About distractions and prize money

By DAVID GREEN

Two NASCAR-related news items caught my attention this week. One was the opening of Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s new bar, Whiskey River, in Charlotte, and the other was a piece by a Los Angeles times writer about the complexity of NASCAR's prize money distribution.

First, let's let Whiskey River take our minds (apologies to Willie Nelson for that one).

There's nothing novel about a sports figure opening what the Brits would call a public house, or pub. I guess one of the first was prizefighter Jack Dempsey, whose New York bar is iconic. It was even a location site in the famous movie "The Godfather." But this may be a first for the Bible-Belt South. If somebody knows of another one, let me know.

Of course, Junior had his long-running sponsorship with Budweiser and it should come as no surprise to any knowledgeable NASCAR fan that he would become a bar owner.

It's also not surprising that there has been some sniping from the peanut gallery, not about the morality of a sports hero opening a bar but about whether Junior ought not be focusing on his day job, given that he has been winless all these races.

Is that a criticism to which all race drivers must be subject, or is it limited to sons of famous race drivers? Surely the two who have heard that complaint the most are Dale Jr. and Kyle Petty.

Kyle, according to his critics, spent too much time on side business ventures, such as his Boot Barn retail store, and music, which at one time seemed to have as much appeal for his as racing. These "distractions" held him back, many kibitzers thought.

This is one example of the paradox of modern society. Ever since doctors began to specialize in specific types of medical practice, it seems, there has been a prevailing wisdom that you had to focus on one thing to be very good at it. In contrast, some have attempted to elevate multi-tasking to an art form, or feel they are compelled to.

As for me, I never was so hung up on any one subject that I wanted to abandon all others. Perhaps that's why I never reached the pinnacle of anything. More likely, I think, it's because only a certain few are ever destined to reach pinnacles at any rate, and if 100 percent immersion is in fact required, then I don't want to reach any pinnacles. Someone else can have them, and welcome.

I always loved Elvis Presley's music, but I never for a second wanted to trade places with him.

As for the NASCAR payoff figures story, this is surely a sign of a newcomer to the land of auto racing. None of us in the long-in-the-tooth racefan category give much thought anymore to the idea that you don't always make more money than they guys you beat on the track.

Any discussion of race purses reminds me of a story Bud Moore told, about how he and the half-dozen or so other top team owners once badgered Big Bill France to increase prize money. France did, but the increase went to the bottom of the finishing order, not the top. When the irate winning car owners asked him why, France told them: "Because you sons-of-b-----s need somebody to pass!"

"You know what? He was right," Moore said. "Wasn't nobody going to pay good money to see six cars race."

Jim Hunter's assertion that the winner has never been paid less than a non-winning driver may be accurate according to official race reports, but in the old days of "deal money" between the promoter and driver or team owner, I bet that wasn't always the case.

As far as I'm concerned, the prize money structure is the least logical thing about auto racing economics. This, after all, is the sport in which, if you want to make a small fortune, you should start with a big one.