Finding the Gain: Keeneland’s surge shows lobbying is racing’s strongest currency

Cover image courtesy of Keeneland

Keeneland September is halfway through its marathon run and the numbers are hard to ignore. Books 1 and 2 rose 13 and 18 per cent, and when Book 3 opened on Saturday, trade jumped 26.69 per cent on day one. Last month, Saratoga topped US$100 million (AU$150.4 million) for the first time.

That sort of lift doesn’t come just from pedigrees or pinhookers’ confidence but from major political change. OB3, the Trump-era tax package dubbed “One Big Beautiful Bill”, gave horse owners the ability to write off their investments immediately. That provision didn’t land in the statute by chance but was fought for, line by line, by people who understood how exposed the industry is to legislative change.

However, the change nearly didn't happen. We spoke to some of the leaders who operate on behalf of the U.S. industry in their lobbying efforts, to learn more about how it happened.

The dreaded loophole

“We were all patting ourselves on the back for getting the horse parts (of OB3) through and a day later we were pouring through the house bill (to understand the loophole) and it became evident that this was going to be a huge problem,” said Tom Rooney, the former Congressman who now runs the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA).

The flaw was spotted by tax adviser Jen Shah, whose clients realised the supposed win wasn’t watertight. Racing’s lobbyists moved quickly, roping in support from other agricultural sectors to get the glitch corrected before the bill reached the President’s desk.

Rooney puts it plainly: “It was a gut punch, and we thought there was no way we could get it done (in the short time frame), but the most important thing was to have people who are closest in time to those in power.

“Lobbyists can have nice offices, but if you don’t have people who are recently involved with people in the senate, you have nothing. You need to be able to text people and have meetings right now.”

It’s the sort of political arsenal Australian racing is lacking. When “horse trainer” quietly slipped off the federal Apprenticeship Priority List earlier this year, the industry only found out after the fact. There are few politicians actively working in parliament with the horse racing industry in mind each day.

“Racing Australia (have) engaged Diplomacy a bit over 12 months ago to help them coordinate their response on a number of issues,” said Adam Kilgour, of lobbying firm Diplomacy.

“And I was gobsmacked that virtually none of the federal politicians were aware that wagering is what pays for the sport.

“They also weren't aware of how large the sport is, what a big employer it is, and also its significant regional focus.”

That gap in understanding underlines how much work lies ahead. The U.S. can lean on a trade body specifically focusing on the purpose. Australia still leans on a patchwork of authorities whose main concern is wagering and regulation.

Policy at the sales

The link between lobbying and the market is stark. Fasig-Tipton Saratoga grossed more than US$100 million (AU$150.4 million) for the first time, with 25 seven-figure yearlings. Keeneland’s first four sessions reached US$307.6 million (AU$462.7 million) against US$252.5 million (AU$379.8 million) a year ago.

“A lot of people talk, people who are buying horses, are saying that their life is made easier to take these risks knowing they have depreciation as a tool,” Rooney said. “When depreciation dropped to 40 per cent, we saw a contraction (in the yearling market) if you look deep in the numbers.”

The Australian yearling market has defied gravity in recent seasons, but it has done so without any political tailwind. Depreciation schedules here haven’t changed positively since the 1980s. It’s left to breeders and owners to make their own weather, without the legislative leverage their American counterparts now enjoy.

But the U.S. change hasn't happened by luck. The NTRA has staff whose sole job is to comb through bills in Washington, looking for clauses that might hit the sport.

“It’s a matter of people reading the bill, and our staff drop everything and go through everything to see what affected our district,” Rooney said.

That infrastructure matters. “There were a lot of people who had done well in life and then invested in racing, and those people weren’t protected under OB3. But looping in the agricultural impact and all the peripheral amenities that impact the sport, and talking to the right people helped.”

“The reason why that helps at the national level is the personal relationships we have with key stakeholders in the sport and on Capitol Hill and in states,” Rooney said. “A lot of our lobbyists were former staff members themselves, and staff members hold tremendous sway with politicians.”

He credits those links with getting the OB3 language changed at the last minute.

“Our personal relationships with the leadership and the committees who were drafting this bill, to be able to change the language before it went to the House and sent to the President, was a herculean effort. Probably one of three times I can count that what we tried to do actually happened and you are seeing the results on that at Keeneland now.”

Welfare and politics

Tax reform isn’t the only front. The U.S. has also had to navigate national safety regulation. Since the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) came into effect in 2022, fatality rates have fallen sharply. In 2023 the number was 1.48 per thousand starts. By mid-2025 it sat at 1.02.

“There has been an effort (from some horsemen groups and states) to replace HISA with a new bill, to replace it with something like the past, with state regulation. We are working to kill that bill to replace HISA, (because) having state rights will hurt our sport,” Rooney said.

“The amount of breakdowns under HISA is at an all-time low, and going back to state rights will prevent that regulation. We can’t afford to have horse racing in the newspapers all the time for bad news.”

In Australia, welfare is also the frontline. Kilgour notes that “the Greens want to see an end to all racing - that’s their policy on their website. The Animal Justice Party are obviously very focused on our social licence around animal welfare, and other independents have their own views.”

“Greyhounds are significantly under the pump in a number of states at the moment. And that's a bit of a window into the future that, if thoroughbred racing and harness racing don't take care of welfare issues, that social licence can go out the door very quickly.”

