Horse Welfare - How systems are changing globally
Horse welfare is increasingly being treated as a governance responsibility rather than a series of isolated issues. This insight examines how leading racing and equestrian jurisdictions are embedding welfare into funding models, data systems, consultation processes and risk management frameworks. Drawing on recent developments across Hong Kong, the United States, New Zealand, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Australia, it explores how different system designs address continuity, traceability and transition risk across a horse’s life. The article highlights common patterns emerging globally and explains why welfare is now a board-level issue with direct implications for social licence, regulatory confidence and long-term viability.
Horse welfare is no longer framed narrowly around raceday or isolated incidents. Across leading racing and equestrian jurisdictions, welfare is increasingly treated as a whole-of-life responsibility, governed through systems that prioritise continuity, traceability, transparency and risk reduction.
What distinguishes the most sophisticated approaches is not stricter rules alone, but how welfare is designed into governance architecture: funding structures, data infrastructure, consultation processes, education and independent oversight. As a result, welfare has moved decisively into the boardroom. It now shapes legitimacy, social licence, insurer confidence and long-term commercial viability.
This article provides a global snapshot of how welfare governance is evolving across several jurisdictions, focusing on what has been implemented or materially advanced in the last 6–12 months, what these approaches have in common, and what they signal about the direction of travel.
A note on system design: centralised and decentralised models
Before turning to individual jurisdictions, it is important to acknowledge a structural reality that shapes welfare outcomes.
Not all racing and equestrian systems are organised in the same way. Some jurisdictions operate under highly centralised models, where a single authority regulates, funds and delivers welfare outcomes. Others, including Australia and the United States, operate within decentralised systems, where authority, data, enforcement and funding are distributed across multiple bodies.
In practice, decentralisation can give rise to fragmentation effects, particularly at transition points where responsibility and visibility are split. This changes what effective governance looks like. The most effective approaches prioritise coordination, continuity, shared data and low-friction tools, especially where risk tends to accumulate.
This distinction explains why leading jurisdictions have adopted different design choices rather than uniform solutions.
Hong Kong: institutional lifetime responsibility
The model associated with the Hong Kong Jockey Club is often cited because it embeds lifetime responsibility directly into the racing system.
Through its RESTART aftercare framework, welfare obligations are treated as an extension of racing rather than a postscript. Retraining, rehoming support and retirement oversight sit within a single, well-resourced institutional structure. Owners contribute financially to retirement outcomes through compulsory mechanisms, and the HKJC retains visibility and responsibility well beyond the horse’s competitive career.
The defining feature is not philanthropy, but system design. Responsibility follows the horse in a way that is visible, enforceable and centralised, dramatically reducing reliance on informal networks at transition points.
United States: continuity layers in a decentralised system
In the United States, welfare reform reflects the reality of decentralised governance across states and disciplines, with several notable initiatives emerging or consolidating through late 2025 and early 2026.
Within the equestrian sector, the United States Equestrian Federation has introduced its Lifetime Care Contacts initiative. Announced in early 2026, the initative allows multiple individuals with a historical connection to a horse to register as welfare contacts on its digital record. The design is intentionally voluntary and low-friction, widening the safety net without imposing new regulatory burdens.
In racing, the The Jockey Club has recently undertaken an industry-wide traceability survey to better understand the post-racing population, explicitly acknowledging that unknown outcomes themselves represent a welfare and reputational risk.
At the regulatory level, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority reflects a broader shift toward uniform safety standards, mandatory injury reporting and system-level risk controls layered over state-based regulation.
Together, these initiatives illustrate how decentralised systems are increasingly supplemented with continuity and interception layers designed to reduce predictable welfare blind spots rather than eliminate fragmentation altogether.
New Zealand: structural funding, risk review and practical tools
Where the United States illustrates how decentralised systems are adding continuity layers, New Zealand shows how welfare can be stabilised through funding and infrastructure.
In 2024–2025, New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing embedded welfare into the financial structure of the industry through a dedicated welfare levy of 1% on all prize-money, making welfare funding recurrent rather than discretionary. This funding supports a wide range of activity including injury research, traceability initiatives, emergency intervention and post-racing outcomes.
