Media rights secrecy is harming the industry

Whatever the new decade may bring our sport, you can be sure the subject of prize-money will continue to be a recurring theme running through this column.

Prize-money must be central to our thinking, not simply because racehorse owners in this country are so poorly rewarded relative to owners in virtually all other countries where horseracing exists, but also because these derisory returns for owners reflect badly on the economics of the whole industry.

The starting point with addressing racing’s financial problems has always resided in our relationship with the betting industry, first to maximise betting on horseracing and then to ensure that a fair proportion of that money flows into the racing industry. 

There was a time when virtually all of racing’s income from betting was collected by the Horserace Betting Levy Board and then distributed as the board and racing saw fit. It was never a perfect arrangement, but, overall, the system contained a high level of transparency.

While the Levy Board remains a major factor in racing’s funding today, the big change since the turn of the century has, of course, been the enormous growth of income from media rights, based on racing pictures being shown in betting shops and now live streaming on betting company websites. 

As welcome as this growing source of funding has been, the fact that this money flows directly into the coffers of racecourses continues to drive deep divisions within
horseracing. 

These divisions are caused by the racecourses by and large taking the attitude that this is their money to spend as they see fit. Meanwhile, the rest of racing, while not denying that racecourses have legal ownership to the pictures on which this funding is based, believes this revenue, at least morally, belongs to the whole of racing.

It is certainly difficult to understand what justification there can be in most racecourses continuing to refuse to share information about media rights income. Nobody would argue that such detail must remain very confidential, but that is not a reason for denying certain allocated representatives of racing’s non-racecourse bodies access to it, and at least to have a say on how it should be shared.

As income from media rights is now estimated to be £150 million annually, it is self-evident that racing finds it impossible to put together any sort of meaningful financial plan without knowing the details on which this revenue is based. 

Putting that aside, how can sensible fact-based discussions take place over the fixture list and race programme (both of which are germane to all racecourses’ financial model) when the operators of our tracks continue to refuse to share vital information?

Yet racecourses are constantly pushing for more and more fixtures that the rest of the industry have to service, at the same time compounding the problem of small fields
and uncompetitive racing as they frequently pursue policies on the race programme that suit their own needs, without acknowledging the big picture.

Not only that, but they often come holding a wish-list that includes reductions in minimum values, presumably so they can further reduce the prize-money levels of moderate races, for which derisory amounts are already being offered. 

The racecourses’ efforts to change the basis of media rights income on a percentage of betting turnover, rather than the existing ‘bet and watch’ system, is a laudable move that we would wholly support. 

But why in God’s name are representatives of the governing authority of racing and the Horsemen’s Group denied a place at the table for these discussions? It is, after all, the BHA which pulls the strings in putting together not only the race programme and the fixture list, but also the percentages that racing’s workforce take from prize-money.

Even more importantly, it is the owners, trainers, jockeys and stable staff who provide the raw material on which every racecourse depends.