A Survey of Horse Racing Opinions and Perceptions

Full text

Part of the
Society for
Transparency, Openness and
Replication in Kinesiology (STORK)
Preprint
not peer reviewed
All authors have read and approved this version of the
manuscript. This article was last modified on December 22,
2021.
Author Victoria J. Hodge @vjhodge
can be reached on Twitter.
A Survey of
Horse Racing
Opinions and
Perceptions
For correspondence:
victoria.hodge@york.ac.uk
Henrietta Patterson1,2,4 and Victoria J. Hodge1,3,5
1Digital Creativity Labs, University of York, York, UK
2Dept of Biology, University of Durham, Durham, UK
3Dept of Theatre, Film, TV and Interactive Media, University of York, York, UK
4Orcid: 0000-0003-3908-3715
5Orcid: 0000-0002-2469-0224
Please cite as: Patterson, H. and Hodge, V.J. (2021). A Survey of Horse Racing Opinions and Perceptions.
SportRχiv.
ABSTRACT
With a global reach of 584 million households, horse racing is a globally important sport with
14 million potential UK customers. Although it is the UK’s second-most attended sport,
attendances fell by 500,000+ from 2015 to 2019, with particular problems engaging and
retaining younger audiences. This study focuses on the Millennial and Gen-Z demographics to
discover why audiences show a reduced interest. We analyse the determinants underlying
engagement using focus groups and a questionnaire. Our empirical results identify the key
factors determining attendance and viewing. Horse racing is exciting and social but there are

1
ethical concerns around horse injuries and horses’ fates. Concerns are far higher than for
other competitive sports, and increase systematically as participants get younger. Participants
would engage more if openness was increased with this willingness increasing as participants
get younger. Horse racing lacks easily identifiable figures and there are concerns around
betting, terminology and attendance costs.
Keywords:
Horse racing, survey, audience engagement, data analysis, demographics
INTRODUCTION
Horse racing is globally popular sport with an event such as the UK’s Royal Ascot
broadcast to over 584 million households in 200 countries [1]. Horse racing is currently the
United Kingdom’s second most attended sport with 6 million attendees [2]. Horse racing
attendees are diverse, coming from a range of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds, with
39% of horse racing tickets purchased by females [3]. 2/3 of attendees state they attend horse
races as a means of socialising and only 6% of attendees rate actually watching the horse races
as more important than socialising [3]. Choy’s [4] ethnography of attendees at the Singapore
Turf Club, also found the social aspect of attending the races as being of higher importance
than the chance to bet on race horses. Furthermore, Two-Circles [3] found that only 14% of
attendees attend horse racing to bet, indicating the opportunity to socialise provides the
primary means of attracting attendees to watch horse racing in person. The 6% of racegoers
who attend primarily to watch the horse races themselves, were also concurrently found to be
most likely to repeatedly attend horse racing in person. This suggests that creating an
environment in which customers become truly engaged in the horse racing itself is key to
maintaining high customer retention rates.
Riley [2] states that horse racing attendance in the UK is in decline, with a drop in total
attendance of over 500,000 from 2015 to 2019, and the sport struggles to engage and keep
younger audiences1. In Australia, only 20% of the racing audience is between the ages of 18-29
compared to 40% for basketball [5]. However, previous sports surveys in the literature have
found no statistically significant relationship between age and sports engagement levels [6] so
there is no clear precedent for this fall. We aim to analyse horse racing engagement across a
1 https://www.racingpost.com/news/getting-more-people-engaged-in-the-sport-is-the-big-
challenge/291056

