Racing by numbers

Across Europe the debate continues to rage as to what to do about the future of racing, no one seemingly has an answer.

Jocelyn de Moubray has put together some nation-by-nation figures giving some greater clarity as to where racing is now compared to 25 years ago and to explain the link between the amount of racing and average prize-money, and the importance of competitive action in order to maintain the entertainment and betting turnover.

He also opinions that maybe the 1990s removal of the Jockey Club in Britain and the Société d’Encouragement in France were not particuarly well thought through ideas

AFTER SOME YEARS of great confidence during which most of the important parameters for the British racing business appeared to be positive, the industry is all of a sudden aware that there are some difficult decisions to be taken.

A look back at the recent past of British racing, and also of its main European counterparts in France, Ireland, Germany and Italy, reveals that horseracing is inevitably an unstable business and heavily influenced by broader economic trends.

Over the last 25 years there have been two economic crises, and three or four stock market corrections, the launch of a new European currency, Brexit and now a European war; it is hardly surprising that the racing business has had its ups and downs, too.

In addition to the known unknowns, such as recession and war, during these 25 years new technology has completely transformed the racing and betting businesses.

In 1995 few of us had mobile telephones or knew how to use the internet, and yet today a large proportion of all business goes through mobiles. These advances have created both opportunities and dangers.

The Irish racing business has more or less doubled in size with the number of Flat runs a year going from 7,200 to 15,000 (see table opposite), while total prize-money has

increased by 168 per cent and even average prize-money has gone up by 50 per cent.

The other side of the story is represented by Germany and Italy. Between 1995 and 2019 these two countries, both with long racing traditions and popular support, have been decimated; each country has lost around 2,000 runs a year which represents a huge number of lost jobs and employment for trainers, jockeys, stable staff, vets and all of the other professions which rely upon racing.

It is not surprising that so many of Italy’s leading trainers, jockeys and breeders are now based in France. If German racing continues to survive it is due to a handful of passionate owner-breeders, and the 1,000+ runners German trainers send across the border to France every year in search of prize-money.

Easy as it is to criticise many of the decisions taken during this period in Britain, France and Ireland, it still has to be said at the outset that Europe’s three major racing and breeding countries have done more than survive.

Ireland is a case apart as the country itself has changed beyond recognition during the last quarter of a century, but in Britain, as in France, things could have turned out a great deal worse.

Both countries have seen a rise in total prize-money in real terms and, even if there were signs of coming problems in 2019 before covid, in 2018 both countries were distributing more prize-money in real terms to more runners in more races than they had done at the peak of the previous economic cycle.

The racing income from betting in Germany and Italy fell severely and fast – money going off-shore or beyond any control. Germany cut back the number of races in order to maintain the average prize-money, Italy reduced the number of races by less but saw average prize-money fall by some 20 per cent in real terms, while the generous breeders’ premiums more or less disappeared.

Before looking at Britain and France it is worth stating that these figures taken together show that the number of runners per race is a function to some degree of the number of races held in total and the average prize-money on offer.

Both countries have been under pressure to hold more races in order to maintain or increase income, but it seems clear that unless average prize-money is maintained there comes a moment when the curve turns and less competitive races lead to stagnating or falling turnover.

Ireland is a good example of this as the number of races held has been expanding for nearly all of the period, but when average and overall prize-money fell in the years 2008-2013 this had an effect on field sizes – the average field size went from 13.2 in 2007 down to 10.4 in 2015.

The number of races run in France increased by 13 per cent between 1995 and 2019, but as real prize-money increased by more it meant that average prize-money per race was up by 12 per cent from €22,100 to €24,800 in 2019.

At the same time France chose to maintain its generous breeders’ prizes in real terms at €15 million and to increase the sums given out in owners’ premiums for French qualified horses by 50 per cent from €24 million to €36 million in real terms.

THIS MEANS that, at current exchange rates and during the period – there were several significant swings in the relative value of sterling and the euro – France distributes about 33 per cent more than Britain on the results of races with a good proportion of this in premiums for the breeders and owners of qualified horses.

Without going into the statistical details in general terms France has maintained prize-money for horses and all of those involved with them throughout the scale of races.

The French specifity is that horses with ratings in the 80s are often able to win €100,000 or more in prize-money and premiums.

Britain has chosen, or at least has ended up with, a very different model.

The number of Flat races increased by 54 per cent between 1995 and 2019 and, as total prize-money on offer did not match this rise, the average prize-money fell over the same period by seven per cent and the average field size went from a peak of 12 runners in 2001 to 9.4 in 2019 pre-covid.

In 1995, there were more Flat races in France than there were in Britain; 25 years later than were 1,500 more races a year in Britain than in France.

Whether this outcome was a choice, an inevitability, or something imposed upon the racing business, this leads us to the other crisis racing has had over the period, one of governance and above all of objectives.

Lack of thought regarding the running of racing

When racing was directed by the Jockey Club or the Société d’Encouragement the question of its purpose and in whose interests the industry should be run didn’t really come up.

If the question had been posed the answer would have been self-evident as it was operated for the good of the sport. Given that many of those involved in these organisations were owners, breeders and gamblers most of the time this worked out alright.

Times change and the tension rose when those at the top of the Jockey Club and the Société d’Encouragement were no longer deeply involved in the sport. In 1993 the Jockey Club was replaced by the British Horseracing Board and two years later France Galop was created.

The idea was that these new organisations would be more responsive to concerns and desires of racing professionals, but like so many other revolutions this one was not thought through in advance.

The imperative was to get rid of the old outdated governance but it was not carefully thought through how best to replace the bodies who had run racing for generations. The result in both countries has been confusion, and on many occasions, weakness and lack of purpose. It is absurd to say that racing should speak to government, or anyone else with one voice, when the industry has so many participants with different and often opposing objectives and interests.

In France, the problem is less acute as the PMU retains its monopoly and its influence upon both racing and the state and it is a sign of change that the PMU’s chief executive is 37-year-old Emmanuelle Malecaze-Doublet, and not a high-ranking functionnaire in need of a sinecure before retiring.

Hoo Ya Mal only had to beat three rivals in an uncompetitive Group 3 March Stakes

However, I don’t think any of those who forced the change back in 1995 would have imagined that in 2022 France Galop still retains so many of the negative facets of the old system.

If there is a vacuum of power and a lack of purpose at the top it is not surprising the most organised interest groups have been able to seize influence.

Different businesses from bloodstock to racecourses have been keen to impose their vision upon other participants and my own feeling is that what has been lost is above all a sense of the “sport”, as well as the interests of those who follow and bet on it without having a professional involvement.

The most obvious example is the absurdity of the bloated Pattern race system where more or less every one of the 1000s of yearlings offered for sale has a pedigree full of black-type. This is simply silly and pointless, but there is a more serious negative effect of the 100s of Pattern races on the sport as a spectacle.

The best horses now more often than not run in uncompetitive races with small fields, which are neither interesting to watch nor an attractive betting propostion. This was never inevitable as the Japanese alternative shows (see the August issue), but the result of giving a misguided influence to a professional group.

For all of the many absurdities of the different racing systems in Britain, France and Ireland it could have been a great deal worse for everybody involved or watching from outside with interest and passion.

To move forward there needs to be some discussion at least of what the aims and purpose of those who take the decisions should be, and an attempt to balance the interests of the professional groups and those at the top and bottom end of the scale in each of them.

If racing is not an attractive and popular entertainment and betting medium it will very soon be forced to shrink. Surely this should surely be the start of any discussion?