the on-going ballhoo about prize money.

​When racing journalists, the Horseman Group (owners) and others moan, constructively, of course, about the level of prize money in this country compared to, for example, France, it is rarely mentioned that competing racing jurisdictions are not hidebound by not having independent bookmakers profiting from their racing. It is an inconvenient truth that should not be pushed to one side of the debate.
Here lies the rub, neigh the truth of the situation. France may use sponsors to shore-up prize money levels of their major races but substantially they can finance their racing through betting turnover. It is why Dieppe the other day could have more prize money on offer for one day’s racing than all the meetings in this country put together. We should not envy but learn and profit from hard truths.
Yes, as anyone who has experienced French racing will freely tell you, racing over there lacks atmosphere. It is very much like racing here is at the moment. And some, like Matt Chapman, to give but one example, seemingly would prefer horse racing here to go to the wall than to nationalise bookmakers, on-course as well as the big global enterprises. I, for one, and perhaps I am in a majority of one, would prefer to see the sport thrive and if that can only be achieved through some kind of ‘Tote Monopoly’ then I would embrace ‘the new normal’ with enthusiasm, even if I would also admit that in the short term the racecourse and the High Street might seem a bit odd.
In the age in which we live, with I.T. and all that jazz not so much at the centre of our lives but leading us in a direction that only the few are aware of, I would have thought it should be possible to create a ‘Tote Monopoly’ that mirrors, if only minimally, the betting sector of the here and now.
Go back a few decades and betting on sport was almost entirely about horse racing. Now, horse racing provides bookmakers with only a part of their revenue. Sports betting is huge, with bookmakers offering odds on most sports played anywhere in the world. I do not see why the major betting firms should not still have a place on our high streets. They could still show racing on the screens, while acting as agents for racing own bookmaking machine.
Of course, nationalising the bookmaking industry, or at least that part of it that encompasses horse racing, would cost more than a pretty penny and now might not be the opportune moment to go down that route. But it should be discussed, if not actually costed.
The present flu outbreak and the restrictions used by government to bring the country to its knees is, I believe, a pivotal moment in our sport’s history, with the reduction in prize money almost an embarrassment. If you research the age of horse racing’s most celebrated owners, the relatively few who keep the ship upright, without exception they could be labelled as elderly. Perhaps they have siblings primed to continue the equine empires of their fathers but who is to say they will have into the future the same enthusiasm for the sport, the same willingness to lavish the same levels of money on the thoroughbred dynasties created by their forebears? Flat racing, in the main, is presently reinforced not so much by individuals but by actual countries – Dubai, Qatar, etc. Countries rich in oil, a commodity, especially for powering transport, soon to be made redundant by Ion Lithium batteries.
Horse racing in this country needs to find a more sustainable funding model and it has to be done not during the next few decades but in the next few years.
Tit should be remembered that this sport is a good little earner for government. It always has been. It is why we were the first sport given permission to restart after lockdown. I would be disappointed if the Department of Culture, Media and Sport was not sympathetic to the suggestion of financial help to establish a ‘Tote Monopoly’ to ensure the long-term sustainability of horse racing in this country. I am sure spare money, windfall monies, could be found on one of the money trees in the money orchard they have spectacularly cultivated recently.
I don’t know if I am again in a majority of one but I find it slightly humiliating when the sport, as is the case now with Epsom, has to go cap in hand to find sponsors for major races. Shouldn’t we be able to fund the sport through our own endeavours, especially when you take into account the billions that pass through various hands over the course of a calendar year? Also, on a connected point, it is rather obscene that the Epsom Derby has to worth 1.5-million just so that it can compete with the French and Irish Derbies, yet it is acceptable to run racing at the bottom rung of the sport with first prize-money of less than £3,000. As I have said many times, to build with strength you need solid foundations and our sport is built on sand. Every owner of a racehorse deserves an equal opportunity to make ends meet and this is one more reason why the B.H.A. has a responsibility to secure for the sport it is there to support a funding stream that will sustain and nurture and if the sacrifice for that certainty is goodbye to independent bookmakers then it is a small sacrifice to pay.