Racing is under growing financial and operational pressure. Using Victoria as a case study, the industry must confront whether its current track and meeting footprint is sustainable in a world of rising costs, slower wagering growth and higher expectations from punters.
It is a question no one in racing particularly enjoys asking, but one the industry can no longer afford to avoid.
Are there simply too many racetracks?
Victoria is a useful place to start. It is home turf, and it provides a clear example of pressures that exist right across Australia and, increasingly, New Zealand.
The sport is operating in an environment where prizemoney is already near unsustainably high levels and will inevitably come under pressure if additional revenue is not generated or meaningful savings are not made.
Wagering growth has slowed materially, Point of Consumption Tax has taken a real bite, and costs across every part of the industry have risen sharply. Track maintenance, staffing, compliance, integrity, agronomy and infrastructure all cost significantly more than they did even a few years ago.
At the same time, racing needs to invest more, not less, in its most important customer: the punter. Without a healthy wagering ecosystem, there is no long-term funding model for the sport. Product quality, confidence in surfaces, field sizes, safety and consistency are not optional extras. They are fundamental to ensuring there is an industry here at all in the decades to come.
Racing Victoria’s track policy is sound in principle. Tracks are expected to present at least a Good 4, with enough give to protect horses and riders. That is a reasonable baseline in a professional sport.
The difficulty lies in execution. Preparing consistent, even racing surfaces has become significantly harder for lower-resourced country tracks that lack the infrastructure, staffing and agronomic capability of venues like Flemington or Caulfield. Weather volatility has only amplified the challenge.
The result has been a steady cycle of track-related issues, abandoned meetings, incorrectly rated tracks and recurring debates about accountability. From a punter’s perspective, this is deeply frustrating. Similarly for participants. Even more concerning if it creates safety concerns.
Punters quite rightly demand even tracks. That is the least they can expect in a wagering-funded industry. The uncomfortable question is whether it is reasonable to expect that standard to be met consistently across the sheer volume of tracks currently in operation.
Country racetracks are vital to local communities. They provide social connection, economic activity and identity, particularly in regional areas. Committees and volunteers work extraordinarily hard, often with limited resources. This is not an argument that any track should close, nor a criticism of those who pour countless unpaid hours into keeping racing alive locally.
If Racing Victoria can make its track policy and support structures work across the current network, that is an excellent outcome. But at present, there is growing evidence those structures are stretched, whether through funding, resourcing, management capability or practical on-the-ground support.
This is not a new conversation. Track rationalisation and calendar management have occurred repeatedly throughout racing’s history. There are already far fewer racetracks today than there were fifty years ago, and Racing Victoria itself has begun to reduce the number of race meetings in a more deliberate way.
That process started two seasons ago, reflecting recognition that the existing schedule was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Those reductions are sensible, but they have also been modest relative to the scale of the challenge.
Racing is not just a community service. It is a professional industry competing for discretionary spend in a crowded entertainment and betting market. What may preserve local amenity in the short term is not always aligned with what is in the best interests of racing in the long term.
