HORSE RACING TRACKS CANNOT BE RELOCATED

 

HORSE RACING TRACKS CANNOT BE RELOCATED – GOVERNMENTS MUST STOP TREATING RACE COURSES AS REAL ESTATE

By Mahindar Singh Rathore (TURF TRACKER)

Every few years, the same debate resurfaces. Governments speak about expired leases, redevelopment plans, commercial projects, and relocating race courses as if a horse racing venue were nothing more than an old office building that can be shifted from one address to another.

Nothing could be further from reality.

A race course is not just a piece of land. It is a living sporting ecosystem built over generations. Those who casually suggest that a race course can simply be relocated have little understanding of what they are talking about.

A world-class race course is the result of decades of planning, investment, experience and continuous maintenance. It consists of a scientifically designed racing track, multiple training tracks, hundreds of stables, veterinary hospitals, equine swimming pools, walking rings, saddling enclosures, paddock areas, jockey rooms, stewards' facilities, administrative offices, grandstands, betting infrastructure, irrigation systems, drainage networks, horse transport facilities and accommodation for thousands of workers.

Can all of this be recreated overnight?

Absolutely not.

Even if unlimited funds were available, building a new race course is a project that would take years. More importantly, the quality of a racing surface cannot simply be manufactured by laying grass. A racing track develops its character through years of engineering, maintenance, weather patterns and careful management. Horses worth crores of rupees cannot be expected to race on an untested surface.

Yet, some policymakers continue to speak of relocation as though they are shifting a warehouse.

This approach demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the horse racing industry.

Horse racing is not merely a sport. It is an economic ecosystem that supports thousands of livelihoods every single day.

Behind every racehorse stands an army of people—trainers, jockeys, work riders, stable staff, farriers, veterinarians, transport operators, feed suppliers, saddlers, blacksmiths, turf maintenance personnel, race officials, photographers, broadcasters, journalists, bookmakers, tote employees, caterers, security personnel and countless others.

For every horse in training, multiple families depend upon that animal for their daily income.

When a government casually suggests closing or relocating a race course, it is effectively asking thousands of people to sacrifice their livelihoods while waiting indefinitely for promises that may never materialise.

No responsible government should treat employment with such indifference.

Ironically, race clubs have continued to contribute significantly to the public exchequer for decades through taxes, duties, licensing fees and various statutory payments. They generate economic activity, create employment and maintain vast green spaces in the middle of congested cities.

Yet, when the time comes to renew leases or formulate long-term policies, many governments suddenly begin viewing race courses purely as prime real estate.

This mindset is deeply flawed.

If governments genuinely believe horse racing is a legitimate sport and a legitimate industry, then they also have a responsibility to provide policy stability.

Lease renewals should not become recurring political battles.

Governments have every right to modernise lease agreements, revise financial terms, strengthen environmental safeguards and insist upon greater public accountability. Those are reasonable expectations.

But demanding that race courses simply vacate historic locations without first ensuring a fully developed, operational and internationally compliant alternative is both impractical and irresponsible.

You cannot suspend an industry employing thousands while waiting for bulldozers and construction companies.

Sports do not function like temporary exhibitions.

Imagine asking a major cricket stadium, football stadium or Olympic venue to shut down immediately and relocate somewhere else without years of preparation.

There would be nationwide outrage.

Why should horse racing be treated differently?

The answer lies in a persistent misconception that race courses are merely large parcels of land waiting to be commercially exploited.

They are not.

They are sporting institutions, historical landmarks and centres of employment.

Many race courses have existed for over a century. They have witnessed history, produced champions and become an integral part of the cultural identity of their cities. Destroying such institutions for short-term commercial gain would be an irreversible mistake.

If governments genuinely wish to redevelop urban spaces, they must engage with race clubs, industry stakeholders and experts to create practical, long-term solutions instead of issuing unrealistic directives.

Policy should be driven by planning—not by headlines.

Relocation, if ever considered, must occur only after a fully functional replacement race course is completed, tested and ready to operate without interrupting racing or affecting the livelihoods of thousands of people.

Anything less is administrative negligence.

Horse racing has survived wars, economic crises and changing generations because it is more than entertainment—it is an industry built on skill, tradition and human dedication.

Governments must stop viewing race courses through the narrow lens of land value.

They must start recognizing their true value—as sporting infrastructure, employment generators, heritage institutions and contributors to the economy.

One of the biggest disappointments facing the horse racing industry today is the silence of many influential personalities within its own ranks. Several powerful businessmen, industrialists and prominent public figures proudly own racehorses and enjoy the prestige associated with the sport. However, when the very future of racing comes under threat, very few are willing to lead from the front. Their influence, stature and connections could make a significant difference in policy discussions with governments, yet their voices are rarely heard when the industry needs them the most. Horse ownership should not be confined to the winner's enclosure and presentation ceremonies. True leadership is demonstrated during times of crisis. If those who possess influence and resources remain silent while race courses face uncertainty, they risk becoming spectators to the gradual decline of the very sport they cherish. This is the time for unity, courage and collective action—not passive observation.

A race course is not an empty plot waiting for redevelopment.

It is the beating heart of an entire industry.

And hearts cannot simply be relocated.