2
range of age demographics to determine the underlying factors influencing levels of
engagement.
Choy [4] studied motivations for horse racing attendance amongst elderly Chinese
racegoers at the Singapore Turf Club. Choy [4] suggests these elderly racegoers feel alienated
by entering a liminal space in their lives but elderly racegoers can find a social space at the
racecourse where they are accepted due to sharing a common interest. Similarly, Budzynski-
Seymour et al. [7] suggests that as students transition from school to university to the
workplace, they experience a stressful liminal space, in which they must learn to quickly adapt
to a new way of life. Considering this similarly, young adults are an appropriate target group for
increasing horse racing attendance, because of their current lower level of engagement in
horse racing and because, sociologically speaking, they are similar to the elderly racegoers in
Choy’s [4] study.
Lim et al. [8] state increasing the use of social TV2 to engage a sport event’s viewers in
communication, increases channel loyalty, and could aid retention of horse racing television
viewers. Gen-Z viewers were noted to use the highest levels of Social TV, and to have the
strongest preference for services and platforms allowing a high level of social interaction [8].
Hwang and Lim [9] state users of Social TV want to find information about their sport in an
efficient manner, even if it means turning to other fans for that information. Channels with
higher convenience, and platforms which generated a greater ease of finding information had
higher levels of customer commitment and repeat viewing [9]. We explore the importance of
social factors in determining horse racing engagement and preferences.
Bergmann [10] highlights how general public concern regarding the welfare of
racehorses is driving a decline in horse racing attendance and in viewing of horse racing on
television. Other papers have surveyed horse welfare [11,12] and whip use: whether whip rules
are sufficient [13] and whether they are breached [14]. Bergmann’s [10] study of horse racing
perception across Australia showed only 22% of the public had a positive perception of horse
racing, and that 54% of current horse racing fans would not recommend their friends start
following horse racing. Such concerns are transferable across the globe; therefore, we explore
these ethical considerations as they may be a factor in driving the recent decline in horse
racing attendance in the UK.
There have been many studies of gambling on horse racing and its effects on
participants. Forrest & Simmons [15] consider the symbiotic relationship between gambling
2 TV with a real-time companion app for communication

3
and sport in general looking at positive factors (financial investment) and negative factors such
as sports corruption by betting syndicates. McManus & Graham [16] analyse perceptions of
gambling and the relationships between viewing horse races and gambling on these events,
highlighting the variation in attitudes to gambling and the variety of experiences among
gambling participants. Holtgraves [17] analyse the general issue of problem gambling across 5
domains including sports and horse racing. Wardle et al. [18] surveyed the gambling habits of
16-24 year olds in the UK and found that 10.8% had bet online on sports and 2.3% in a
bookmakers in the last year, and 7% had bet online on horse racing and 5.8% in a bookmakers
in the last year. We analyse gambling and its perceptions as a driver for horse racing
engagement.
There is a noticeable lack of literature surrounding non-betting related attendance at
horse racing and viewing of horse racing on television or online streaming services, and the
motivating factors behind attendance and viewing. Melnick [19] analysed audience
engagement in a variety of Australian sports including horse racing but did not analyse the fan
experience or motivations for engagement. There has been no work analysing age
demographics and their respective motivations. This study aims to somewhat fill this gap in the
literature and will be useful for developing marketing strategies that offer what fans want from
horse racing events, media and broadcasts. Both positive (inspiration) effects and negative
(discouragement) effects related to engagement are considered. Given the exploratory nature
of our investigation, we did not test a priori hypotheses but focused on analysing descriptive
and inferential statistics of the survey sample and analysing relationships between key
variables.
In this research, we surveyed Gen-Z, Millennial and aged 40+ survey participants
regarding their opinions and engagement in horse racing. There is some debate regarding
exactly where the division between Millennial and Gen-Z should be drawn. For the purposes of
this article, we regard Millennial participants to be aged between 25 and 39, (born between
1981 and 1995), and Gen-Z participants to be aged between 8 and 24, (born between 1996
and 2012). For ethical reasons, this report only gathered data from participants over the age of
18.
METHOD
We surveyed participants using focus groups and an online questionnaire.

