Zavaray Poonawalla has thrown his weight behind Indian racing at a time when the sport is struggling to find its feet. His generosity and enthusiasm deserve applause. But can money and passion save a sport in decline? While committed patrons strive to keep racing alive, turf clubs remain trapped in archaic practices, closed-door governance and a reluctance to attract new audiences. The real challenge is not merely funding racing, but persuading those who govern it to embrace change.

Some individuals contribute to racing in ways that go beyond winning trophies. Zavaray Poonawalla belongs to this category. His willingness to support the sport when it is battling serious challenges reflects a refreshing belief in its future.

Yet financial resources and personal commitment alone cannot overcome the institutional obstacles threatening Indian racing. The politics of turf clubs is a different race altogether, one in which enthusiasm often counts for little against entrenched interests, outdated practices and an unwillingness to recognise that the world outside the racecourse has changed.

Indian racing is in serious decline, and the reasons extend well beyond the financial pressures confronting the clubs. For too long, racing has remained confined to a traditional audience, with precious little effort made to attract fresh followers. Marketing has been inadequate, public engagement limited, and the sport`s enormous potential to appeal to a wider audience largely untapped.

The turf clubs, which ought to be the custodians and promoters of racing, have often behaved as though preserving the status quo is an achievement in itself. Membership remains exclusive, decision-making is frequently opaque, and the appetite for scrutiny appears limited. The sport has struggled to open its doors to new people, new ideas and new ways of doing business.

There is an uncomfortable question that the clubs must confront. How long can a sport survive by depending on the same shrinking pool of racegoers while making little effort to replenish it? A younger generation accustomed to instant information, digital engagement and professional sports marketing is unlikely to develop an interest in racing merely because it has a distinguished history. The sport has to make itself relevant, accessible and attractive.

Equally troubling is the reluctance to place the functioning of the clubs under a stronger public and institutional microscope. Transparency should not be viewed as a threat, and accountability should not be mistaken for interference. A sport that expects the public to invest its money, time and trust must be prepared to answer questions about how it is governed and where its resources are going.

This is where Poonawalla`s enthusiasm, welcome as it is, meets the hard realities of Indian racing. Sponsorship can sustain prestigious events, improve their presentation and provide a much-needed financial lifeline. Generous patrons can keep the show running when other sources of support are drying up. But sponsorship cannot substitute for reform, nor can a succession of well-funded race meetings compensate for the absence of a coherent plan to expand the sport`s audience.

Poonawalla deserves credit for believing that something can still be done. That belief is valuable, particularly when pessimism has become commonplace. Yet the greatest tribute the clubs could pay him would be to match his enthusiasm with a willingness to change. They must move beyond the comfort of their ivory towers, invest in professional marketing, engage with younger audiences, improve transparency and make racing a sport that welcomes newcomers rather than one that appears determined to preserve its exclusivity.

Indian racing does not lack history, spectacle or sporting drama. What it lacks is a sufficiently compelling effort to take these attributes to people who have never set foot on a racecourse. The product is there, but the promotion has lagged behind. Unless that changes, the sport risks becoming increasingly dependent on a handful of committed patrons and an ageing audience.

Poonawalla can provide the financial impetus. He can demonstrate faith in the sport when others hesitate. He can help keep the big occasions alive and lend prestige to racing`s marquee events. But the responsibility for securing its future rests with the institutions entrusted with its administration.

There is a lesson here for the clubs. A generous patron should not be expected to carry the burden of an entire industry. His contribution should inspire those who govern racing to do their part, not offer them an excuse to continue as before.

Champions beyond the racecourse can keep the flame burning. But only enlightened leadership, meaningful reform and a genuine desire to welcome new followers can prevent that flame from eventually going out.

Banning those who hold a mirror to the authorities does little to help them understand the realities confronting the sport. If anything, it shields the establishment from uncomfortable truths that it can ill afford to ignore. Reform begins when criticism is welcomed rather than suppressed, when those in authority are willing to question their own practices, and when they recognise that change is essential for survival.

Some turf clubs pride themselves on their elite status. Yet being elite in membership does not necessarily translate into enlightened thinking. No institution can claim to serve a sport while remaining insulated from scrutiny and unwilling to descend from its ivory tower. Indian racing needs patrons like Zavaray Poonawalla, but it also needs administrators with the humility to listen, the courage to reform and the vision to secure the sport`s future before it is too late.