good foundations begin at ground-level, not at the eaves of the roof.

​If you inspect the foundations of those old, sometimes ancient, thatched or formerly thatched, cottages that prettify the villages of our country, it might surprise you that many of them have virtually no foundations. You see, the craftsman of olden days were aware of the earth beneath their feet, the lie of the land, and built on solid ground, the cottage orientated to be ‘side on’ to the prevailing winds, the thatch over-hanging to ensure excess rain-water dripped clear of the earthen walls.
Though horse-racing, I would argue, came into being with the rocky foundations of being an entertainment for the idle rich, a medium solely constructed on ego and gambling, the sport gradually sought respectability amongst rules and regulation, a sport for gentleman as well as aristocracy, with foundations that encouraged everyone from all realms of society to enjoy the sport.
Of course, it remains a rarity even today for someone outside of the modern-day ‘aristocracy’ - the mega-rich of the world, the ruling monarchs of Arab states, the global racing empires - to achieve success at the top-level of flat racing, yet the structure of the sport, its foundations, if you like, allow for the ordinary man or woman to ‘shoot for the moon’, with Pyledriver’s victory in the King George and Queen Elizabeth in 2022 a prime example.
It concerns me that if Peter Savill’s proposals for the sport to ‘kite-mark’ Premier League fixtures is adopted, there might become an acceleration toward the elitism of a dozen trainers (or less) dominating, with a similar number of jockeys lapping up the cream and even fewer owners gobbling up the bigger and strategically targeted prize-money.
If Peter Savill’s report contained democratic leanings there would be no need for it to remain a ‘secret’, known its entirety to only the few, even if the main ingredients have been leaked to the Racing Post, where, of course, it should have seen the light of day in the first place. I have no doubt that Peter Savill and his cohorts have acted in good faith, with the health of the sport their main consideration, yet this sport belongs every bit as much to me and to you as it does to an elite of the sport that Peter Savill is very much part of.
The very fact that on the front page of Thursday’s (Oct 6th) Racing Post, directly underneath Bill Barber’s article on Peter Savill’s secret report, there was the headline ‘The Highest Grossing Session in European Auction History’, which highlights the wealth that exists in and around the sport. Has anyone considered taking a percentage of the sale price of these million-pound yearlings to help fund the prize-money they will be racing for in later years?
The issues that concern Peter Savill – the real-time decline in prize-money, the drain of equine talent to places such as Hong Kong, Australia and the oil-rich Arab states, and low-field sizes – are shared by us all. I just do not believe that protecting and enriching the players who compete at the very top of the sport, whilst, and this will end-up coming to fruition, believe me, allowing the rest to sink or swim, is neither a healthy nor democratic strategy to ensure the sport survives and thrives.
Whether I prefer the minnows of the sport to survive and thrive is not the point. This sport has a basic requirement for the mega racing empires to remain profitable. Without Coolmore, Godolphin, Shadwell, etc, the sport would eventually become rudderless in a sea of poverty. From the creation of the sport, at its core the stables of the wealthy have underpinned the sport. Yet, at the same time, the sport was open to small-time owners, people who bred from a single mare, successful trades people who used their disposable income to own a racehorse or two, though, of course, syndicates and shared ownership now occupy that space within the sport. I argue, and will continue to argue, that prize-money for the classics and Group 1’s in this country is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is the level of prize-money at the bottom end, the Monday meetings at Leicester or Redcar and throughout the race programme. The aspiration should be to have no race run in this country where first prize-money is below five-figures. And that should only be a short-term aspiration. The long-term aspiration should be no first prize below – well, name your own figure.
I would go as far as suggesting that ten-per-cent should be shaved off the prize money of all Group and classic races and used to plump up prize money at the basement level. The winner of the Epsom Derby will be worth an amount that far exceeds the prize-money won on the day, what difference would it make if the Derby was worth 1-million to the winner of £900,000. That £100,000 would make a huge difference at the bottom end of the sport and leave not a dent at the top.
The pyramids on the Giza plateau have survived mainly intact for thousands of year because they have solid foundations. Skyscrapers, unlike 16th and 17th century cottages, have solid and expansive foundations. They were not designed top-down but down-up. My fear is that Peter Savill and his cohorts are too obsessed by a desire to enrich the elite and if their plans become reality inadvertently the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater.
The greatest threat to the survival of the sport, in my opinion, is not the declining financial returns of the power-houses of the sport but the public’s perception of the sport as an entertainment of the idle rich. Which, of course, was perfectly true around the time the aristocracy had the sport of horse racing all to themselves.