4
Focus groups
Focus groups were conducted via videoconferencing, in small group sessions lasting
one hour. 10 participants took part in total. Focus groups were not recorded, and were
minuted anonymously to ensure open discourse and to comply with ethics. Each participant
was allocated a random number to allow the researchers to compare the same participant’s
responses across different questions. Consent forms were gathered from all participants, and
all participants also autonomously chose to consent to having their quotes presented in this
paper. The researchers asked participants whether they had any questions before the focus
group began. Throughout the focus group, participants were asked a series of questions,
which they were then allowed to openly discuss. Depending on the participant’s initial answers,
occasionally small prompts were used to request more detailed feedback. Focus group
responses were analysed using deductive thematic analysis, with deductive themes including
ethics concerns relating to horse welfare, ethics concerns relating to betting, cost, social
experience, and crowd behaviour. Inductive themes were also noted in the data and reported.
Survey
We advertised the survey via UK university mailing lists and carefully targeted social
media posts. We aimed to ensure a good proportion of Gen-Z and Millennial respondents and
wanted to focus on UK participants. Our advert asked them to take part in a survey titled ‘Is
Horse Racing Engaging and Informative?’ The survey took place during August 2020 and
comprised 143 questions in the Qualtrics survey framework (www.qualtrics.com). Our bespoke
survey was designed to send participants down one of 3 different routes: i) participants who
already engage with horse racing, ii) participants who do not engage with horse racing but have
considered engaging or engage with other competitive sports, and iii) participants who neither
engage with horse racing nor competitive sports. Each route was designed to take
approximately 12-15 minutes to complete, and all aimed to gain information relating to
individual’s perceptions of horse racing.
The survey had a variety of question types carefully selected and evaluated during a
pilot test phase to ensure the survey produced maximum value.
Closed-ended single-answer multiple choice questions were used to aid direction of
participants through the different survey routes, for example for the question ‘Have you ever
considered attending horse racing in person?’ participants were able to choose either ‘yes’ or
‘no’, and their answer then dictated whether they were offered more questions about horse

5
racing, or whether they were directed towards questions regarding why they would not
consider attending.
Closed-ended multiple-answer multiple-choice questions were used to gain feedback
from a possible range of answers, for example the question ‘Would you be more likely to
engage more in watching horse racing if content was available in any of the following
languages? Click all that apply.’, where a participant was unlikely to want to select all the
possible answers. An ‘other’ box was also provided, to ensure participant’s whose native
language was not included on the list were able to offer an answer if desired.
From pilot testing, we found closed ended multiple-answer multiple-choice questions
best for ethics questions. They provided a clearer opinion as to which areas of horse racing
caused the greatest ethical concern. For concordant reasons, such questions were similarly
utilised to evaluate participant’s ideas regarding what factors posed the largest barriers to
attendance of horse racing.
Sliding scale questions were used to gather numerical data, for example ‘How many
times per year do you watch competitive sports on television or an online streaming service?’,
where participants might watch once per year or many times.
Open-ended written-answer questions were selected where researchers hoped to gain
more detailed information regarding participants’ opinions, or where researchers felt
participants could potentially offer new ideas regarding methods of increasing engagement. An
example question is: ‘What changes could be made to encourage you to watch horse racing on
television or an online streaming service?’. We analysed the responses using deductive
thematic analysis techniques, with deductive themes including ethics concerns relating to
horse welfare, ethics concerns relating to betting, cost, social experience, and crowd
behaviour. Inductive themes were also noted in the data and reported on.
Bipolar Likert-style questions with a 5-point scale (1=disagreed, 2=somewhat disagreed,
3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=somewhat agree and 5=agreed) were included to gain more
information about participants motivations for engaging with horse racing and competitive
sports, attending horse racing and watching horse racing and competitive sports on television
or online streaming services. Likert-style responses were statistically analysed for bipolar data
with percentages of participants who responded with each scale answer recorded.

