Additional Fixtures: Essential Racing or Bookmakers’ Bingo?

The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has outlined its painstaking process for adding extra fixtures, but let’s face it: the explanation is as clear as a Cheltenham fog. The intention, they assure us, is noble—keeping the racing calendar full, ensuring horses get a run, and offering punters plenty of action. But are these extra fixtures really for the good of the sport, or is this just the BHA bowing to bookmaker pressure while stretching an already overpopulated calendar thinner than a jockey’s breakfast?

Racing's New Motto: When in Doubt, Add a Fixture

Apparently, the solution to any racing shortfall is simple: just add another fixture. Weather playing havoc? Add a fixture. Field sizes struggling? Add a fixture. Got a blank day where punters might have to entertain themselves with something other than betting? You guessed it—add a fixture.

It’s like the racing equivalent of duct tape: slap on an extra meeting and hope it holds. But much like duct tape on a leaky roof, this quick fix doesn’t address the deeper cracks in the structure.

Is This for Bookmakers’ Benefit?

You have to wonder who’s really driving this perpetual treadmill of additional fixtures. Bookmakers, perhaps? After all, racing fills their coffers, and a quiet day on the calendar means fewer bets, fewer margins, and a potential drop in the profits that keep their marketing departments churning out free-bet offers.

But let’s not forget the irony here. If the racing calendar is already bloated to the point of bursting, the extra fixtures don’t necessarily mean extra cash for the sport. Thin fields, lacklustre races, and repetitive All-Weather cards can’t exactly be described as prime punting material. And if margins are already tight, does piling on more fixtures just create the illusion of action while watering down the product?

All Hail the All-Weather: The Bookies’ Playground

Most additional fixtures seem to end up on the All-Weather, a surface so synonymous with bookmakers’ dreams that it may as well be sponsored by a leading odds compiler. Don’t get me wrong—All-Weather racing has its place. But when every replacement fixture becomes another polytrack spectacular, you have to ask: is this about serving the horse population or just feeding the betting terminals?

Bleating from ARC: Is the BHA Listening?

Then there’s the curious influence of ARC (Arena Racing Company), which runs a significant chunk of the UK’s All-Weather tracks and has a vested interest in seeing its venues packed with fixtures. Is the BHA bending over backwards to satisfy ARC’s bleating for more racing at its arenas? After all, ARC is hardly shy about pushing for more meetings, and with its business model relying on quantity over quality, it’s not hard to see how their interests align with this relentless push for extra fixtures.

You have to wonder: is the BHA running racing for the good of the sport, or are they just playing lackeys to ARC and their endless appetite for more fixtures, more betting turnover, and more bottom-line boosts?

Thin Margins on a Bloated Calendar

The BHA assures us that these fixtures are "necessary," but let’s not gloss over the fact that the racing calendar is already bursting at the seams. Margins are thin, field sizes are struggling, and yet the answer seems to be "more of the same." It’s like opening another restaurant when the kitchen staff in your current one are already overworked and the food is lukewarm.

Punters, too, are beginning to feel the strain. Who wants to bet on yet another eight-runner handicap where half the field probably wasn’t even supposed to run until the extra fixture was pencilled in? And with no time to build proper form lines, is this really about providing compelling content for customers—or just more cannon fodder for the bookies’ profit machines?

The Logic of Lunacy

The BHA’s reasoning would be laughable if it weren’t so predictably tedious. They claim to be looking after "the demands of the horse population" while simultaneously acknowledging that stretched resources—jockeys, trainers, and stable staff—are already creaking under the weight of the current schedule.

And then there’s the introduction of "rider restrictions" for additional fixtures, where jockeys with fewer than 30 winners in 12 months get priority. This might be great for boosting young riders’ profiles, but it also highlights the absurdity of needing to conjure up rules to make these fixtures work. If you’re adding races that can’t attract the sport’s top talent, are they really necessary?

Is This Racing for the Fans or the Pockets?

The BHA argues that these fixtures are vital for racing fans and participants, but the reality feels far murkier. Who’s really benefiting? If bookmakers are calling the shots and ARC is shouting the loudest in the room, then surely they should be footing more of the bill to make these extra meetings viable. After all, they’re the ones cashing in on the ever-churning carousel of low-grade races.

And what about the horses? Are they truly "demanding" more fixtures, or are trainers just entering them out of desperation for a run? For a sport obsessed with competitive integrity, spreading an already thin field thinner still hardly seems like the answer.

Racing’s Fixation with Fixtures

In truth, additional fixtures feel like a sticking plaster on a broken system. The real problems—poor prize money, fragmented field sizes, and a bloated calendar—aren’t being addressed. Instead, the BHA seems content to keep adding meetings in the hope that quantity will somehow translate into quality. Spoiler: it won’t.

Until the sport takes a hard look at its priorities, this endless cycle of extra fixtures will continue to feel more like bookmaker appeasement and ARC-friendly scheduling than meaningful progress. At some point, you have to ask: is the racing calendar here to serve the sport, or is the sport just here to fill the calendar?