being wrong is not a failing.

​The views and ideas I express on this site are honestly felt, even if, in time, my opinions may change. Also, although I can be radical at times with the ideas I put forward, I am also aware that I can come across naïve if compared to the work of professional journalists, especially the expert commentators who work at the Racing Post. Occasionally, as proved by the Post’s guest columnists in yesterday’s edition, Simon Bazalgette and David Thorpe, my lack of knowledge on a subject can allow my comments to attract ridicule. 
I have recently re-read Tim Fitzgeorge-Parker’s 1968 publication ‘The Spoilsports. What Is Wrong With British Racing’, a well-written, and at the time, thoroughly researched dive into why British racing lagged behind other horse racing countries in funding and infrastructure. Comparing Fitzgeorge-Parker’s views in 1968 and the state of British horse racing in 2024, it is fair to say that not much has changed in that Britain still lags behind other countries when it to general funding and especially overall prize-money.
Fitzgeorge-Parker had no doubt the problems he wrote about in 1968 were due to the sport refusing to accept that the only solution was to follow the example of countries funded by some sort of Tote Monopoly. Now, after reading the Bazalgetter/Thorpe column, all that has changed is that, I believe, in the shadows of the sport it is accepted that a Tote Monopoly would be a good way to go if only it had not been nationalised and sold off in 2011 to Betfred. An example of the British government acting in its own best interests in the wake of world financial chaos.
Where I erred in my strong belief that some sort of Tote Monopoly should be reconsidered, with the oft-used phrase ‘that ship has sailed’ laid to rest for the sake of the sport, is in not referencing Britbet, which is a pseudo-type Tote and through its inclusion in the World Pool brings a large amount of revenue to the sport.
The major stumbling block to ensuring the sport’s future funding is, as always, the self-protectionism of all the individual factions that make up horse-racing’s bodily structure, with bookmakers only batting for themselves, racecourses likewise and so on and so on. I suspect only at the 11th-hour of the 11th day will all parties come together to achieve a cobbled solution to keeping the sport afloat; a solution that will be based on cut, cut and cut again, saving the premier at the expense of the minnow.
The B.H.A. are no help in the matter as its members seem to believe that as long as prize-money is doubled or trebled at Royal Ascot, York, Ascot and other high-profile festivals all will be good and the sport saved, with little or no thought given to how the smaller racecourses, trainers, jockeys and owners might survive if or when the sport goes belly-up. Bread and butter, I would suggest, can sustain the majority, while caviar, champagne and fancy French cuisine will only make fat the social elite.
So, although I may have been off the mark in previous forays into this subject, my overall opinion that some form of Tote Monopoly is the only sure way to proceed in raising the revenue required to kick-start British racing’s return, if not to the top, to equality with other racing nations, I accept that Britbet may be the baby step required to eventual success.
Of course, what is wanted is for all individual portions of racing’s stakeholders to row in the same direction and experience assures us that is unlikely as Willie Mullins showing mercy to his rivals by running only one of his horses in any one race.
As someone who is more enthusiast than expert, I believe the best solution is for bookmakers to only be able to trade on-course, though allowed to trade on the High Streets on other sports, whilst acting as agents for a horse-racing owned Tote. But then again, I may be wrong.