays his star status.

"I don't really look at myself as a celebrity. There have been only a couple times when I sort of felt that way, but for the most part, I just feel pretty normal," he said.
That doesn't exactly sound like a racer whose souvenir sales will double those of any other driver by the time tonight's Nextel Cup race is over at Phoenix International Raceway. According to an industry source, gross sales of "Junior" items are between $500,000 to $1 million per race. His sales are at least twice that of Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart, who collectively have won six Cup championships.
Earnhardt has 16 career victories worth nearly $36 million, but he has won zero Cup titles

[jks812]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Just looking at 2004 earnings stats, which are probably double that now, the top drivers would still give 100% regardless of purse, but being sponsor driven, as you say, if there is a claw-back in money coming in, who knows.

Alot of them don't really give 100% now. Most of them points race and to me thats not giving 100%.

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by jks812

Alot of them don't really give 100% now. Most of them points race and to me thats not giving 100%.

There is a bunch of guys that are hard core "racers", and I do believe would continue to thrill their audience regardless of purse size or venue.
The obvious ones that come to my mind are:
T.Stewart, Kyle Busch, J. Gordon, JP.Montoya,
R. Gordon, K. Harvick,
I’m sure others can add worthy names to that list, but those guys are on top of mine.
I always thought that racing for points is just "smart" racing when your car is just average and your looking at the big picture, after all, it’s been said that the car is up to 70% of the equation.
But yes, your right, there is a lot of "drivers" that are just glad to be there.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by bob101

Call me a heretic but I think the on track racing would improve if NASCAR started loosing sponsors and money.

Even if cars cost 1/2 as much as they do now the racing would be just as good.

They could cur the ridiculous purses paid (normally 40% to the driver, 60% to the owner) and I think the quality of drivers would improve and the drama from the current crop of drivers would decrease if they made a lot less.

If you're a heretic, then I'm a heretic's helper, heretic's apprentice or heretic junior.

Gee, I wonder how NASCAR ever existed and and managed to grow in the years before mega-teams, $20 million+ sponsorships and corporate-sponsored races and tracks? Maybe it was all an optical allusion?

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

If you're a heretic, then I'm a heretic's helper, heretic's apprentice or heretic junior.

Gee, I wonder how NASCAR ever existed and and managed to grow in the years before mega-teams, $20 million+ sponsorships and corporate-sponsored races and tracks? Maybe it was all an optical allusion?

It's was as much of an illusion as me not drinkin

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

If you're a heretic, then I'm a heretic's helper, heretic's apprentice or heretic junior.

Gee, I wonder how NASCAR ever existed and and managed to grow in the years before mega-teams, $20 million+ sponsorships and corporate-sponsored races and tracks? Maybe it was all an optical allusion?

No optical illusion.
The manufacturers were the ones putting the money (they were the de facto and de jure sponsors), while drivers were constraint to sell the "stuff" themselves and also go to other places/race-series to supplement their incomes, like say the Indy 500.
And the NASCAR head honchos in this period weren't too content with the likes of Granatelli sniffing around wanting to paint cars in STP red and to fill them with (so many) stickers.
When the manufacturers decided to no longer "be so generous", NASCAR desperate for cash did the same thing the USAC/IMS/Indy and FIA/F1 did, namely got on their knees and welcomed the likes of Winston and now allowed Granatelli to paint them red like he did in Indy and F1 and the australian Tasman Series and so on and so forth.