The American Motorcycle Association (AMA) sanctions and governs motorcycle racing in America (1). The AMA adheres to the policies set forth by the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM)—the global regulatory body of motorcycle racing (1). The relationship between the AMA and the FIM can be cumbersome due to differing perspectives of motorcycle racing in America and Europe. Conflicts arise, but if the AMA does not appease the demands of the FIM—the AMA’s affiliation and associated perks with the FIM can be terminated. For example, the FIM chose to host an international motocross championship at the AMA’s Loretta Lynn’s Ranch; however, the clay content of the venue did not meet the FIM’s permissible limit (2). Consequently, the FIM threatened to withdraw its affiliation from the championship—in response the AMA amended the soil content of the celebrated venue, and the international championship proceeded. Although the AMA has historically operated in conjunction with the FIM, in 1976 the AMA developed and instated a rule independently of the FIM—this rule is known as the AMA Claiming Rule.
The AMA Claiming Rule was initially drafted for dirt track racing to preserve the essence of sport—fair competition (1). The Claiming Rule discouraged dirt track competitors from purchasing a competitive advantage; however, the rule would later be revised and applied to AMA motocross racing. In 1976 the advantages of having a factory-sponsor was apparent; specifically, Japanese factory-sponsored competitors had access to motocross bikes that were approaching the national median average of a home—$44,000 (1). Conversely, privateer competitors were financially limited to production motocross bikes that cost less than a $1000. The discrepancy in cost was thought to reflect an unfair advantage adored to factory-sponsored competitors, leading to the application of the Claiming Rule in AMA motocross racing.
The AMA Claiming Rule sought to discourage factories from producing exclusive motocross bikes of exorbitant cost, without imposing a capital limit for teams. The Claiming Rule accomplishes the latter by allowing a competitor to purchase another competitor’s motocross bike for a fixed cost (1). In 1976 that cost was $2500, and this was thought to compensate the cost of a privateer’s motocross bike and aftermarket modifications; however, upset the investment of a factory developed motocross bike (1). The Claiming Rule stated that any competitor has 30-minutes after the checkered flag to contact an AMA referee and submit a claim for another competitor’s motocross bike (1). The competitor must then produce either a certified check or cash; after the transaction the competitor is rewarded the motocross bike (1). If more than one competitor files a claim for the same motocross bike, a lottery system is employed to decide who the motocross bike is rewarded to (1).
In 1976 factory teams were desperate to cling onto their revolutionary and secretive motocross bikes; resultantly, factory teams collectively sought to circumvent the Claiming Rule by filing counter claims (1). When a factory team’s motocross bike was being claimed by a privateer, other factory teams would file claims to dilute the opportunities of the privateer claiming the bike. Today—2020—the AMA Claiming Rule has been rewritten to prevent factory teams from collectively circumventing the Claiming Rule.
The first successful claim occurred in 1979 when privateer John Roeder produced two claims for Marty Tripe’s factory developed state-of-the-art Honda RC250 (1). Following the unwritten rules of the factory teams—managers from five factory teams produced nine claims for the motocross bike to offset Roeder’s two claims (1). A draw for the motocross bike shortly commenced; luck would have Roeder place his hand into a sack and remove the number one chip—successfully claiming the coveted motocross bike despite the unfavorable odds (1). Roeder would then deliver his RC250 to Cycle magazine, and for the first time in history the public received insight onto a factory developed motocross bike (1).
Today—2020—the AMA Claiming Rule continues to persist; however, the fixed cost of motocross bikes has changed, and penalties are imposed if it is thought the Claiming Rule is being actively circumvented (3). The claiming cost of a motocross bike is 30 percent greater than the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) and 50 percent greater in Supermini competitions (3). Again, this fixed cost is thought to compensate the cost of a production motocross bike and aftermarket modifications. To enter a claim, the claimant must have competed against the motocross bike they desire to claim (3). The Claiming Rule alternatively states that a claim must be produced within 30-minutes of the posted race results—unlike the waving of the checkered flag (3). And competitors cannot enter a claim for their own motocross bike (3). If a competitor is complicit in circumventing the Claiming Rule, they are subject to a one-year suspension (3). For example, if a competitor submits a claim for a motocross bike with the intention of returning the motocross bike to the original owner. A one-year suspension can also be imposed if a competitor refuses to relinquish their motocross bike after a successful claim (3).
The AMA Claiming Rule has improved motocross racing’s accessibility—privateers no longer face a mechanical disadvantage compared to factory-sponsored competitors. The days of being able to purchase a competitive advantage in motocross racing are disappearing. Although factory-sponsored competitors are equipped with leading technology—that technology is largely available for privateers. The Claiming Rule—unlike an imposed spending restriction, allows factory teams to continue research and development, and progress technology in motocross racing. The Claiming Rule mainly benefits motocross racing by recapturing the essence of sport—fair competition. Consequences of the Claiming Rule are reflected by a restrain in motocross bike development. Before 1976, the revolutionary technology of factory developed motocross bikes would be applied to the following year’s production motocross bike (1). And the quick pace of development would often render the preceding year’s production motocross bike obsolete, including the factory developed motocross bikes (1). Today developments in the motocross bike are slow as factories have little incentive to progress research and development, as their coveted project could be easily claimed by a competing team. Motocross bikes produced a decade ago continue to be competitive today.
The AMA Claiming Rule is an exclusive service to competitors affiliated with AMA motocross racing—the FIM has not adopted the rule (1, 3). During FIM sanctioned competitions, AMA factory-sponsored competitors compete with motocross bikes that differ from the motocross bikes used in AMA motocross racing. This may reflect an economic inconvenience onset by the Claiming Rule and lack of continuity between organizations. The AMA Claiming Rule benefits motocross racing, and variants of the rule are now being applied to other motorsports. Formula One announced that they will impose a spending limitation to mitigate the competitive advantages afforded by greater capital (4).