Florida Statute 550.6305 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 550
PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING

View Entire Chapter

550.6305 Intertrack wagering; guest track payments; accounting rules.—

(1) All guest tracks which are eligible to receive broadcasts and accept wagers on horseraces from a host track racing under either a thoroughbred or quarter horse permit shall be entitled to payment of 7 percent of the total contributions to the pari-mutuel pool on wagers accepted at the guest track. All guest tracks that are eligible to receive broadcasts and accept wagers on greyhound races or jai alai games from a host track other than a thoroughbred or harness permitholder shall be entitled to payments of not less than 5 percent of the total contributions to the daily pari-mutuel pool on wagers accepted at the guest track. All guest tracks that are eligible to receive broadcasts and accept wagers on horseraces from a host track racing under a harness horse permit shall be entitled to a payment of 5 percent of the total contributions to the daily pari-mutuel pool on wagers accepted at the guest track. However, if a guest track is a horserace permitholder that accepts intertrack wagers during its current race meet, one-half of the payment provided in this subsection and s. 550.6345 shall be paid as purses during its current race meet.

(a) However, if the host track is a thoroughbred permitholder, and the guest track is also a thoroughbred permitholder and accepts intertrack wagers on thoroughbred races during its current race meet, one-third of the payment provided in this subsection shall be paid as purses during its current race meet. In addition, an amount equal to 2 percent of the intertrack handle at the thoroughbred guest track shall be remitted by the host track to the guest thoroughbred track, which amount shall be deducted from the purses required to be paid by the host track. Such amount shall be paid by the guest thoroughbred track as purses during its current race meet.

(b) If thoroughbred intertrack wagering is taken at any guest track, including a thoroughbred guest track, which is located within 25 miles of any thoroughbred permitholder that is not conducting live racing, the host track shall pay to such thoroughbred permitholder an amount equal to 2 percent of the intertrack handle at all such guest tracks, including the guest thoroughbred track, which amount shall be deducted from the purses otherwise required to be paid by the host track. This amount shall be used by the thoroughbred permitholder to pay purses during its next race meet.

(2) For the purposes of calculation of odds and payoffs and distribution of the pari-mutuel pools, all intertrack wagers shall be combined with the pari-mutuel pools at the host track.

(3) All forms of pari-mutuel wagering shall be allowed on all wagering authorized under s. 550.615 and this section.

(4) The takeout on all intertrack wagering shall be the same as the takeout on similar pari-mutuel pools conducted at the host track.

(5) The commission shall adopt rules providing an expedient accounting procedure for the transfer of the pari-mutuel pool in order to properly account for payment of state taxes, payment to the guest track, payment to the host track, payment of purses, payment to breeders’ associations, payment to horsemen’s associations, and payment to the public.

(6) Each host track or guest track conducting intertrack wagering shall annually file an audit identifying the intertrack wagering conducted, from wagering conducted live, which audit shall be in compliance with s. 550.125.

(7) No guest track shall make any payment to any patron on any pari-mutuel ticket purchased on any race broadcast until the stewards, judges, or panel of judges at the host track where the race or game originates has confirmed the race or game as official.

(8) The entry and participation for a purse or other prize of any racing animal by the owner of the animal and the jockey or driver is tantamount to the acceptance of such purse or prize as full and complete remuneration and payment for such entry and participation, including the broadcast of such event.

(9) A host track that has contracted with an out-of-state horse track to broadcast live races conducted at such out-of-state horse track pursuant to s. 550.3551(5) may broadcast such out-of-state races to any guest track and accept wagers thereon in the same manner as is provided in s. 550.3551.

(a) For purposes of this section, “net proceeds” means the amount of takeout remaining after the payment of state taxes, purses required pursuant to s. 550.0951(3)(c)1., the cost to the permitholder required to be paid to the out-of-state horse track, and breeders’ awards paid to the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association and the Florida Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association, to be used as set forth in s. 550.625(2)(a) and (b).

