Racing: Racing left shaken but hardly stirred

Sheikh Mohammed's threat to quit Britain because of parisitic bookmakers taking the lion's share of racing's revenue has sent shock waves through the sport's disunited ranks. But, fears Sue Montgomery, his words may ultimately have little impact.

The reaction yesterday to Sheikh Mohammed al Maktoum's strongly-worded threat that his family will pull out of British racing unless the sport's finances improve was, in truth, fairly predictable.

From the racing industry came sage nodding of heads in agreement with the lucid arguments about funding spelt out by the Dubaian cabinet minister on Tuesday night, and a Pavlovian defence from those in the opposing trench, the one occupied by the betting industry.

There is little doubt that the financial structure of racing in Britain is cock-eyed - the Government and bookmakers leave the sport a shade over 1p in the pound from betting duty once they have taken their cuts - but the Sheikh was telling us nothing new. The surprise was not what he said - for owners, breeders and trainers have been whingeing about low prize- money for decades - but that he came out and said it.

Together with his brothers, extended family and friends, the Sheikh now forms the biggest and most influential unit in the world. They have pumped billions of pounds into the racing industry in the past 20 years but seen little return on their investment but glory.

Those rallying round his flag yesterday included Lord Wakeham, chairman of the sport's administrators, the British Horseracing Board, whose leadership came in for some thinly veiled criticism in the Sheikh's speech. But in true politician style Lord Wakeham said: "The Maktoum family's investment has brought pleasure to racegoers, jobs to the racing industry, income to the betting industry and tax revenues to the Government. Therefore racing, the Government and the betting industry ignore at their collective peril the forthright views expressed on Sheikh Mohammed's behalf.''

From across no-man's land came the plaint of the politically powerful bookmakers, who are quite happy to take horseracing bets but are continuing to develop alternative methods of generating income, like general sports betting and lottery-style numbers games, perhaps the biggest threat.

Malcolm Palmer of Corals said: "Racing is struggling to hold its position of 70 per cent of off-course betting turnover and any overall increase in turnover has been the result of bookmaker initiatives, plus some welcome deregulation which has led to the introduction of numbers betting and gaming machines.

"The current tax regime for betting shops remains severe. As a high turnover, low margin business the impact of VAT, betting duty and Horserace Betting Levy are a burdensome combination on already squeezed profits. Accordingly neither us nor our shareholders consider that current profits are excessive for an industry which employs 40,000 people and has an estimated further 60,000 reliant upon it.''

Andy Clifton, on behalf of the country's biggest firm, Ladbrokes, seemed more concilatory: "Sheikh Mohammed has made some serious and well-considered comments, particularly drawing attention to the need for the racing and betting industries to work together to improve the well-being of racing as a whole.''

Their battle against the betting industry apart, the racing and bloodstock industries rarely present a united front when making representations about under-funding to government; the Sheikh likened the different factions to traders squabbling in a souk. And one of the sport's problems is that it is too many things to too many people; a hobby to some, a living to others. Owners, for instance, would undoubtedly like more prize money, but too many of them have shot themselves in the foot by insisting that a financial return is not important; that they do it for the aforementioned glory and fun.

The comparison is often made to joining a golf club, where they would not expect reward for buying a set of clubs and playing a round. But if they were performing daily in front of a paying public and acting as cannon fodder for another huge industry, they probably would.

The Sheikh and his brothers, who fill four of the top five spots on the 1997 owners' league table, have built their bloodstock empires in Britain, the heart of the thoroughbred world, but they now realise that there may be more attractive playgrounds.

And the implications of their removal elsewhere are immense, not least on the job market. Sheikh Mohammed alone employed nine trainers - including Michael Stoute, from whose yard his great internationl champion Singspiel raced, and John Gosden - to care for nearly 300 horses this year.

His Dalham Hall Stud in Newmarket is one of the country's biggest and finest, home to stallions of the calibre of Polish Precedent and Machiavellian. He has invested huge sums in young stock at auction, invigorating the market and enabling other breeders to stay in business. He is probably one of the biggest employers in the sport's self-styled headquarters, Newmarket, a town which would, according the the local council, be ``devastated'' by his absence.

If the Maktoums pulled out (and they have already disposed of their once pride-and-joy, the trade paper Racing Post), racing would undoubtedly continue in Britain.

But it would be healthier with them than without them, and the Sheikh's hope must be that his words are taken seriously. But he may find, as have others before him, that he is whistling into the haboob.

A Bookmaker's View

As an owner it is the Sheikh's prerogative to do whatever he wants with his horses. But with over 400 horses, I suspect the Maktoums won't get much sympathy from either punters or the small owner who has been struggling to compete for the last decade. If they withdrew it would reduce bloodstock prices to a level more accessible to the small owner and why should the big players have their `leisure activity' supplemented by punters. As for his comments about `bookmakers ever-open pockets', it must be said that, as usual in this type of broadside, they choose to ignore the tax on tax anomaly that means not a penny from the deductions on racing bets goes into our coffers. How can the Sheikh quibble about our business making a profit? I am sure Dubai doesn't supply oil at cost price to the world. We already contribute about 33 per cent of our profits from racing to the Levy, equivalent to about pounds 17m a year.

David Hood, William Hill