Ascot's resignation from the Racecourse Association (RCA) is more than just another localised dispute. The decision by the king's track to quit the RCA at the end of the year may ultimately lead to long overdue reform in the racing industry.
A Bold Move in a Turf War
The racing industry is a broad and varied collection of professions, venues, and interests, often resembling the Holy Roman Empire with turf wars ongoing, but never to the extent that the whole thing falls apart. However, Ascot's announcement on Monday feels different. The email dropped at 9am on a bank holiday, underlining that the king's track means business. Where Ascot has led, others may follow, putting the future of a trade association dating back to 1907 in serious doubt.
The Spark That Lit the Fuse
The immediate cause was Charles Allen's departure as chair of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) just two months ago. Allen's attempt to impose a modern governance structure, including a fully independent board of directors, proved fruitless. Ascot, along with the Jockey Club (which operates major tracks including Cheltenham, Aintree, Epsom, and Newmarket) and three key 'big independent' tracks (Newbury, York, and Goodwood), subsequently wrote to the RCA calling for a formal governance review. They demanded that significant views from key racecourses influence outcomes.
The major racecourses' anger stems from a conviction that the RCA's one-track, one-vote structure hands too much power to smaller venues, particularly the 16 courses operated by Arena Racing Company (ARC), which follows a quantity-over-quality business model to service the off-course betting market. Since the RCA nominates two members of the BHA board, Ascot and its co-signatories felt their views—including support for Lord Allen's fully independent board—were not getting a fair hearing at the top of the sport.
Deadline and Resignation
The deadline set for an 'acceptable proposal' for reform was the end of April. Ascot wasted little time in submitting its resignation four days later. All eyes are now on the Jockey Club, British racing's biggest commercial organisation. While it has given the RCA an extension to its deadline, it is unlikely that an operator as sharp and well-connected as Felicity Barnard, Ascot's CEO, would have led the charge without believing the Jockey Club would follow.
If or when the Jockey Club follows suit, the BHA will face a constitutional crisis. The RCA's two spots on the board depend on it being 'the person most representative in Great Britain of the interests of owners of racecourses.' Without Ascot, the Jockey Club's major tracks, and the likes of Goodwood, York, and Newbury, the RCA would not come close to that representation.
Possible Outcomes
It is possible that, faced with an existential crisis, the RCA will propose changes that meet with the Jockey Club's approval. Wilf Walsh, the RCA's chair, can draw on wealth of experience within racing and industry to strike a balance. However, that would still mean a major shift of power towards the biggest tracks and less influence for smaller ones.
For punters and racegoers, a parallel with the formation of the Premier League in the early 1990s is tempting but arguably misleading. The two sports have different structures, fanbases, and revenue streams. Notably, income from off-course betting means ARC can stage hundreds of meetings each year that attract few spectators. The division is not straightforward between major tracks with significant income from ticket sales, hospitality, and the Hong Kong-based World Pool, and ARC's betting-dependent model.
There is also a cohort of smaller independent tracks, from Plumpton in the south to Kelso in the Scottish borders. Chester, a member of the Large Independents group alongside Goodwood and York, operates Bangor-on-Dee and Musselburgh. There is no scope for promotion or relegation.
Plumpton quit the RCA two years ago, as its owner Peter Savill felt the RCA's representatives on the BHA board did not adequately represent small independent tracks. If Ascot's decision leads to a governance structure where major tracks hold more sway, the less productive tracks in ARC's portfolio could be particularly vulnerable. ARC's all-weather courses efficiently deliver a consistent stream of 'product' for betting, but its turf tracks are less productive.
With Ascot leading the charge, racing's governance structure may finally be set for long overdue reform. It promises to be a messy and painful process, with possible casualties among the current 59 tracks. If you have a particular favourite, now might be a good time to visit.