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) and s. 550.625(1) and (2)(a), the distribution of the net proceeds that are retained by a thoroughbred host track from the takeout on an out-of-state race rebroadcast under this subsection shall be as follows:

1. One-third of the remainder of such proceeds shall be paid to the guest track;

2. One-third of the remainder of such proceeds shall be retained by the host track; and

3. One-third of the remainder of such proceeds shall be paid by the host track as purses at the host track.

(c) All guest tracks other than thoroughbred permitholders that are eligible to receive wagers on out-of-state horseraces rebroadcast from a host track racing under a thoroughbred horse permit shall be subject to the distribution of the net proceeds as specified in paragraph (a) unless the host and guest permitholders and the recognized horseman’s group agree to a different distribution of their respective portions of the proceeds by contract.

(d) Any permitholder located in any area of the state where there are only two permits, one for dogracing and one for jai alai, may accept wagers on rebroadcasts of out-of-state thoroughbred horse races from an in-state thoroughbred horse racing permitholder and shall not be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) if such thoroughbred horse racing permitholder located within the area specified in this paragraph is both conducting live races and accepting wagers on out-of-state horseraces. In such case, the guest permitholder shall be entitled to 45 percent of the net proceeds on wagers accepted at the guest facility. The remaining proceeds shall be distributed as follows: one-half shall be retained by the host facility and one-half shall be paid by the host facility as purses at the host facility.

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) and s. 550.625(1) and (2)(b), the proceeds that are retained by a harness host facility from the takeout on a race broadcast under this subsection shall be distributed as follows:

1. Of the total intertrack handle on the broadcast, 1 percent shall be deducted from the proceeds and paid to the Florida Standardbred Breeders and Owners Association, Inc., to be used as set forth in s. 550.625(2)(b);

2. One-third of the remainder of such proceeds shall be paid to the guest facility;

3. One-third of the remainder of such proceeds shall be retained by the host facility; and

4. One-third of the remainder of said proceeds shall be paid by the host facility as purses at the host facility.

(f) Any permitholder located in any area of the state where there are only two permits, one for dogracing and one for jai alai, may accept wagers on rebroadcasts of out-of-state harness horse races from an in-state harness horse racing permitholder and shall not be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) if such harness horse racing permitholder located within the area specified in this paragraph is conducting live races. In such case, the guest permitholder shall be entitled to 45 percent of the net proceeds on wagers accepted at the guest facility. The remaining proceeds shall be distributed as follows: one-half shall be retained by the host facility and one-half shall be paid by the host facility as purses at the host facility.

(g)1. Any thoroughbred permitholder which accepts wagers on a simulcast signal must make the signal available to any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering under the provisions of ss. 550.615-550.6345.

2. Any thoroughbred permitholder which accepts wagers on a simulcast signal received after 6 p.m. must make such signal available to any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering under the provisions of ss. 550.615-550.6345, including any permitholder located as specified in s. 550.615(6). Such guest permitholders are authorized to accept wagers on such simulcast signal, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary.

3. Any thoroughbred permitholder which accepts wagers on a simulcast signal received after 6 p.m. must make such signal available to any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering under the provisions of ss. 550.615-550.6345, including any permitholder located as specified in ¹s. 550.615(9). Such guest permitholders are authorized to accept wagers on such simulcast signals for a number of performances not to exceed that which constitutes a full schedule of live races for a quarter horse permitholder pursuant to s. 550.002(10), notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, except that the restrictions provided in ¹s. 550.615(9)(a) apply to wagers on such simulcast signals.

No thoroughbred permitholder shall be required to continue to rebroadcast a simulcast signal to any in-state permitholder if the average per performance gross receipts returned to the host permitholder over the preceding 30-day period were less than $100. Subject to the provisions of s. 550.615(4), as a condition of receiving rebroadcasts of thoroughbred simulcast signals under this paragraph, a guest permitholder must accept intertrack wagers on all live races conducted by all then-operating thoroughbred permitholders.

(10) All races or games conducted at a permitholder’s facility, all broadcasts of such races or games, and all broadcast rights relating thereto are owned by the permitholder at whose facility such races or games are conducted and constitute the permitholder’s property as defined in s. 812.012(4). Transmission, reception of a transmission, exhibition, use, or other appropriation of such races or games, broadcasts of such races or games, or broadcast rights relating thereto without the written consent of the permitholder constitutes a theft of such property under s. 812.014; and in addition to the penal sanctions contained in s. 812.014, the permitholder has the right to avail itself of the civil remedies specified in ss. 772.104, 772.11, and 812.035 in addition to any other remedies available under applicable state or federal law.

