Racing's Reckoning: Hard Truths About an Industry Under Siege

Executive Summary

After four decades in racing—from the backrooms of major bookmakers to boardrooms of racing—I've learned that the sport's greatest weakness is its capacity for self-delusion. Today's challenges aren't temporary setbacks requiring minor adjustments; they represent structural shifts that will fundamentally reshape or potentially destroy significant portions of British racing.

The convergence of regulatory assault, leadership paralysis, and economic pressures creates what I can only describe as an industry under siege. The next 24 months will determine which parts of racing survive and which join the long list of British industries that talked themselves into irrelevance whilst the world moved on.

This isn't a transformation story with guaranteed happy endings. It's a survival analysis with difficult choices and inevitable casualties.

The Governance Paralysis: When Leadership Fails

The simultaneous leadership vacuum at both the BHA and Jockey Club isn't a temporary inconvenience—it's symptomatic of deeper structural problems. Julie Harrington's departure, Joe Saumarez Smith's premature exit due to ill health, and Lord Allen's indefinite delay in taking up the BHA chair beyond his planned 1 June start date reflect an industry that has become ungovernable.

The fundamental issue isn't personalities but structure. The BHA attempts to regulate a commercial sport whilst being funded by those they regulate. The Jockey Club operates as both competitor and industry leader. These conflicts create paralysis when decisive action becomes essential.

Jim Mullen's appointment at The Jockey Club brings commercial competence, but he inherits an organisation where 15 individual racecourses pursue parochial interests rather than collective strategy. Charlie Boss as Jockey Club Racecourses CEO might impose operational discipline, but structural problems remain.

The harsh reality: governance reform discussions will continue whilst market forces make the decisions. Courses will close, employment will contract, and revenue will decline regardless of who eventually occupies the executive chairs.

Employment Costs: The Straw Breaking the Camel's Back

The National Insurance rise to 15% combined with threshold reductions and minimum wage increases represents a £3,600 annual cost increase per full-time employee. For an industry where profit margins were already marginal, this isn't a challenge to overcome—it's a death sentence for many operations.

Smaller training yards face impossible arithmetic. A 40-horse operation employing 12 staff now carries £43,200 additional annual costs. With prize money stagnant and ownership costs rising, these businesses simply cannot absorb such increases. The market will provide brutal clarity: consolidate, mechanise, or close.

The talk of "labour-saving technologies" and "efficiency gains" sounds progressive but ignores economic reality. Most racing businesses lack capital for significant technological investment. They'll respond through staff reductions, not technological advancement.

Young people increasingly reject racing careers that offer poor pay, antisocial hours, and limited progression. The romantic appeal of "working with horses" doesn't compensate for economic hardship, particularly when alternative employment offers better conditions and prospects.

The Punter Purge: Commercial Suicide in Slow Motion

The systematic restriction of winning customers represents one of the most destructive trends in modern commerce. Bookmakers actively eliminate their most engaged customers whilst complaining about declining turnover—commercial logic that defies rational explanation.

This isn't a temporary aberration requiring minor adjustment. It reflects bookmakers' fundamental shift towards extracting maximum value from problem gamblers rather than building sustainable customer relationships. Racing becomes collateral damage in this transformation.

The notion that "innovative operators" will emerge to celebrate winning customers ignores market reality. Successful bookmakers focus on high-margin, low-engagement products. Racing's traditional customer base—knowledgeable, price-sensitive, seeking value—represents everything modern bookmakers want to avoid.

Meanwhile, racing's attempts at "direct-to-consumer" revenue remain amateur compared to established entertainment businesses. Netflix didn't emerge from television; it replaced it. Racing lacks both capital and expertise for such transformation.

Technology: Reality Check Required

AI applications in racing remain largely experimental rather than transformational. Most "technological solutions" amount to expensive toys for wealthy owners rather than industry-changing innovations. The gap between Silicon Valley presentations and stable yard reality remains vast.

The employment implications are straightforward: technology will eliminate routine tasks whilst requiring skills most current workers lack. Retraining programmes sound progressive but ignore fundamental educational and economic barriers facing much of racing's workforce.

Rural broadband remains patchy, technological literacy varies enormously, and training budgets are non-existent for most smaller operations. The digital divide isn't closing—it's widening.

Regulatory Reality: The Ratchet Only Turns One Way

The £250 million regulatory impact and record levy payments reflect political rather than evidence-based decision-making. Racing's attempts to demonstrate economic value or propose alternatives ignore the fundamental dynamic: politicians gain votes by appearing tough on gambling, not by protecting niche industries.

The affordability agenda will continue tightening regardless of evidence or industry objections. Each regulatory "success" justifies further intervention. The ratchet effect means concessions won't reverse previous restrictions—they'll simply slow the rate of additional impositions.