6
Results
For the focus groups, of 10 participants, 9 were Gen-Z and one was a Millennial. 9
participants had not previously attended horse racing in person. The one Gen-Z participant
who had previously attended at a local racecourse stated they had attended occasionally.
For the questionnaire, of a total of 129 questionnaire respondents, 76 were female and
53 were male. We do not analyse gender here but focus on age differences. 52.7% (n=68)
respondents were Gen-Z, and 24.8% (n=32) were Millennials. The remainder comprised 22.5%
(n=29) members of the 40+ year age category. 32.6% (n=42) of respondents had a personal
interest in horses while 37.2% (n=48) participants had some engagement or had considered
engaging and 30.2% (n=39) had not engaged with horse racing in any form.
Ethical concerns
During the pilot testing, it soon became apparent that ethical concerns mainly around
welfare, but also betting were key drivers in determining people’s levels of engagement with
horse racing. We ensured that all questionnaire participants (n=129) were asked if they had
ethical concerns at some point in their route through the questionnaire. In the focus groups,
7/10 participants (all Gen-Z) were concerned about the risk of injury to horses and 1 Millennial
had ethical concerns surrounding betting. All participants with ethical concerns about horse
injuries agreed that whilst betting could also be an area of ethical concern, they feel betting is
‘okay, but there are issues of going too far’.
All survey participants were asked to compare their horse racing concerns to those
they had in other competitive sports which provides a baseline for comparison (n=129 and
closed-ended multiple-answer multiple-choice). Results are presented in Figure 1. Over twice
the percentage (84.5% of participants) had ethical concerns about risk of injury to the horse in
horse racing compared to 40.3% of participants who had ethical concerns about risk of injury
to athletes in other competitive sports. Additionally, 65.9% of participants had ethical
objections to whip use in horse racing. Around three times the percentage (73.6%) had ethical
concerns about the fate of racehorses on retirement compared to 24.0% who had concerns
about fate of athletes on retirement. A slightly higher percentage is concerned about doping in
other competitive sports (59.7%) compared to 53.5% in horse racing. Similar percentages,
44.9% and 42.6%, had ethical concerns about betting in horse racing and other competitive
sports respectively. Ethical concerns stated in the “Other” box included ‘horse euthanasia’,
‘training methods’ and ‘selective breeding issues’.

7
Figure 1 Participants were asked whether they were concerned by a range of ethical aspects
relating to horse racing and competitive sports (not including horse racing).
Figure 2 Participants were asked whether they were concerned by a range of ethical aspects
relating to horse racing. The chart breaks down their responses over the three demographics,
Gen-Z, Millennial and older participants.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Doping Betting Fate Injury None Other
% of Participants
Ethical Concern
Ethical Concerns in Horse Racing vs Other Sports
Horse Racing
Other Sports
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Doping Betting Whip Use Fate Horse
Injury
Jockey
Injury
None Other
% of Participants
Ethical Concern
Ethical Concerns per Demographic
GenZ
Millennial
40+

8
Figure 2 breaks down the responses over age demographics with all participants
included. More aged 40+ have no ethical concerns than the younger demographics (27.6%
compared to 5.9% and 6.3% for Gen-Z and Millennials respectively). Aged 40+ are more
concerned about horse injury closely followed by doping, whip use and fate of horses in
retirement with Gen-Z and Millennials most concerned about horse injuries, the fate of horses
in retirement and whip use, with doping fourth.
Table 1 – Participants’ responses to a range of statements relating to ethical objections and horse racing
attendance (1=disagreed, 2=somewhat disagreed, 3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=somewhat agree and
5=agreed). The percentage of responses is shown for each Likert score plus mean score and standard
deviation. We use parametric tests to analyse the Likert data [20] and assume the "distance" between
the levels of the scale is equivalent. We use the mean to determine where the demographic’s responses
are strongest and the SD to examine each demographic’s spread of responses.
Statement
1
2
3
4
5
𝐱
SD
S
1. If there was more ethical transparency,
I would be more likely to attend/watch
horse races.
All
14.3
12.5
27.7
33.9
11.6
3.16
1.22
Gen
-
Z
7.8
9.4
25.0
40.6
17.2
3.50
1.12
Mill
8.3
25.0
29.2
29.2
8.3
3.04
1.10
40+
37.5
8.3
33.3
20.8
0.0
2.37
1.19
S
2. If I suggested going to the horse races,
my friends would happily go with me.
All
13.4
21.4
18.8
33.0
13.4
3.12
1.27
Gen
-
Z
17.2
21.9
23.4
28.1
9.4
2.91
1.25
Mill
8.3
29.2
12.5
25.0
25.0
3.29
1.34
40+
8.3
12.5
12.5
54.2
12.5
3.50
1.12
S
3. I am afraid my friends would judge my
morals if I shared horse racing related
content on an app or website, or
suggested attending horse racing in
person.
All
29.5
9.8
24.1
25.0
11.6
2.79
1.40
Gen
-
Z
18.8
10.9
25.0
32.8
12.5
3.09
1.30
Mill
37.5
8.3
12.5
29.2
12.5
2.71
1.52
40+
50.0
8.3
33.3
0
8.3
2.08
1.26
S
4. I think horse racing is unethical,
therefore I would not consider
attending/watching horse racing.
All
17.9
13.4
20.5
17.9
30.4
3.30
1.47
Gen
-
Z
9.4
15.6
14.1
21.9
39.0
3.66
1.38
Mill
25.0
12.5
20.8
16.7
25.0
3.04
1.52
40+
33.3
8.3
37.5
8.3
12.5
2.58
1.36
S
5. My friends would find horse racing
related content interesting, if I shared it on
a social media based app, or a website.
All
36.6
33.9
19.6
8.9
0.9
2.04
1.01
Gen
-
Z
31.3
43.8
15.6
7.8
1.6
2.05
0.96
Mill
45.8
20.8
20.8
12.5
0.0
2.00
1.09
40+
41.7
20.8
29.2
8.3
0.0
2.04
1.02
Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with a range of statements
surrounding potential ethical objections to horse racing and whether it influenced their