(11) To the extent that any rights, privileges, or immunities granted to pari-mutuel permitholders in this section conflict with any provision of any other law or affect any order or rule of the Florida Public Service Commission relating to the regulation of public utilities and the furnishing to others of any communication, wire service, or other similar service or equipment, the rights, privileges, and immunities granted under this section prevail over such conflicting provision.

History.—s. 49, ch. 92-348; s. 17, ch. 96-364; s. 10, ch. 98-190; s. 20, ch. 2000-354; s. 27, ch. 2001-63; s. 85, ch. 2002-1; s. 14, ch. 2002-2; s. 101, ch. 2019-167; s. 28, ch. 2021-271; s. 43, ch. 2022-7.

¹Note.—Repealed by s. 44, ch. 2000-354.

F.S. 550.6305 on Google Scholar

F.S. 550.6305 on CourtListener

Amendments to 550.6305

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 550.6305

Total Results: 4 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

Gulfstream Park Racing v. Tampa Bay Downs, 948 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2006).

Cited 41 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2006 Fla. LEXIS 2207, 2006 WL 2690152

...violated Florida law. On September 14, 2002, the DPW issued a declaratory statement finding that the exclusive agreements did violate Florida law. The declaratory statement indicated that the exclusive *603 agreements violated the clear dictates of section 550.6305(9)(g)(1), relating to simulcast signals, but specifically stated that "[n]othing in this declaratory statement should be construed as a statement by the Division that Gulfstream Park has, in fact, violated section 550.615(3) [relating to intertrack wagering in general]." Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n v....

...In response, Gulfstream sued TBD in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that Gulfstream's exclusive dissemination agreements with the out-of-state tracks were valid and enforceable under state law. Gulfstream, 399 F.3d at 1278. TBD filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that sections 550.615(3) and 550.6305(9)(g)(1) of the Florida Wagering Act prohibited such agreements....

...re, entered summary final judgment in favor of TBD. Id. Gulfstream sought review of the summary judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and this certified question has followed. ANALYSIS Restrictions on Dissemination Section 550.6305(9)(g)(1) of the Florida Statutes requires: Any thoroughbred permitholder which accepts wagers on a simulcast signal must make the signal available to any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering under the provisions of [this act]. § 550.6305(9)(g)(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). Tampa Bay Downs receives simulcast signals from out-of-state tracks and accepts wagers on the races contained in those signals. Under the clear dictates of section 550.6305(9)(g)(1), TBD "must make the[se] signal[s] available to any permitholder eligible to conduct intertrack wagering." Id....

...ts, attempts to prevent TBD from making these simulcast signals available to eligible intertrack wagering facilities, such action clearly collides and interferes with the obligations of TBD under this statutory provision. Therefore, we conclude that section 550.6305(9)(g)(1) of Florida's pari-mutuel statutory scheme prohibits enforcement of the provisions in Gulfstream's exclusive dissemination agreements that would operate to prevent TBD from complying with this statutory requirement. In addition to the plain meaning of section 550.6305(9)(g)(1), the DPW's declaratory statement also supports TBD's assertion that the exclusivity provisions of Gulfstream's exclusive dissemination agreements violate Florida law by attempting to prohibit any dissemination by TBD of out-of-state simulcast signals....

...ference to the interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with *604 the statute's enforcement." Gulfstream, 294 F.Supp.2d at 1300 (citing Donato v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 767 So.2d 1146, 1153-54 (Fla.2000)). The DPW concluded that section 550.6305(9)(g)(1) requires TBD to make the simulcast signals that it receives and upon which intertrack wagers are conducted available to other pari-mutuel facilities in the state. With this plain meaning application of section 550.6305(9)(g)(1) and recognition of the declaratory statement issued by the DPW, based exclusively upon an analysis of this statutory provision, the answer to the certified question would be in the affirmative. However, we must also address other applicable statutory provisions. Restrictions on Intertrack Wagering on Simulcast Signals Although we conclude that section 550.6305(g)(1) unambiguously dictates that Gulfstream cannot prevent TBD from making simulcast signals from out-of-state thoroughbred tracks on which it accepts wagers available to other Florida pari-mutuel venues, the next issue we must addr...

