Seconds Out: Oli's latest monthly blog

In this month’s blog, I’m going to offer my views on the formation of the Professional Racing Association (PRA) and the news that seems to be dominating the column inches regarding trainers signing up to the new organisation wanting to be paid for interviews. Thankfully, the news broke on Tuesday that any planned boycott for this Saturday at Sandown has been called off to avoid “public conflict”.

The PRA is the brainchild of Peter Savill - the former chief executive of the BHB and the current boss of Plumpton - alongside Nigel Payne. Several trainers have come out in support of these plans, most notably Dan Skelton. The leader of the trainers’ championship has signed up, along with 169 of his colleagues, to the plans put forward by the PRA.

Whilst this may appear to be a simple case of trainers wanting to be paid for their time and media ‘work’ on a raceday, it is far more nuanced than that. In very simple terms, trainers don’t think they are getting a fair slice of the prize money on offer, relative to what the racecourses make via various revenue streams, such as media rights.

According to informed sources, Savill has financially backed the creation of the PRA, but now needs to find a way to fund it moving forward. Savill told Nick Luck on his podcast that the money raised from charging for trainers’ interviews will go to various charities. This is true, to an extent, but, if what I’m hearing is correct, the charities will only benefit after the PRA has taken out the expenses needed to run the organisation. The payment for interviews could be viewed as a quick fix to the PRA’s need for funding.

Secondly, as is often the case, this isn’t really an argument about trainers not wanting to talk to the media. The real issue at play is the prize money pot and trainers feeling they are not getting their fair share from racecourses.

My sources suggest that the PRA has been delving into each racecourse’s finances. If an adequate percentage or more of the racecourse’s income is put back into prize money, they will essentially land on the ‘nice’ list. If however, they don’t meet that criteria then, you guessed it, . . . it’s the ‘naughty’ list for them.

This list is, apparently, going to be shared with the trainers that have signed up to the PRA. From there, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that leads to a more obvious protest to the prize money issue in the form of boycotts of certain races.

We have been here before. A fair few times, actually. Whether it works remains to be seen but the reality is that the model for British Racing, after years of bad decisions and a lack of unity, is flawed. Whether Dan Skelton agrees to an interview on a racecourse, for example, is pretty inconsequential to the bigger picture.

The trainers argue that radical change is needed. One trainer I spoke to recently told me his business has halved in size in the last 5 years and, unless something changes fast, he will go out of business. It’s hard to imagine he is the only one in that position.

To be fair, there are simply far too many people on this earth - in all industries, not just racing - who are motivated by self-interest. Ultimately, people are selfish creatures and want what is best for them and their families. If that means cooking the goose to suit themselves for a few years then waddling off into the sunset, then that is what some people will do.

We see it in politics daily, where a decision for the greater good is often passed over for a promotion or a position on the front bench. There are similarities in racing, in my experience. Unless we can find some unity and decisions are made in the long-term prosperity of the sport, then I fear for where we are heading.

Racing is not the only sport to suffer from infighting. But sports like golf with its LIV fallouts, can afford to argue as the sport is hugely popular and the Majors are watched around the world. Racing doesn’t have the time or standing for infighting and bickering. It needs strong leadership, someone not afraid to ruffle feathers for the greater good and reasonable, considered conversations with everyone thinking of the big picture - not just a short-term metaphorical brown envelope.