9
likelihood of attending horse racing events, with answers in Table 1 (n=112, Gen-Z=64,
Millennial=24, aged 40+=24 and Likert questions).
This suggests that greater ethical transparency would help engage the audience with
horse racing across all age demographics. 48.3% of respondents either agree or strongly agree
that horse racing is too unethical for them to engage and 45.5% either agree or strongly agree
that greater transparency would make them more likely to attend. Breaking the responses
down by age group reveals that for all but one question the mean value trends up or down
through the age groups. There is no trend for the final statement but for statements S1, S3
and S4 the mean trends down as age increases and for S2 the mean rises as people get older.
We analyse this further in the discussion (section 5) considering the implications and statistical
significance of these results.
Horse racing attendance in person
26.4% of participants stated they have repeatedly attended horse racing in person
(n=34) including 11 Gen-Z and 14 Millennials. On average, they attended horse racing 5.61
±17.18 (n=33) times per year (1 participant excluded for selecting 100+ and stating they
worked in racing), attending 3.59±3.80 (n=32) different racecourses per year, and repeat
attending the same racecourse 3.14 ±3.64 (n=29) times per year.
Of the 73.6% (n=95) of participants who had not repeatedly attended horse racing in
person, 44% (n=42) including 22 Gen-Z and 6 Millennials have considered attending horse
racing in person, and 56% (n=53) including 35 Gen-Z and 12 Millennials have not considered
attending horse racing in person.
N=33 participants (open-ended text responses) who had repeatedly attended horse
racing in person mainly stated that they liked the ‘atmosphere’ and chance for a ‘social
experience’, with a small number stating they enjoyed the chance to drink and bet with friends
in a place where they felt it was socially acceptable to do so. Similarly, of the n=42 participants
who stated they have considered attending horse racing in person, the majority stated the
‘atmosphere’ and chance to ‘socialise’ and a ‘family event’ as main reasons for their
consideration (including the majority of both Gen-Z and Millennial participants). Many
Millennials stated they expected horse racing to have a ‘good atmosphere’. Several participants
who repeatedly attend liked the ‘thrill factor’ of watching the horses racing, and betting.
Figure 3 shows multiple choice responses for those who had not attended repeatedly
(n=95, choose up to 3 responses), where social experience is most interesting across all
demographics. Gen-Z and Millennial participants have a high level of interest in the racehorses

