Federal Government Approves $80 Million Budget for Independent Horse Racing Regulator

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently approved an $80 million budget for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA), a regulatory body established in 2020 to oversee professional horse racing. While the creation of HISA was initially seen as a bipartisan effort to enhance the integrity and safety of the sport, it has come to exemplify what some critics describe as excessive federal overreach. Tasked with implementing programs related to antidoping, medication control, and racetrack safety, HISA’s structure and funding mechanisms raise questions about its efficiency and the appropriateness of federal involvement in an industry traditionally governed by state regulations.

According to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, HISA is mandated to fund its operations through a combination of fees imposed on horse racers and breeders rather than taxpayer money. The FTC reports that state racing commissions fulfill their financial obligations by charging various fees, including foal registration fees and track fees. However, critics argue that the financial model imposed by HISA effectively shifts the burden of regulation onto the racing community while introducing layers of bureaucracy that could be avoided if the industry managed its own affairs. This has raised concerns about the role of the federal government in what many believe should be a localized industry supported by private regulation.

Looking deeper into HISA’s approved budget for 2025, there are significant allocations toward antidoping and medication control, totaling approximately $58.6 million, dwarfing the considerably smaller investments in racetrack safety (at $3 million) and veterinary services ($916,000). Such disproportionate funding suggests that the Authority’s primary focus may be on regulatory oversight rather than the pivotal aspects of ensuring participant safety and horse welfare. This allocation raises doubts about whether the substantial financial resources being directed towards compliance measures genuinely serve the interests of improving the sport’s integrity.

A closer look at the budget breakdown reveals significant expenses related to outsourced services, particularly with the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU), a division of Drug Free Sport International. A notable portion of HISA’s budget is dedicated to salaries for HIWU employees, travel costs, technology, and management fees, which include profit margins for HIWU’s administration of the program. These expenses have sparked criticism about the overall financial stewardship of HISA and whether such high costs can be justified by the outcomes they produce in terms of heightened integrity in racing. The practices and operational costs implemented by HISA depict a centralized system that fleeces the industry, diverting necessary resources away from horse racing’s core activities.

The budget’s allocation for public relations services and research on issues like shedrow safety further ignites debate over the necessity and scope of HISA’s regulatory efforts. Critics have argued that the priorities set forth in the budget reflect a pronounced emphasis on marketing and public perception rather than addressing the immediate needs of the industry concerning horse welfare and race fairness. This has elicited pushback from those invested in the horse racing community, who argue that they should be the primary arbiters of standards and safety, rather than a federally mandated regulatory apparatus that may not fully comprehend the nuances of the sport.

Finally, the overarching concern remains whether the HISA, charged with enhancing safety and integrity, represents a constitutionally sound approach to governance or if it perpetuates overreach into a sector that has historically managed its affairs effectively. Proponents of the industry assert that they possess the expertise and historical perspective to enforce adequate standards without federal intervention. With the critical voice of horse racing professionals urging for operational independence, discussions about the future of HISA and its impact on the sport’s regulatory framework are likely to continue, sharpening the debate over federal versus state control in specialized industries like horseracing.