Peter Savill: Racing’s Rare Commodity in a Sea of Mediocrity

Love him or loathe him, Peter Savill is that rarest of breeds in British racing—a figure unafraid to ruffle feathers, speak uncomfortable truths, and, crucially, invest his own money in chasing solutions for the sport’s myriad problems. In a landscape dominated by vested interests, short-termism, and committees more stagnant than the pond at Plumpton, Savill stands out as a man with ideas, ambition, and—dare one say it—a touch of guts.

But for all his willingness to look beyond tomorrow’s racecard, Savill’s efforts are often met with sneers and resistance from the racing establishment. And perhaps that’s no surprise when the establishment in question comprises bodies like the Racecourse Association (RCA) and Thoroughbred Group (TG), whose strategic prowess makes a blancmange look decisive. The RCA, as led by David Armstrong, has perfected the art of appearing busy while achieving precisely nothing, other than line its own pockets. Armstrong, described as the "racecourse shop steward," seems less concerned with driving innovation than ensuring his boardroom stays firmly rooted in the 1980s. This is not a group known for bold moves or visionary thinking. Instead, it acts as a gatekeeper for racecourse operators who value their short-term profits far more than the long-term health of the sport. Apparently their values include "Togetherness", must have been one of those team building session that involved paintballing with the Owners Group?

Consider this: has the RCA ever produced anything resembling a Strategy for the Growth and Sustainability of British Racecourses? Or perhaps a Capital Investment Strategy that might prepare courses for a modern, competitive future? Of course not. Those phrases would be met with blank stares and the sound of a kettle boiling in RCA HQ.

Instead, the RCA’s main output appears to be blocking anything resembling meaningful progress. Take their approach to Savill’s premierisation model—a proposal aimed at addressing racing’s structural issues. Rather than engaging with its potential to revive the sport, the RCA and its allies diluted, undermined, and ultimately neutered it. Why? Because genuine reform might have interfered with racecourses’ ability to squeeze every last penny out of the status quo.

Thoroughbred Group: The Architects of Aimlessness

If the RCA is bad, the Thoroughbred Group is hardly better. Their version of strategy appears to involve little more than moaning, whining, and occasionally drafting a press release. When faced with the challenge of creating an ownership strategy, they produced nothing more than a fiasco—a masterclass in how to complain without contributing.

The TG’s problem is simple: they exist to protect their own interests, not to serve the broader needs of the sport. There’s no heavy lifting, no meaningful attempt to address racing’s existential issues, and certainly no willingness to rock the boat. Their preferred approach seems to be grumbling about prize money while leaving the actual thinking to people like Savill.

Savill’s Vision: The Antidote to Apathy

In stark contrast, Savill has not only diagnosed racing’s problems but actively sought to fix them. His model for prize money—calling for racecourses to contribute at least a third of their total racing revenue—offers a clear, actionable path to addressing the sport’s funding crisis.

Savill’s newly formed Professional Racing Association (PRA) has set its sights on increasing purses by £20-30 million annually, a figure that could transform the sport’s financial ecosystem. But rather than applauding his efforts, many within the establishment have resorted to their default position: sniping from the sidelines.

Take Plumpton’s decision to leave the RCA, a move prompted by Savill’s frustration at the body’s stranglehold on progress. Armstrong’s response—dismissing the move as "wearily predictable"—is emblematic of the RCA’s approach. Instead of addressing the concerns of smaller tracks or engaging with Savill’s proposals, they dismiss, deflect, and defend their fiefdom.

A Turnaround Director Is Long Overdue

If ever a sport needed a disruptor, it’s British racing. The RCA and TG have proven themselves incapable of driving meaningful reform, relying instead on feeble initiatives and half-measures that barely scratch the surface of racing’s deep-rooted issues.

What the sport desperately needs is a Turnaround Director—someone who isn’t afraid to blow up the current structures and start again. Someone who values action over consensus, results over rhetoric. Someone, in short, like Peter Savill.

Racing doesn’t need another task force producing reports that gather dust. It needs a shake-up merchant with the vision and backbone to push through the tough decisions. No more tinkering at the edges; it’s time for a wholesale rethink of how the sport operates, from prize money distribution to racecourse management.

And What About the BHA? The Wait Continues

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) to deliver its much-anticipated revised strategy. Five years in the making, it’s been so long in development that expectations are now ludicrously high. Surely, with half a decade to think it through, this strategy is going to be a masterpiece, right? Racing fans can only hope it lives up to the glacial pace of its creation. If time were the measure of quality, it ought to be nothing short of revolutionary.

But history tells us otherwise. The BHA’s track record suggests we’re more likely to get another well-meaning document filled with buzzwords and no teeth. It’s enough to make one wonder: are they fine-tuning a saviour plan, or just stalling because they have no idea how to navigate the sport’s decline?

Downgrading the Dead Weight

The real problem, as Savill has identified, is that bodies like the RCA and TG aren’t just part of the problem—they are the problem. Their roles as power brokers need to be substantially downgraded, turning them into advisory bodies rather than decision-making ones. In their place, racing needs leaders who meet a simple but radical set of criteria:

• Ability: A track record of actually delivering results.

• Commitment: A willingness to put the sport’s interests ahead of personal gain.

• Commercial Flair: The vision to grow racing’s appeal in a fiercely competitive landscape.

Savill is one of the few who ticks all these boxes. He’s prepared to think long-term, fund solutions himself, and face down the entrenched interests that have turned British racing into a punchline.

The Future of Racing: Will It Seize Its Opportunity?

British racing finds itself at a crossroads. It can continue down its current path, clinging to outdated structures and praying that a series of half-measures will somehow stave off decline. Or it can embrace the kind of bold, ambitious thinking that Savill represents.

But make no mistake: the RCA, TG, and BHA are not equipped to lead this charge. Their leadership is the antithesis of innovation, their boards stacked with operators who view progress as a threat to their profit margins. If racing is to thrive, these bodies must be sidelined in favour of individuals like Savill—people with the courage to challenge the status quo and the vision to build something better.

So here’s the question: will British racing take the bold step it so clearly needs, or will it let its brightest ideas be strangled by mediocrity? If we’re still waiting for a BHA strategy after five years, the answer feels depressingly predictable.