10
themselves, compared to older participants. Millennials were much more intrigued by betting
than Gen-Z or aged 40+.
Figure 3 Comparison of factors that Gen-Z, Millennials and older participants stated make
them intrigued to attend horse racing.
We asked those who repeatedly attend what they disliked (free text). Most respondents’
answers involved a general dislike of the level of alcohol consumed at racecourses, with many
stating they experienced serious anti-social behaviour. A large majority also stated ethical
concerns related to witnessing horses being injured as a direct result of racing, or excessive
whip use. One participant mentioned disliking the wait between races.
The barriers for those who had considered attending focused more on ethics, cost and
social class of attendees, see Figure 4a (n=42, Gen-Z=22, Millennial=6 and 40+=14, multiple
choice selecting up to 3 options). The biggest barrier for Gen-Z participants was cost (77.3%)
closely followed by ethics concerns relating to horse welfare (72.7%). 6/10 focus group
participants (5 Gen-Z and 1 Millennial) stated attending horse racing in person is ‘expensive’.
For Millennial participants, ethics concerns relating to horse welfare (66.7%) and ethics
concerns relating to betting (50%) were the two biggest barriers. Aged 40+ participants
considered cost as the biggest barrier (57.1%). Gen-Z participants also often referenced
expectations that horse racing attracts wealthy individuals or mentioned social class in their
free text responses.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Competition Betting Cultural
experience
Social
experience
Race-horses Jockeys
% of Participants
Factor
What Intrigues you about Horse Racing?
GenZ
Millennial
40+

11
Figure 4 (A) Participants who have not previously attended horse racing in person, but have considered
attending horse racing in person selected their perceived top 3 barriers to attending horse racing in
person. (B) Participants who have neither attended horse racing in person, nor considered attending
horse racing in person selected their perceived barriers to attending horse racing in person.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Specialist
terminology
Language
Barrier
Accessibility Cost Ethics of
horse
welfare
Ethics of
betting
Other Crowd
behaviour
% of Participants
Factor
When considering attending in person, what forms the largest
barrier to attending?
GenZ Millennial 40+

12
Figure 4b shows the responses for survey participants who had not considered
attending (n=53, Gen-Z=35, Millennial=11 and aged 40+=7 participants selecting up to 3
options). The most important barrier overall is ethical concerns relating to horse welfare. It
was the biggest barrier for Gen-Z with 82.9% of respondents stating it prevented them
attending, as did 63.6% of Millennial participants. The second most important factor for Gen-Z
is cost with 57.1% of respondents and 45.5% Millennials saying it prevented them from
attending. This falls to 28.6% for older respondents. Of the respondents who have not
considered attending, many expected it to be ‘crowded’ with ‘lots of drunk people about’, ‘loud’
(both crowd and commentary mentioned by separate participants), ‘middle class’ with ‘a lot of
wealthy people about’. The most important factor for 72.7% of Millennials is large amounts of
anti-social behaviour which prevents them attending races but only 40% of Gen-Z and 28.6 of
older respondents referenced it. A few respondents expected attending horse-racing in
person to be ‘a bit boring’, ‘cold standing outside’. 6/9 focus group respondents who have not
attended horse racing mentioned an expectation that horse racing centred around gambling
and betting. There were fewer factors preventing older demographics from attending.
Viewing on television or online streaming services.
Motivations for watching sports on television
We investigated the important factors that encourage participants to watch competitive
sports (including horse racing) on TV or streaming services generally. Participants (n=52, open
text) responded with a range of factors, with 48% stating the presenter or commentary was a
key factor driving their engagement.
Participants who selected that they have previously repeatedly watched horse racing or
competitive sports on television (n=58, Gen-Z=29, Millennial=16, 40+=13) were asked to what
extent they agreed with a series of statements relating to their preferences when viewing
televised and streamed sports, and their use of Social-TV. The statements and responses are
detailed in Table 2.
These statements elicited fewer responses than the statements in table 1 so the lower
numbers increase the variance. The trends are less discernible than in table 1 though some
statements do display trends. S3 indicates that the younger the demographic is, then the less
likely they are to hashtag on social media. S6 and S7 suggest that younger people are more
inclined to search for information during ad breaks whilst older people are more inclined to

