"Swift by Name, Slow by Nature: Premierisation and Racing’s Rebranded Mediocrity"

British horseracing is supposed to be a spectacle: a glorious mix of mud, money, and majesty that keeps punters enthralled and the economy ticking over. Instead, it’s become a corporate sideshow—its leadership endlessly tinkering at the edges while ignoring the real issues. Enter Greg Swift and his much-vaunted "Premierisation" project, a rebranding exercise that feels less like progress and more like a marketing intern’s pitch for "What if racing, but shinier?"

Premierisation promised to breathe life into the sport, but instead, it’s delivered a flurry of new logos, a bloated fixture list, and a buzzword-heavy sales pitch. Meanwhile, racing’s fundamental problems—too many races, declining prize money, and a governance structure that prevents meaningful change—remain stubbornly untouched. The puppet masters behind the curtain—the racecourses themselves—continue to pull the strings, ensuring that innovation at the top is more pipe dream than possibility.

170 Fixtures, One Glaring Problem

Here’s the reality: British racing doesn’t need more gimmicks. What it desperately needs is focus. Instead, we have a sport drowning under the weight of 1,480 fixtures a year, with 170 of these now rebranded as "Premier." This is not consolidation. It’s marketing spin—a desperate attempt to squeeze glamour out of over-saturation.

Stretching limited prize money across this sprawling calendar doesn’t just water down the stakes—it cheapens the spectacle. Prize money levels are falling in real terms, and with owners and trainers struggling to justify the spiralling costs of competing, Britain’s best horses are increasingly lured to richer pastures in Ireland, France, and beyond. How "Premier" can a race really be when its competitors are second-tier and the purse is barely worth the petrol money?

Even the tracks themselves, far from struggling, are complicit in perpetuating this bloated fixture list. The relentless programme isn’t about quality or innovation—it’s about volume, plain and simple. Racecourses, as the primary beneficiaries of this system, are loath to relinquish their grip, even as the sport stagnates under the weight of their demands.

The Puppet Masters Are Alive and Well

Let’s be clear: racing lacks innovation at the top. This isn’t because the ideas aren’t there; it’s because the sport’s leadership is structurally incapable of implementing meaningful change. The BHA, ostensibly the sport’s governing body, is effectively owned by the racecourses, whose vested interests override any attempt to challenge the status quo.

This isn’t governance—it’s hostage-taking. The BHA exists in a state of permanent compromise, caught between the needs of the broader industry and the narrow priorities of its most powerful stakeholders. The result is paralysis. Any proposal that might genuinely shake things up—whether it’s culling fixtures, boosting prize money, or introducing more equitable revenue-sharing models—is quietly shelved before it even reaches the table.

Greg Swift’s role in this theatre of futility is unenviable. As the public face of Premierisation, he’s tasked with selling a vision of progress that is, in reality, a cosmetic exercise. Meanwhile, the real power brokers—the racecourses—continue to call the shots from behind the scenes, ensuring that any changes benefit them first and the sport second.

All Logo, No Race

The problem with Premierisation isn’t just that it’s uninspired—it’s that it actively undermines the sport’s credibility. The rebranded fixtures are the same as they ever were: same horses, same tracks, same puddles of mud splattered across jockeys’ silks. The only difference is the overhyped rhetoric around them, which does nothing to address the sport’s deeper malaise.

This disconnect between presentation and reality risks alienating both traditional fans and the elusive "new audience" the BHA is so desperate to attract. Loyal punters, who’ve supported the sport through thick and thin, see Premierisation for what it is: a shallow rebranding exercise. Meanwhile, casual viewers are unlikely to be swayed by buzzwords when the underlying product remains unchanged.

The Levy: Racing’s Eternal Crutch

Adding to the farce is the ongoing reliance on the levy to shore up racing’s finances. Swift has spoken optimistically about "ring-fencing an increase in levy for growth and marketing," but the reality is that these discussions are perpetually stalled, held hostage by a distracted government and an indifferent gambling industry.

For decades, the levy has been racing’s security blanket—a creaky mechanism that papers over the sport’s financial cracks but does nothing to fix them. With general elections and regulatory upheavals derailing any meaningful reform, Swift’s assurances about "progressing plans" ring hollow.

The truth is, betting companies no longer rely on horseracing to drive their profits. Slots, casinos, and football markets now dominate their balance sheets. Racing, once their bread and butter, is little more than an afterthought.

The Price of Complacency

What’s most frustrating is that the solutions to racing’s problems aren’t particularly complicated—they just require courage and leadership. Step one: drastically reduce the fixture list. A leaner, more focused calendar would allow the sport to concentrate its resources on marquee events, boosting prize money and creating genuine spectacle.

Step two: break the stranglehold of the racecourses. As long as they remain the dominant force in racing’s governance, meaningful innovation will remain impossible. The BHA must reclaim its authority and act in the interests of the sport as a whole, not just its most powerful stakeholders.

Finally, racing needs to reconnect with its roots. This is a sport steeped in tradition and drama, but it’s increasingly being reduced to a hollow spectacle, driven by short-term thinking and flashy marketing. To survive, it must recapture the authenticity that made it great: competitive racing, thrilling finishes, and events that feel like occasions, not obligations.

Swift’s Final Stretch?

Greg Swift may have galloped into this role with the best of intentions, but Premierisation has exposed the limits of what the BHA can achieve under its current structure. Racing doesn’t need more buzzwords or rebranded fixtures—it needs a fundamental shift in how the sport is governed and delivered.

Until then, the puppet masters of British racing will continue to pull the strings, ensuring that the system serves their interests at the expense of the sport’s future. And no amount of shiny logos or "Premier" rhetoric can disguise that.