The warning signs are already there. Live export of sheep, once worth $1.8 billion annually, will be phased out by 2028 after a series of emotive campaigns overwhelmed technical arguments and left the industry politically stranded. Greyhound racing in Tasmania has been given a 2029 end date, not off the back of a scandal but as a bargaining chip in a minority government.

As Dr Holly Ludeman of The Livestock Collective put it: “Industries can’t afford to wait until they are under attack before speaking up. I’ve learned that lesson the hard way through live export… If you leave a vacuum of information, activists will fill it with their story. And their story is rarely the whole truth.”

The same applies to racing. Welfare will always be weaponised by opponents, and in an era of fractured parliaments and activist crossbenchers, ignoring that reality is political negligence.

Defensive and offensive

Alan Foreman, who has spent more than three decades in industry leadership, including through the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association in the U.S., says the first step is to understand lobbying’s dual role.

“Lobbying is a defensive as much as an offensive mechanism,” he told TTR AusNZ. “Offensive - tax reform and legislative changes to help. Defensive - making sure it doesn’t get worse or harder for us.”

For Australian racing, both sides matter. The defensive agenda is about protecting the industry from further regulatory erosion - whether that’s welfare reforms driven by activist pressure, or quiet removals from government training and apprenticeship lists. The offensive agenda is about seizing opportunities to modernise tax, secure workforce pipelines, and strengthen regional investment.

Horse racing supports more than 80,000 jobs across Australia. Its supply chain is vast: feed suppliers, vets, farriers, transport companies, breeders, owners, trainers, jockeys, strappers. Many of those jobs are based in rural communities where racing is one of the last major employers. Small-town racecourses double as community centres. Veterinary research into Thoroughbreds underpins modern equine medicine, lifting standards across the sector.

However, by almost every key metric - foal crops, ownership numbers, wagering turnover - the industry is contracting. And with that contraction comes a shrinking economic footprint, weakening the very argument that has long underpinned racing’s political influence.

Foreman put it in the U.S. context: “Stakeholders represent the economic engine of the industry. We buy horses, hire trainers, employ grooms and hotwalkers, pay jockeys, provide housing and medical care for backstretch workers. We are the tax base, the voters, the families. That is political power.”

A voice for the participants

Lobbying isn’t just about Canberra or state parliaments. It also has to happen inside racing itself. Participants need pathways to make their voices heard by the bodies that regulate them.

The problem is that in Australia, and in some states, those pathways barely exist. Principal Racing Authorities are creatures of statute - they are not shareholder-driven companies, nor are they directly accountable to participants.

PRAs do not have annual meetings where accounts can be challenged, no motions of no confidence, or shareholder votes to replace directors. Once appointed, boards can govern with little oversight and they control the primary political mechanism available to the industry.

“What this current process has exposed is that legislation with appointed board members but who have no positive obligation to engage with stakeholders is really a flawed model,” said Thoroughbred Breeders NSW Chairman Hamish Esplin.

The consequences are obvious when PRAs can act unilaterally. As an example, trainers in NSW were recently told to hand over their financial records - a move many saw as regulatory overreach.

Alan Foreman, hearing about the Australian trainer financial disclosure request, was blunt: “At what point does the regulator cross the line? It sounds to me like if they’re asking for financial information from trainers, that’s crossing the line. What regulatory purpose is there?

“A request like that wouldn't stand in the U.S. because our horsemen simply wouldn't allow it, they'd use the leverage they have and shut it down in a heartbeat by refusing to deliver racing.”

This is exactly why the current statutory reviews in NSW and Queensland are so important. They are not abstract legal exercises; they are rare, high-leverage moments where government is inviting the industry to speak. But unless stakeholders organise, prepare, and lobby hard into these processes, the default voices will be the PRAs alone - and the chance for structural reform will pass.

In NSW, former Health Minister Brad Hazzard is leading an independent review of the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996, with consultation expected from October 2025 and a final report in 2026. Its scope puts board appointments, tenure limits, transparency, and consultation mechanisms squarely on the table - the very accountability gaps participants have long complained about. Importantly, Hazzard has the power to recommend legislative change.

Queensland’s 2025 Racing Review, chaired by Matthew McGrath, is just as pivotal. With more than 1,200 submissions already received, its recommendations will feed directly into state legislation and budget settings.

Its horizon is long; shaping sustainability, welfare, integrity, infrastructure and country racing through to 2045 and beyond. Without a coordinated lobbying effort from across the industry, the outcomes risk being shaped narrowly by whichever groups have the loudest access.

Both reviews are reminders that lobbying is not optional. It is the difference between being at the table or on the menu.

The strength of the American sales season is not simply a story of confidence in pedigrees or racetrack performance. It is the manifestation of a political win secured through vigilance, access, and organisation. For Australian racing, the challenge is not whether the issues exist - tax, welfare, workforce, accountability - but whether the industry has the structures and will to pursue them with the same intensity.

Lobbying is not an optional extra. It is the price of staying in the game.

Could it be time for all industry stakeholder groups to make sure their interests are best represented at a political level through a co-ordinated lobbying effort?

If you would like to contribute to this series, send your thoughts or ideas to vicky@ttrausnz.com.au.