New Zealand has also adopted a systematic review approach to welfare risk. Every race-day and training fatality is examined by an independent mortality review panel, with findings feeding back into policy, track management and veterinary practice. This reflects a clear move away from isolated incident review toward pattern-based risk analysis.
Alongside this in 2025, New Zealand piloted practical technology solutions linked to identification and tracking including the “ID My TB” microchip mobile app. Using a Bluetooth microchip scanner paired with a phone, officials or retraining staff can instantly identify a horse and upload its location to the central database, which speeds up tracking of horses outside the racing stable system. New Zealand is also introducing bio-thermal microchips in the 2025 foal crop, which can transmit body temperature and potentially allow early warning signs of health issues. The emphasis is on systems that operate effectively in real-world conditions.
Ireland: consultation and risk-based regulation
Ireland illustrates how welfare governance is increasingly tied to process integrity and legitimacy.
In late 2025, the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board adopted a public consultation process in developing welfare standards, marking a notable shift in how welfare regulation is constructed and legitimised. This can strengthen defensibility and public trust, particularly in high-scrutiny environments.
Over 2024 - 2025, Ireland expanded its use of targeted veterinary screening and injury analytics, treating welfare explicitly as a prevention and risk management discipline. Trainers must submit detailed medication and veterinary histories before races, which allows IHRB vets to target horses for pre-race veterinary screening that are returning from injury or long breaks. These measures are positioned as prevention infrastructure rather than reactive controls. Regulators are increasingly examining recurring risk pathways rather than assessing incidents in isolation.
United Kingdom: transparency, capability and trust
In Britain, particularly through 2024 - 2025, welfare governance has expanded beyond rule-setting into transparency, education and internal reporting culture.
The British Horseracing Authority has taken a public-facing approach to welfare reporting, positioning transparency as a core element of regulatory credibility and social licence. The Horse Welfare Board’s HorsePWR platform provides up-to-date figures on injury and fatality rates, and addresses tough questions in FAQ form. Transparency, done credibly, can convert critics into cautious supporters and pre-empt misinformation.
In the equestrian sector during 2024 and 2025, British Equestrian formalised welfare whistleblowing mechanisms and education frameworks. These measures reflect an expectation that modern governance provides safe escalation pathways and invests in professional capability, enabling earlier identification of issues and greater confidence in process.
Australia: steady development within a complex structure
Australia operates within a federated racing environment and a highly fragmented equestrian governance landscape, which shapes what is feasible and how reform occurs.
Welfare frameworks have continued to mature through investment in veterinary capability, research and aftercare support. Jurisdictions such as Racing Victoria have emphasised transparency around welfare expenditure and outcomes. Traceability systems and reporting obligations are well established, but as in comparable decentralised jurisdictions, they are most exposed at transition points such as retirement, private transfer and movement outside formal racing oversight. The direction of travel aligns with global trends, even if implementation reflects local regulatory and structural realities.
Practical learnings for boards and executives
Across jurisdictions, several consistent lessons emerge:
Welfare is increasingly assessed across the horse’s whole life, not at isolated moments
Strong outcomes depend on system design - funding, data, incentives and capability - not rules alone
Transition points are where governance systems are most exposed
Transparency and consultation are now central to legitimacy and social licence
Risk-based approaches that invest in prevention and research are becoming standard
Low-friction tools and shared data often close gaps more effectively than enforcement
Boards are expected to oversee welfare as an enterprise risk with reputational, commercial and regulatory dimensions
Across racing and equestrian sport, horse welfare is increasingly being understood as a function of governance design rather than individual intent. The most developed approaches focus on continuity across the horse’s life, clarity at transition points, and systems that reduce recurring risk rather than reacting to isolated failures. While structures and tools vary by jurisdiction, the underlying direction is consistent: welfare is being embedded into funding models, data infrastructure, consultation processes, education frameworks and risk management practices. These shifts reflect a broader expectation that welfare outcomes should be demonstrable, defensible and resilient over time, particularly in industries operating under sustained public and regulatory scrutiny.
*Information is general and not legal advice.
