Letter to the Editor: A call to action

Cover image courtesy of Sheamus Mills Bloodstock

Firstly, let me apologise for the length of this letter. One thing I have come to realise more than ever recently is any topic you start discussing on the Thoroughbred industry invariably leads to another, such is the flow on effect almost all decisions have.

The recent TTR series around the state of the industry led to this letter and I hope the topics it brought up are subject to further discussion and not allowed to drift into obscurity again. To get straight to the point I believe this industry is at a real junction point in its evolution.

Our funding model is under strain.

Our social licence is under strain and that will naturally flow to Government support if it gets to the point votes are more important than the taxes the industry provides.

Race clubs are certainly under strain.

Trainers are under strain.

Owners are under strain.

And the breeders are too.

You can start at any point in the cycle that drives our industry. And it’s important to note that it is a cycle and not linear. The flow on effect of decisions and policy goes around in circles, not directly between one interest group and another. We often get that wrong.

All too often you read about one part of the industry attacking another. And furthermore, making decisions from a self-important view. In the absence of a respected, robust and functional Racing Australia we are often left rudderless on important issues that should be discussed based on what is good for everyone, not just in the spirit of self-interest.

A clear example I will give is close to home. As a member of the MRC Committee it may be considered natural for the club to have done all it could to secure the Cox Plate for Caulfield next year when held away from a rebuilt Moonee Valley. Or should we have taken an industry wide perspective and asked where would the race attract the biggest crowd and more importantly the biggest turnover? Would Flemington provide the best outcome for full industry benefit? The answer is probably now evident.

So back to the cycle that we all operate in and to try and illustrate it as clearly as possible.

In Victoria alone the industry is said to employ the equivalent of 35,000 full time jobs and around 75,000 – 85,000 nationally. That plus the funds it generates for Government are the sole reasons we sit on a reasonable wicket in this country.

And given the current disaster facing the British Horse Authority with bookmakers clients subject to affordability tests and now the proposal to raise the Government takeout to match online casinos – a reported hit of between £66 and £160 million – don’t think this will always just be someone else’s problem.

Personally, I believe the biggest threats to our funding model are

And to illustrate the cycle again, you can start at any point in this chain, and it will circle around 360 degrees

What you end up with is an industry cycling downwards and further decreasing its footprint. We have seen the effects this cycle had on New Zealand. It’s real and it’s not hard to slip into.

The good news is we have now also seen that cycle in reverse over there. An updated funding model and wagering protection has led to increased prizemoney, increased participation and so on it goes.

So, to the most important question we as an industry need to ask. What size foal crop do we need for the industry to sustain each-way betting and 75,000 – 85,000 jobs nationally?

The starting point for ALL of this is to get an answer on that first question - What size foal crop do we need for the industry to sustain each-way betting and 75,000 – 85,000 jobs?

If the answer is 5000 then we have no issue. We are well above that number and let natural selection continue. Allow the reported $100 million a year to go offshore on imports. Don’t worry about the declining foal crop and ways to ensure the breeding industry’s viability. Certainly no need for tariffs or protectionist measures.

We are good! (Other than the inevitable issue of full-life welfare and will touch on that later but is a vital question that needs a lot more time than I can give it here).

But if we don’t have the answer to that question, we are flying blind. It will be too late if we work it out after we are already short of the mark, given an increase in numbers would take at least 3 years to filter through.

We are not Hong Kong. Imports can’t fill the gap. We operate a different model. Breeders are therefore the obvious answer and that filters back into the cycle mentioned above.

Lots of commentary about “those rich breeders” and a few select high price yearlings which is the equivalent of saying all owners are flying when citing the winner of a Melbourne Cup or Cox Plate – it plays no relevance to how things are going across the board.

This publication noted the true state of the breeding industry in Australia and the figures are not good. To quote exactly “In 2025, 3678 sold yearlings made a collective profit of $44 million, with an average profit of just under $12,000 per horse. The median outcome was a loss of $39,000, while 33% of those sold made a profit.

If we add the 948 yearlings who passed in, meaning they have generated no income at time of sale, they collectively add $110 million in costs at an average total value of $116,000 per passed in horse.

So, across all the yearlings who went through the ring - passed in or sold - in 2025, there was a total loss of $66 million, or an average loss of $14,400 per horse.

The figures don’t lie: it’s getting harder to break even, let alone get ahead. And when the pipeline of new foals keeps shrinking, the message is clear: This industry cannot afford to keep losing its breeders.”

I have often wondered why we keep painting the picture as so rosy when we all know it’s not. Do breeders get the tag of “fat cats” because we constantly talk about the top few percent of the market and present misleading stats to suggest everyone is flying?

What if we started printing the cost of production average along with the other statistics of sale average, clearance rates etc.?

Is it time we are honest with ourselves so we can discuss potential solutions or be realistic about how we all want this industry to look in 10 years? The first step to solving a problem after all is acceptance that there is one.

Breeders are in the same basket as the rest of the industry – rising costs are making it hard.

So, some of the questions we should be asking without the fear of reprisal or ridicule are :

Hong Kong put almost $20k on imports to cover aftercare costs. New Zealand protected its punting dollar as referenced above, Japan is largely a closed shop and there are numerous other jurisdictions with schemes in place to protect their industries.

These are not new or ridiculous measures we are discussing – they already exist elsewhere.

I don’t have the answer to these questions, but I suspect they are worth discussion. I just don’t see the point in this false economy we are living it present. Would it potentially be better to have a significant reset to try and keep people in the game?

Just as a very small example of how one thread can have a big flow on effect in this industry. I am all for a free economy. Charge whatever you like for service fees. But if the stallion is covering less than 100 mares and a healthy fertile horse, it begs the question is the fee too high?

The stats clearly show it’s increasingly difficult the further down the chain you go, so if those stallions stood for half their current advertised fee, would that entice more people to stay in the game?

Would it give them the opportunity to place a lower reserve come sale time?

Would that give trainers and buyers the opportunity to get into the market at a lower price?

Would those lower prices mean more small shareholders get back into horse ownership?

Would an increased owner base mean more horses sold? Bigger fields? Higher turnover? Sustainably high prizemoney? You get the drift.

Again, if we don’t need the foal crop to be maintained then let it go. The numbers will find their own level and those who survive, survive.

The same at the MRC. If we offer free entry, dramatically reduced tickets on feature days and lower the food and beverage prices, what effect will that have? More patrons engaging with the sport? Greater turnover? An increase in future participants and a return to a wider audience?

There are two big points here.

If we are heading for gradual but mass job losses and an average field size of less than 8, maybe we should start the discussion now. Because if that becomes the case, we are no longer the big behemoth with enough clout to drive a good deal with Government anyway.

And to that end I would say this. The industry has for far too long expected people with little to no skin in the game to make sensible and sustainable decisions on their behalf then moan when they don’t. Or express surprise.

I have seen what getting true industry participants into decision making positions can do and would just implore you – if you love this industry and want to see it stronger than ever in 10 years, raise your ideas, have that discussion, be open to change, make decisions for the greater good, drive innovation and run for the positions of power within it!

Cheers,

Sheamus Mills

Sheamus Mills Bloodstock