A centralised professional authority, a common pool of officials, uniform rules and access to international expertise could make Indian racing more efficient, economical and accountable. It is time to look beyond individual clubs and consider the interests of the sport as a whole.

Indian horse racing needs to seriously rethink its administrative structure. The present arrangement, under which every turf club maintains its own administrative establishment, is neither cost-effective nor conducive to efficient racing. This is particularly relevant when clubs are struggling financially, with declining returns compounded by punitive GST and other economic pressures.

While individual clubs have their own identity, infrastructure and commercial interests, the basic requirements of conducting racing are essentially the same. Yet, each maintains separate administrative machinery, often struggling to find experienced personnel for specialised responsibilities. With a limited pool of competent racing administrators in the country, such duplication serves little purpose.

Why should every club maintain a separate set of officials when their expertise could be pooled and utilised across the country?

One authority, common administration

India already has the Turf Authorities of India (TAI), which brings together the recognised racing clubs. However, its role has largely remained that of a coordinating body. What is needed is its transformation into a permanent, professionally managed central racing authority with clearly defined powers and responsibilities.

The authority should oversee the administration and regulation of racing, leaving individual clubs to concentrate on their racecourses, infrastructure, membership, sponsorships and commercial operations.

A common pool of stipendiary stewards, handicappers, starters, veterinary officials and other specialists could be employed by the central authority and deployed wherever required. A club conducting racing for a relatively short season need not maintain a full complement of specialised officials throughout the year. A central handicapping department and a panel of stipendiary stewards could serve all centres according to the racing calendar.

This would reduce costs while ensuring that smaller and financially weaker clubs have access to the same quality of expertise as bigger establishments.

Technology makes it practical

Centralised administration was once difficult because officials had to be physically present at every centre. Technology has changed that equation.

Handicapping discussions, race programming, licensing matters, disciplinary proceedings and policy decisions can be handled through virtual meetings. A common digital database could cover horses, owners, trainers, jockeys, officials, penalties and suspensions, making racing records accessible across centres.

Race-day supervision, veterinary examinations and trackside inspections would, of course, require physical presence. The objective is not to replace officials with technology, but to eliminate duplication and make better use of available talent.

One set of rules, uniform application

Perhaps the strongest argument for centralisation is the need for uniformity in the application of the Rules of Racing.

A jockey riding in Bangalore should not encounter a different interpretation of the same offence when competing in Hyderabad or Mumbai. Owners and trainers should likewise be assured of consistency in licensing, disciplinary procedures and the treatment of objections.

A central authority should formulate and periodically update a common national set of Rules of Racing, taking into account international practices and the requirements of Indian racing.

Disciplinary decisions must be based on established principles, supported by reasoned orders and consistent precedents. Independent appellate and review mechanisms should be available to participants.

Objections and disciplinary proceedings cannot be treated as matters to be settled merely by a majority vote. They require informed examination, established procedures and reasoned decisions. Uniformity does not mean identical outcomes in every case; it means applying the same principles to similar circumstances and explaining any departure from them.

Bringing international expertise

Centralisation would also open the door to bringing international expertise into Indian racing. The country need not restrict itself to the limited pool of professionals available domestically when experienced administrators and specialists from established racing jurisdictions can be engaged on a consultancy basis.

Countries such as the UK, Hong Kong, Australia, Ireland and the UAE have developed sophisticated systems of racing administration. Their experience in regulation, handicapping, race-day management, veterinary supervision and governance could be invaluable.

The proposed authority could engage accomplished foreign racing administrators, handicappers, stipendiary stewards and veterinary specialists for specific assignments. They could help frame regulations, introduce international practices, review existing procedures and, importantly, train Indian officials.

These need not be expensive permanent appointments. Consultants could be engaged for periodic reviews, specialised training and defined assignments. With costs shared by participating clubs, access to international expertise would become practical and affordable.

The objective is not to import an entire foreign system or displace domestic talent, but to learn from established jurisdictions and improve Indian racing's professional standards.

Economy and accountability

Maintaining separate administrative establishments and duplicating specialised functions imposes a recurring financial burden on clubs. A common establishment, funded through proportionate contributions from participating clubs, could substantially reduce expenditure.

Appointments should be based on professional qualifications and experience rather than club affiliations or personal considerations. Fixed tenures, clearly defined responsibilities and performance assessments would bring greater accountability.

The governing body must be independently and professionally constituted, with representation from clubs and expertise in racing administration, law, veterinary science, finance and sports governance. It must not become another institution dominated by a handful of powerful clubs.

Individual clubs should retain their commercial autonomy and responsibility for local operations. The central authority should concentrate on regulation, administration and the integrity of the sport, while respecting the different state licensing and statutory frameworks under which racing operates.

A lesson from the newspaper industry

There is an interesting parallel in the evolution of the newspaper industry. National newspapers once maintained separate editions at different centres, each supported by sizeable editorial teams. Over time, editorial operations were centralised, with the main newspaper produced at one centre and selected pages modified to meet local requirements. The editions were then printed simultaneously at different locations.

Horse racing could adopt a similar model. Administrative and regulatory functions could be handled centrally, while individual clubs retain responsibility for local race-day operations. Centralisation need not mean sacrificing local identity; it means pooling expertise, eliminating duplication and maintaining common standards.

Time to move beyond tradition

Indian racing has depended for too long on the personal involvement and enthusiasm of club administrators. While many have made valuable contributions, a modern sport cannot continue to depend on a limited number of individuals to manage increasingly complex responsibilities.

Changing committee members every year does not necessarily bring institutional continuity or professional expertise. Racing needs a permanent administrative structure capable of attracting talent, developing officials and applying consistent standards across the country.

The existing Turf Authorities of India could provide the foundation for this transformation. Instead of functioning primarily as a forum for discussions among clubs, it could evolve into a permanent national racing authority with professional management and clearly defined responsibilities.

This would require clubs to surrender a measure of administrative control in favour of a larger collective interest. That may be the most difficult part of the exercise. But the long-term interests of racing must take precedence over the desire of individual establishments to retain every administrative function within their own walls.

The future of Indian racing should not be determined by how efficiently individual clubs manage their administrative establishments, but by how effectively the sport as a whole is governed. It is time to stop treating racing as a collection of individual clubs and start administering it as one national sport.