Arbitration. Professional sports live by it. Corporations lean on it. However, when it comes to drag racing, the process is non-existent. One might wonder if a non-partisan committee had been in effect how differently things might have transpired in certain situations. No one cares too much
for accountability these days, especially the sanctioning bodies.

As much as the sanctioning bodies try to convey the message that they are here to serve the best interest of racers, the end results sometimes do not mirror the words being spoken. Who speaks for the racer? At times, even the drivers have commented that they think no one does. Some might argue that certain groups such as PRO do as much for their members than anyone could hope for. Negotiations, even ones considered successful, don't guarantee that both sides of any issue will be perfectly satisfied. However, safety and making a living are primary issues for drag racers, and any advocate group simply can't afford to compromise on progress in these areas.  

Case in point - the much ballyhooed threats of a staged boycott in NHRA over safety and prize money issues did little more than create a rumor that permeated the message boards and various Internet magazines, at least on the surface. Of course, we were not privy to the discussions between PRO and NHRA regarding what they were doing to find some common ground. But the drivers' solidarity did, indeed, mean something, just like it meant something when they stood together to demand that the Seattle track be resurfaced correctly. Something was done and done to both sides' satisfaction. In that case, PRO fulfilled its mandate by working for the racers. Will they have that kind of success every time, though? And what about the professional teams that don’t belong to PRO and all the Sportsman competitors? Our consensus is that an arbitration committee would serve to address the problems of all racers before they reach the stage where a walkout is considered a viable option.

Such a walkout would do nothing more than harm the very people it was intended to help, so it was to their benefit that they found a way to discuss the issue. That was a positive turn of events, but the fact that such a walkout was even considered drives to the heart of the matter - the disagreements should never have been allowed to come to such a point.

Let’s delve a little deeper into what may have caused this major rift between the Corporation (NHRA) and Labor (PRO teams) and how such a thing could have been avoided.

Money and safety is what it all boiled down to. One side wanted a raise and the other never acknowledged their need. One side wanted safer equipment and the other, scared of losing an "excusive supplier," simply countered, "We’re working night and day to find a solution."

So just where is the middle of the road? It depends on who you ask.

The reality of it all is that this is not a situation that is limited to just one sanctioning body. Both are guilty of not listening to the very individuals largely responsible for creating their shows. On the other hand, the offended are just as guilty for not treating their counterpart’s position as one of creating a viable place for them to race.

The bottom line is that neither side does a good job of listening to one another. With no Henry Kissinger readily available, it makes all the sense in the world to have an arbitrating committee in the middle with no political alliances possibly biasing their decisions.

From what we’re hearing, no progress was being made on the high profile Pro Stock Truck lawsuit until both the NHRA and the Pro Stock Truck Owners appeared before an arbitrator. Imagine the headaches that could have been alleviated had the arbitration committee defused the situation before it ever came to a head.

The racers might have had a halfway decent chance against a sanctioning body when the topic of forcing professional drivers to pay an entry fee in the IHRA came up, for example, even though it is clear the front gate is clearly covering what the back gate brings in. Or, when exclusive ontracts are doled out to the same companies that hold the sanctioning body and its racers hostage, such as has happened in the NHRA, who maintains a level playing field?

Bidding for a gig is one thing, but when it adversely affects one’s well being and/or his or her financial bottom line, that’s another story.

Maybe, just maybe, drag racing will realize that the days are long gone when Wally Parks, Jim Tice and Larry Carrier ran the show. Racers spend thousands and thousands of dollars and the end result is that they are still at the mercy of others with little or no say as to their future.

Well, they do have a say. They could just say no to drag racing. More and more individuals continue to do that every year. Is that what we want? NHRA doesn't provide a safe, organized and mutually beneficial place to race so more participants will drop out of competition.

For the sake of the sport, which has actually become a giant revenue-generating machine these days, the bosses and workers, in labor-union terms, must carefully consider each and every move they make, lest they do irreparable damage to both the product the one side is trying to
promote and the result the other side wants to achieve: a safe and more lucrative place to race.