Review of prize-money allocations is long overdue

The constant debate about prize-money levels in racing goes far beyond the overall amount of money coming into the sport from racecourses, from the betting industry via the Levy Board and from owners. 

The industry also increasingly finds itself asking whether the divisions of prize-money between the winner and the placed horses requires change and whether the distribution between owners, trainers, jockeys and stable staff is at the right levels. 

Prize-money is the key lever in horseracing with which to influence the behaviour of those managing the supply of horses into the sport, and as the product around which racecourses and betting companies have built their businesses. How prize-money is allocated between classes, participants and places requires proper analysis and thought, and should be approached with an open mind, not clouded by current practice. 

It is the duty of the whole industry to address this conundrum in an attempt to find a better system, even when financial improvement for one group may be at the cost of another. Trying to achieve unanimity between owners and each of the groups making up racing’s workforce as to how prize-money should be divided is no easy task. The truth is, of course, that everyone’s perspective on this issue is coloured by where they sit within the sport. Any representative of a particular racing
constituent would find it hard to accept a reduction in their percentage.

Getting agreement on changes to levels of prize-money between winners and placed horses is difficult enough, but making adjustments to the overall percentages received by jockeys, trainers and stable staff is an even bigger nettle to grasp.

As for the percentages relating to winners and placed horses, there is already some variation between those of pattern races and non-pattern races. Whether these should be extended to making a distinction between all handicaps and all weight-forage races is open to debate, as is the notion that variations should exist between all middle and lower tier events and premier races.

We then have various other matters within this area, such as appearance money and jockeys’ pension contributions, hugely important in their own right, but adding further layers of complication to this whole debate. 

But this important work must go further than making racing’s stakeholders more comfortable with the distribution system. It must set out to have a positive impact on some of the industry’s key metrics such as the number of owners and horses in training, which in turn benefits trainers, jockeys and stable staff.

All of this is to say nothing of the entirely separate question over whether the total prize-money split between classes of race is what it should be to deliver the maximum benefit to the sport. 

Many owners question whether it is right that horses at the top of the racing pyramid should receive so much more prize-money than those running in Class 5 and 6 races. Is it fair, they ask, that horses, often with a high residual stud value, also take the lion’s share of prize-money?

Certainly, when you consider the average total prize fund for a Class 1 race last year was £139,039 against that of a Class 6 of £6,156, you might think they have a point. However, those on the other side of the argument have equal conviction that racing must always reward the best horses to retain the international  competitiveness of our top events, which provide by far the biggest draw for the sport.

As the industry is currently considering the longer-term possibilities for fixtures, funding and media rights, it is surely the right time to include a review of the allocation and distribution of prize-money. Ignoring the impact the reform of this mechanism could have on the supply side of the industry would be at best a massive oversight, and at worst negligent.