"British Racing’s Civil War: Can the Sport Survive Its Financial Freefall?"

There’s trouble in the yard, and this time it’s not a feisty filly refusing to load into the stalls. No, this is far more disruptive: a clash between Peter Savill’s Professional Racing Association (PRA) and the Thoroughbred Group over trainers’ demands for payment for media interviews.

It’s a messy affair involving claims of fairness, cries for unity, accusations of divisiveness, and plenty of finger-pointing. Trainers are threatening a boycott of broadcast interviews unless broadcasters cough up payments akin to those jockeys have been enjoying since 2008. But beneath the posturing lies a fundamental question: how does British racing solve its financial problems without tearing itself apart?

And let’s be honest, the broader question looms: has collaboration even worked? After four years of Julie Harrington’s leadership as Chief Executive of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), it’s fair to say the results aren’t glowing. Collaboration has become a word that, in practice, seems synonymous with stasis. As racing’s finances dwindle and squabbles over scraps grow louder, it begs the question: what meaningful change is needed to stop this ship from sinking entirely?

The PRA’s Demands: Fairness or Fiasco?

Peter Savill and his PRA have framed the trainers’ boycott as a matter of fairness. If jockeys have been paid for their media appearances since 2008, why shouldn’t trainers also get a slice of the media rights pie? As Savill and his supporters see it, trainers are just as vital to the sport’s narrative as jockeys. They’re the ones prepping the horses, making the decisions, and offering their insights to the cameras.

And frankly, they’re not wrong. If broadcasters and sponsors are happy to pay for Matt Chapman’s over-the-top commentary or a jockey’s one-line post-race summary (“Yeah, ran a great race, couldn’t be happier”), why should trainers be expected to provide their expertise for free?

But critics—including heavyweights from the Thoroughbred Group—see things differently. Louise Norman, CEO of the Racehorse Owners Association (ROA), has dismissed the PRA’s demands as “divisive” and “disruptive.” According to Norman, the sport doesn’t need a boycott; it needs unity and broader solutions to its financial woes.

“The sport should be working together to ensure that everybody is remunerated fairly,” she said, “not a divisive demand that simply takes money for the administration of the PRA via a trainers’ commission.” In other words, stop fighting over crumbs and start addressing the bigger picture.

The Broadcasters’ Bottom Line: Who Holds the Power?

Savill’s stance hinges on one critical factor: broadcasters. ITV Racing, Sky Sports Racing, and Racecourse Media Group have all made it clear they will only deal with organisations under the Thoroughbred Group umbrella. Without broadcaster buy-in, the PRA’s boycott risks becoming more bark than bite.

Then there’s the sponsors, who spend millions ensuring their logos are splashed across jackets, racecards, and TV screens. As Louise Norman rightly pointed out, the sport depends on media coverage to engage fans, owners, and punters alike. A boycott that disrupts this ecosystem could alienate sponsors and undermine the very revenue streams the PRA is trying to tap into.

Take Ladbrokes, for example, whose branding is as ubiquitous on trainers’ jackets as mud on a wet Tuesday at Lingfield. If trainers stop appearing on TV, those logos suddenly lose their value, leaving sponsors questioning their investment. It’s a delicate balance, and the PRA’s demands risk toppling it.

The Owners: Frustrated and Fed Up

Let’s not forget the owners—the unsung heroes (and often unsung ATM machines) of British racing. According to Louise Norman, many owners are unimpressed by the PRA’s antics. These are the people pouring money into the sport, often for little to no financial return, and their patience is wearing thin.

“Owners continuously underpin this sport,” Norman said, “and their patience is wearing thin as their wants and needs continue to be undermined or ignored.” Translation: while trainers argue over media payments, owners are more concerned with stagnant prize money, rising costs, and a sport that seems increasingly out of touch with its stakeholders.

And who can blame them? The average owner spends tens of thousands of pounds a year keeping a horse in training, yet most races offer prize money that barely covers a month’s feed bill. The PRA’s focus on media payments may seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to owners who are desperate for broader financial reform.

Paul Johnson’s Pragmatism: The Bigger Picture

Paul Johnson, CEO of the National Trainers Federation (NTF), has taken a more measured approach. While he acknowledges that trainers deserve a fairer share of racing’s revenues, he argues that focusing on media payments is counterproductive.

“Trainers’ media work is just one example of the effort that participants put in to make racing engaging,” Johnson said. “But focusing on payments for individual aspects of what we do is counterproductive. We need to focus on the bigger picture of a wider revenue-sharing agreement with racecourses.”

Johnson’s vision is simple: stop fighting over scraps and work towards a more equitable distribution of the sport’s income, from media rights to sponsorship deals. It’s a sensible solution, but one that requires unity—a commodity in short supply these days.

Four Years of Stalemate: Where’s the Leadership?

While the Thoroughbred Group preaches unity and the PRA calls for fairness, the bigger question is this: why hasn’t meaningful change happened yet? Under Julie Harrington’s four-year tenure at the BHA, collaboration has become the go-to buzzword. Yet the results suggest it’s more a polite excuse for inaction than a roadmap to progress.

Prize money has stagnated, owners are leaving, and racecourses cling tightly to their media rights income while stakeholders squabble over crumbs. Racing’s finances are dwindling, and the sport feels increasingly rudderless. If collaboration hasn’t worked—and let’s be honest, it hasn’t—then what’s next? How do we catalyse real change before British racing loses even more ground?

How Does Racing Solve Its Financial Problems Without Disruption?

The PRA’s demands and the Thoroughbred Group’s rebuke highlight a deeper issue: British racing’s financial model is broken. Prize money is stagnant, costs are rising, and stakeholders are constantly at each other’s throats. The question is, how do you fix it without tearing the sport apart?

Here are some ideas:

1. Revenue-Sharing Agreements: Racecourses, bookmakers, and broadcasters must commit to fairer revenue-sharing deals that benefit trainers, owners, and stable staff. This is the cornerstone of Johnson’s argument and the most obvious solution.

2. Transparent Media Rights Deals: The millions generated by media rights often disappear into a black hole. Greater transparency would help stakeholders understand where the money is going—and ensure it’s distributed more equitably.

3. Increased Owner Incentives: If owners are the lifeblood of the sport, they need to be treated as such. That means better prize money, reduced fees, and meaningful incentives to keep them engaged.

4. Modernisation and Fan Engagement: Racing must find ways to attract new fans and retain existing ones. That means embracing technology, improving the race-day experience, and promoting the sport’s personalities—not squabbling over who gets paid for interviews.

5. A New Vision for Leadership: Perhaps most importantly, the sport needs bold, decisive leadership. If the current model of collaboration has failed to deliver, it’s time for a more proactive approach that prioritises action over endless meetings.

Final Thoughts: Unity or Chaos?

British racing is at a crossroads. The PRA’s demands may feel disruptive, but they’ve highlighted the structural flaws that have plagued the sport for years. Whether you side with Savill’s rebels or the Thoroughbred Group’s establishment, one thing is clear: the status quo isn’t working.

Without bold action, racing’s financial difficulties will only worsen. The sport needs unity, yes, but it also needs a sense of urgency. Collaboration has delivered little under Julie Harrington’s watch, and the time for polite inaction is over.

Because if racing’s leaders don’t catalyse real change soon, the goose and the gander may find there’s nothing left to share—and no one left to care.