...However, our review of the declaratory statement reveals that this assertion is without support. While the DPW stated in the declaratory statement that an agreement which operates to prohibit TBD from rebroadcasting these simulcast signals violates both sections 550.615(3) and 550.6305(9)(g)(1) of Florida's Wagering Act, the declaratory statement expressly declined to find that Gulfstream violated section 550.615(3) of the Florida Statutes....

...Similarly, the statement in section 550.615(3) that pari-mutuel facilities receiving these signals are permitted to conduct intertrack wagering on those signals would likewise apply to disseminated simulcast signals. This construction of section 550.615(3) also provides consistency with the unambiguous language in section 550.6305(9)(g)(1), which requires that pari-mutuel facilities accepting wagers on simulcast signals make those signals available to other pari-mutuel venues....

...Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So.2d 360, 371-78 (Fla.2005) (Cantero, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and summarized here, I believe that staff analyses are unreliable indicators of legislative intent. In this case in particular, the majority correctly interprets the plain language of sections 550.615(3) and 550.6305(9)(g)(1), Florida Statutes (2004), as well as their interplay with the definitions of "intertrack wager" and "simulcasting" in sections 550.002(17) and 550.002(32), Florida Statutes (2004)....

Copy

Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003).

Cited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20225, 2003 WL 22888995

...The remaining portion of the wager goes to pay taxes, other statutorily created fees (i.e. breeders' awards), the out-of-state racetrack, the in-state racetrack, the ITWS site, the out-of-state horsemen's group, and for purses at the racetracks. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 550.6305(9)....

...THE DECLARATORY STATEMENT AND ITS RESULT On September 14, 2002, The State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (the "Division") issued a declaratory statement. [17] The declaratory statement interpreted Florida Statutes Section 550.6305(9)(g)1 and determined whether exclusive dissemination agreements violated Florida Statutes Sections 550.615(3), 550.6305(9)(g)1, and Florida Administrative Code rule 61D-9.001. The Division concluded that Section 550.6305(9)(g)1 obliged TBD to make its ITWS signals available to outside ITWS sites because it accepted wagers on out-of-state thoroughbred races. The Division also concluded that exclusive dissemination agreements that prohibit or operate to restrain rebroadcast of a simulcast signal violate Sections 550.615(3), 550.6305(9)(g)1, and Rule 61D-9.001....

...ENFORCEABILITY OF GULFSTREAM'S EXCLUSIVE DISSEMINATION AGREEMENTS Both TBD and Gulfstream moved for summary judgment on the enforceability of Gulfstream's exclusive dissemination agreements. TBD argues that Gulfstream's agreements are unenforceable under the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 550.615(3), Fla. Stat. § 550.6305(9)(g)1, and F.A.C....

...Second, the Division interpreted Section 550.615(3) to prohibit exclusive dissemination agreements that operate to restrict the retransmission of a signal by an in-state thoroughbred racetrack to an ITWS site. Turning to the plain language of the sections, Section 550.6305(9)(g)1 states in relevant part: "[a]ny thoroughbred permitholder which accepts wagers on simulcast signal must make the signal available to any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering ...." Fla. Stat. § 550.6305(9)(g)1....

...NO NECESSITY THAT TBD REBROADCAST ITS SIGNAL Given the Division's interpretation of Florida law as contained in the declaratory statement, Gulfstream argues that its exclusive dissemination agreements still do not violate either Section 550.615(3), 550.6305(9)(g)1 or Rule 61D-9.001(1)(b) [20] because neither TBD nor Gulfstream rebroadcast an out-of-state racetrack's simulcast signal....

...Under Section 550.3551(5), jai alai frontons, greyhound race tracks, and other non-thoroughbred racing venues cannot directly receive broadcasts from an out-of-state thoroughbred racetrack. See Fla. Stat. § 550.3551(3). [21] This Court concludes that Sections 550.6305(9)(g)1 and 550.615(3) should not be construed so that an out-of-state racetrack violates Florida law if it transmits its simulcast signal via satellite. Second, neither Section 550.6305(9)(g)1 nor the last sentence of Section 550.615(3) explicitly require a rebroadcast or retransmission of a signal by TBD. Section 550.6305(9)(g)1 requires that TBD has to make a signal "available." The word "available" as used in Section 550.6305(9)(g)1 could include licensing an ITWS site the right to use a satellite television signal....

