HS:How many of you object to CNBC's labeling of dressage and polo as sports for the 1%?

[Starlight 1]

I have to say, when I saw the slideshow about this on CNBC's website, I was pretty upset and pissed off. I'm a dressage enthusiast myself, and have been involved with the sport my entire adult life, and I've never been nor will I ever be a member of the "one percent." My sister plays polo as a hobby, and she's not part of the "one percent" either, and probably never will be. The idiots who run CNBC have it wrong, they really do. These are sports that anyone can participate in, no matter what their economic or social status. ANY horse can do dressage, and almost any horse can play polo with the correct training. No, people don't need to spend 100 or 200K to buy a horse, unless they belong to the group that has more money than it does brains or common sense. If money is no object, then fine, let them spend an arm and leg. It's not a guarantee that they'll win or do well. I understand the Romneys spent a bloody fortune to buy a one third interest in Rafalca, and she didn't even make it to the medal round at the London Games. That's their perogative, but the media shouldn't using that as excuse to insult those of us who don't have 6 figure incomes, yet still participate in this sport and in polo. The same thing applies to polo, by the way. The only people who spend the kind of money that they are suggesting on the website to play polo are those who happen to be involved with the sport on the international level, and are the sponsors of rated players or top level teams. Most of the ordinary folk in the sport (which includes people like my sister) aren't in that category, thank heavens. Nobody I know spends $1,000 to buy a helmet, for pity's sake !! Nor do they spend $15 or 20K to buy polo horses. But you'd never know this by looking at CNBC's slideshow. I'm curious now as to what other peoples' reactions are to CNBC's insults to the horse industry. Please keep your comments civil, okay?

[zephania666]

I object to just about everything about CNBC.

I think your example explains it: the Romneys do it, the Obamas don't, and therefore it's elite for the one percent.

That that is completely wrong and biased doesn't matter; if it'll make Romney look snooty they'll run it.


eta: I do eventing on free tbs I got off the track. They do dressage quite well. How does that fit it their expensive dressage world? Too often nowadays, reporters report their own biases without even a nod to fairness.

Another organization currently maligning the horse world is the New York Times, with their sensationalistic criticism of horse racing.

[Clawndike]

You're understanding of the story is incorrect. The idea of the story is- these are the leisure activities that rich people tend to gravitate towards, and look how much they spend when they do it. They aren't talking about how much it costs to play polo and do dressage. They are saying that this is how much money rich people spend when they do it.

All that aside, it's a fluff piece, and it doesn't provide much useful information. I wouldn't bother taking too much offense. You could boil it all down to, oh my gosh, rich people do extravagant things, who knew?

[Like a Fox]

I don't live in the US, so I wasn't aware of this.

However dressage came under fire during the Olympics too. An article was written deeming it to be 'elitist' and 'not a sport of the people'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympic...Kelly.html

Any sport in it's top level has vast expenses. Look at the ridiculous amount of money that goes into football!
Or the idea that you need money to get into top level dressage, even though many start at the bottom as grooms and stablehands, they simply have talent. It also puts off potential newcomers to the sport, completely neglecting to mention the amount of people who take part in lower level and riding club competitions, who do not have top level horses and who are not rolling in money.

This was an article in responce to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ge-defence

[Albert K]

I agree with CNBC. The vast majority of people do not have the land nor the income to support horse ownership. I do enjoy dressage and think it's a wonderful sport but it's not something that everyone can easily do. Just for sanity's sake let's compare what's required for dressage versus something that everyone can play like soccer.

Things you need for dressage: A horse, somewhere to keep that horse, feed, farrier, vet, tack, truck & trailer for getting to shows, show entrance fees, jodhpurs

Things you need for soccer: Some sort of spherical object (I've seen it played with a ball of rags and/or a rock instead of a ball), feet.

[skinnyAssassin892]

Well, I look at it this way, you can give caviar to a vagrant but that doesn't mean he won't spread it on sliced bread. Allow me to explain, you can take all these classy sports and let the plebeians participate but it doesn't mean that they deserve to play them.
So I wouldn't say these sports are for the 1% because I see all sorts of riff-raff participating and I am truly happy for them. I mean, if there is one thing we shoudl learn from the French Revolution is that pesantry isn't happy, it's only a matter of time before aristorcary becomes unhappy. But when I fly out to England to play polo on a weekend, I can rest assured that I don't have to be rubbing shoulders with some accountant or IT professional during my match.
I believe what CNBC is referring to is the sports in their purest form - only the 1% participate in those versions of the sport.

[gallop]

No, I don't find anything about it to be insulting, and I completely agree with what I see to be the whole point of the article. I think you've completely missed the point of the article, which simply explores the fact that the investment in some sports more than others may involve unexpected costs that can turn out to be much more than originally anticipated. The article identifies sports that are typically more expensive than one might initially realize, and lists some that can have "high price tags associated with them" based on whether they require expensive equipment, require monthly fees, or may involve hidden costs that can add up.

Along with dressage and polo, the article identifies yachting, pheasant hunting, figure skating, golf, and croquet as sports for the 1%. Even Little League is addressed, with the initial costs of a bat, ball and a mitt representing "only the beginning of the story".

Obviously, you can shoot a pheasant or swing a baseball bat at very little cost. But owning and maintaining a horse is always expensive, and renting or leasing one isn't cheap either. Kids on YA are constantly being informed of the many costs that they are unaware of when they anticipate purchasing horses, and I know that you count among those of us who point those costs out to them!!

The point of the article is that the more you get invested into these particular sports, the more the costs may soar, and the deeper you may have to dig into your pockets.

[mulewrangler]

I agree with the 100% sure you can by a dressage saddle throw it on a horse take low level lessons and show at locals shows BUT to actually compete in Real dressage you have to have money Its just fact that Rich people get to do more same thing in the western world.

[Two To Tango]

I agree. I agree that's it's bloody expensive to do in high high high levels, but it's not for the 1 percent, either.

I do eventing, which involves Dressage. I do it on a $400 pony that won't make it far. Sure, it's not an Olympic level, but I'm still doing Dressage. I barely have any money, and work off my lessons, so I still get top notch lessons. I get higher on lesson horses than I can my own.

I do agree it's an expensive sport, but you don't have to spend 100k+ for an Olympic level horse. I mean look at Boyd Martin, he got a rescue for under 1k and went into the Olympics on him!!

Same goes for Polo.