Racing's traditional political influence has evaporated. Former champions in Parliament have retired or moved on. Current politicians view racing as an anachronistic pursuit with minimal electoral relevance. Industry lobbying lacks both resources and access compared to other sectors.

Course Closures: The Inevitable Reckoning

The Vulnerable Cohort

Based on financial analysis and market positioning, several categories face particular risk:

Isolated Northern Venues: Tracks in former industrial heartlands where economic decline has eroded traditional customer bases face impossible arithmetic. When local purchasing power cannot support gate receipts, and fixture income barely covers operational costs, closure becomes inevitable.

Land-Rich, Cash-Poor Operations: Courses sitting on valuable development land whilst struggling with racing economics face irresistible pressure. When residential development potential exceeds 20 years of racing revenue, commercial logic becomes unavoidable.

Infrastructure-Deficit Venues: Tracks requiring major investment to meet modern standards without access to capital face managed decline. Deferred maintenance eventually forces closure through safety concerns rather than commercial decision-making.

Marginal Fixtures: Venues dependent on minimal fixture allocations that could easily transfer elsewhere lack compelling survival arguments. When racing can continue without them, their continuation becomes discretionary charity rather than commercial necessity.

The Timeline

2025-2026: 2-3 courses announce closure, citing unsustainable economics 2027-2028: Additional 1-2 venues suspend operations "temporarily" 2029-2030: Several point-to-point venues abandon licensed racing

The survivors benefit through fixture redistribution and reduced competition, but overall industry capacity contracts permanently.

Employment Trajectory: The Unvarnishing Truth

Phase 1 (2025-2027): The Cull

• 4,000-6,000 positions eliminated through business failures and cost-cutting

• Course closures remove 800-1,200 jobs directly, with multiplier effects in local communities

• Training yard consolidation forces smaller operations to merge or close

• Betting shop acceleration continues removing high-street employment

Phase 2 (2028-2030): Structural Adjustment

• Technology adoption eliminates routine roles without equivalent job creation

• Consolidation continues as marginal operators exit

• Geographic concentration around major centres leaves rural areas underserved

• Skills mismatches prevent displaced workers finding alternative racing employment

Phase 3 (2031-2035): The New Normal

• 65,000-70,000 total positions represent sustainable industry size

• Higher average wages for remaining workforce as low-skill positions disappear

• Geographic concentration around Newmarket, Lambourn, and major racecourses

• International opportunities for elite professionals, domestic decline for others

Three Scenarios: Probable Outcomes

Scenario 1: Managed Decline (Probability: 50%)

Current trends continue without significant intervention. Employment falls to 65,000-70,000 positions through natural attrition and business failures. 8-12 courses close permanently. Racing continues but as smaller, more concentrated industry serving diminished audience.

Scenario 2: Stabilised Contraction (Probability: 35%)

Smart adaptation and some regulatory relief slow decline rate. Employment stabilises around 70,000-75,000 positions. 4-6 courses close, remainder adapt through diversification and shared services. Racing becomes premium entertainment for affluent audiences.

Scenario 3: Technological Renaissance (Probability: 15%)

Unlikely but possible: successful technology adoption and international expansion drive growth. Employment reaches 75,000-80,000 positions through new role creation. Racing transforms into data-driven entertainment industry with global appeal.

Recommendations: Damage Limitation

Accept Reality

Stop pretending current challenges are temporary. Begin planning for smaller but sustainable industry rather than futile attempts to maintain status quo.

Prioritise Ruthlessly

Focus resources on core strengths rather than trying to save everything. Better to have 45 excellent racecourses than 59 struggling venues.

Invest in Survivors

Support remaining businesses through genuine technological advancement rather than spreading resources thinly across failing operations.

Plan Workforce Transition

Provide realistic retraining for displaced workers rather than false promises about technological transformation creating equivalent employment.

Develop Exit Strategies

Help vulnerable operations close gracefully rather than prolonged decline damaging communities and individuals.

Conclusion: Survival, Not Transformation

Racing will survive this crisis, but not unchanged. The industry emerging in 2035 will be smaller, more concentrated, and fundamentally different from today's structure. Employment will be lower but potentially more sustainable for those who remain.

The romantic notion of racing as a broad-based rural industry supporting diverse communities is ending. What emerges will be more like Formula 1—premium entertainment concentrated around centres of excellence, serving affluent audiences, and employing highly-skilled specialists.

This isn't the future racing wants, but it may be the future racing gets. The choice isn't between transformation and status quo—it's between managed adaptation and chaotic decline.

The industry's survivors will be those who recognise this reality earliest and plan accordingly. The casualties will be those who believe passionate arguments can overcome economic gravity.

After 30 years watching racing evolve, I've learned that the sport's greatest strength—its ability to generate emotional attachment—often becomes its greatest weakness when emotions replace analysis in strategic decision-making.

The numbers don't lie. The trends are clear. The only question is whether racing's leadership will acknowledge reality before reality imposes its own solutions.