...it unlawful for anyone to restrain [22] a permitholder (TBD) from licensing or sub-licensing another permitholder (an ITWS site) the right to receive by satellite transmission an out-of-state racetrack's signal to conduct intertrack wagering. Thus, section 550.6305(9)(g)1 *1302 and the last sentence of Section 550.615(3) do not explicitly require a re-broadcast or retransmission of a signal by TBD....

...agering to the outside ITWS sites. See Dep. of Scott Savin, Vol. I, at 49. Based on his testimony, this Court concludes that Gulfstream's exclusive dissemination agreements violate Section 550.615(3) and Rule 61D-9.001(1)(b). [23] To the extent that Section 550.6305(9)(g)1 requires dissemination by an in-state thoroughbred track to an ITWS site within sixty miles of another in-state thoroughbred race-track currently conducting live races, 15 U.S.C. § 3004(b)'s approval requirement can be read in without creating a conflict with Florida Statutes Section 550.6305(9)(g)1....

...[27] Count 1 of TBD's counterclaim sought declaratory relief on both the copyright preemption and enforceability issues. [28] In its response to TBD's motion for summary judgment, Gulfstream argued that two additional sections of Chapter 550 (Sections 550.6305(10), 550.6305(11)) are preempted by the Copyright Act. Gulfstream's second amended complaint makes no reference to these sections, and the deadline for amending pleadings has expired. This Court declines to consider whether either Section 550.6305(10) or 550.6305(11) are preempted by the Copyright Act. This Court would note that neither section is directly implicated by the allegations contained in the second amended complaint. For example, Section 550.6305(10) only applies to races conducted at an in-state racetrack and does not apply to a re-broadcast of an out-of-state horse race. See Fla. Stat. § 550.6305(10)....

...he net proceeds (the amount of the takeout after certain amounts are deducted) that an ITWS site receives. Florida statutorily mandates that ITWS sites receive thirty three percent (with several statutory exceptions who receive more). See Fla. Stat. § 550.6305(9)(b). TBD claims that in the future in-state thoroughbred racetracks will share a higher percentage of net proceeds with ITWS sites when the in-state racetracks compete. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 550.6305(9)(c)....

Copy

South Florida Racing Ass'n v. State, Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 201 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11334

...m a remote location is called the “guest track,” § 550.002(12). When an intertrack wager is placed, the host track receives the vast majority of the proceeds from the wagers, while the guest track receives a small percentage of the same. See § 550.6305, Fla....

Copy

Inv. Corp. of Palm Beach v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 764 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10145, 2000 WL 1114309

...rn re-broadcasts that out-of-state race to another in-state guest track. The legislature has provided that “the takeout on all intertrack wagering shall be the same as the takeout on similar pari-mutuel pools conducted at the host track.” [e.s.] § 550.6305(4), Fla....

...Beach because they are not themselves conducting the live race which is being re-broadcast to Palm Beach. They merely act as the in-state broadcaster. 5 Such intertrack wagers are governed not by section 550.6325, but by sections 550.3551(3)(c) and 550.6305, Florida Statutes (1999)....

...In this context, there is no question that if Calder, Gulf-stream, or Tropical Park themselves conduct the live race simulcast to Palm Beach they are then entitled to the breaks and outs generated by wagers placed at Palm Beach on that live race pursuant to section 550.6325, Florida Statutes (1999). Finally, we note that section 550.6305(9)specifically entitles Palm Beach, as,a permitholder for dogracing and jai-alai, to 45% of the net proceeds 6 on wagers accepted at Palm Beach when it acts as a guest track for re-broadcasts of simul *848 cast horseraces from Calder, Gulfstream, or Tropical Park acting as host tracks, if the host track is both conducting live races and accepting wagers on simulcast races. § 550.6305(9)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). Our previous analysis indicates that breaks and outs generated on re-broadcasts to guest tracks of simulcast races increase the guest track’s takeout from which “net proceeds” are distributed pursuant to section 550.6305(9), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...er which distributions are made to winning bettors, for the purse and breeder awards, as well as to the DPMW. . However, breaks and outs generated by wagers placed at the host track on those races then re-broadcast to a guest track are, according to section 550.6305(9), Florida Statutes (1999), included in the host track’s takeout as provided in section 550.3551. . § 550.6305(9)(a), Fla....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.