13
search for information during the broadcast. As with Table 1, the Millennial demographic
shows the greatest standard deviation (most variance) indicating a wider spread of opinions
with the older demographic again having the lowest spread of opinions.
Table 2 Participants who stated they have previously watched horse racing or competitive sports on
television were asked to what extent they agreed with a range of statements relating to Social-TV use,
and their personal television use preferences. (1=disagreed, 2=somewhat disagreed, 3=neither disagree
nor agree, 4=somewhat agree and 5=agreed). The percentage of responses is shown for each Likert
score plus mean score and standard deviation.
Statement
1
2
3
4
5
𝐱
SD
S1. I prefer to watch televised sports
that have regular infographic
summaries.
All
6.9
12.1
24.1
34.5
22.4
3.53
1.17
Gen
-
Z
3.5
13.8
17.2
37.9
27.6
3.72
1.12
Mill
2.5
12.5
31.3
18.8
25.0
3.21
1.51
40+
7.7
7.7
30.8
46.2
7.7
3.38
1.01
S2. I prefer to watch televised sports
that allow members of the public to
send comments and questions to the
commentator/presenter.
All
24.1
15.5
34.5
20.7
5.2
2.67
1.20
Gen
-
Z
20.7
20.7
24.1
34.5
0.0
2.72
1.15
Mill
31.3
12.5
37.5
6.3
12.5
2.56
1.33
40+
23.1
7.7
53.9
7.7
7.7
2.69
1.14
S3. Whilst watching sports on television,
I interact with others by sharing
hashtags related to the sport on social
media.
All
51.7
15.5
15.5
12.1
5.2
2.03
1.28
Gen
-
Z
58.6
13.8
6.9
13.8
6.9
1.97
1.36
Mill
50.0
12.5
25.0
6.3
6.3
2.06
1.25
40+
38.5
23.1
23.1
15.4
0.0
2.15
1.10
S4. Whilst
watching televised sports, I
actively search for information about the
proceedings using my phone.
All
20.7
3.5
15.5
31.0
29.3
3.45
1.47
Gen
-
Z
24.1
6.9
17.2
24.1
27.6
3.24
1.53
Mill
18.8
0.0
0.0
50.0
31.3
3.75
1.40
40+
15.4
0.0
30.8
23.1
30.8
3.54
1.34
S5. I prefer to watch televised sports in
which information are presented using
specialist terminology.
All
12.1
15.5
31.0
20.7
20.7
3.22
1.28
Gen
-
Z
13.8
20.7
24.1
24.1
17.2
3.10
1.30
Mill
12.5
6.3
31.3
18.8
31.3
3.50
1.33
40+
7.7
15.4
46.2
15.4
15.4
3.15
1.10
S6. I search for more information about
a sport during televised sports events
commercials.
All
13.8
13.8
17.2
36.2
19.0
3.33
1.31
Gen
-
Z
13.8
10.3
13.8
41.4
20.7
3.45
1.31
Mill
18.8
12.5
18.8
25.0
25.0
3.25
1.44
40+
7.7
23.1
23.1
38.5
7.7
3.15
1.10
S7. I search for more information about
a sport whilst a televised sports event is
occurring.
All
15.5
19.0
19.0
32.8
13.8
3.10
1.30
Gen
-
Z
17.2
27.6
13.8
31.0
10.3
2.90
1.30
Mill
18.8
12.5
18.8
31.3
18.8
3.19
1.39
40+
7.7
7.7
30.8
38.5
15.4
3.46
1.09

14
Horse Racing on TV and streaming
Focusing purely on horse racing broadcasts, 25.6% (n=33, 13 Gen-Z, 10 Millennials and
10 aged 40+) of all participants stated they have repeatedly watched horse racing on television
or an online streaming service. The average horse racing viewer watched horse racing 47.39
±45.15 (n=33) times per year, using 3.03±1.76 (n=32) different channels or online streaming
services per year, and repeat watched horse racing using the same television channel or online
streaming service 37.16±42.16 (n=32) times per year. Participants watched horse racing
related content on a range of channels, with a preference to watch repeatedly (n=29) on ‘free
to air’ channels, or channels that ‘didn’t cost more than what they normally subscribe to’. Of the
remaining participants (n=96), 34.4% (n=33, 17 Gen-Z, 8 Millennials and 8 40+) have
considered watching, and 65.6% (n=63, 38 Gen-Z, 14 Millennials and 11 aged 40+) have not
considered watching.
Participants who had watched or considered watching (n=66, 30 Gen-Z, 18 Millennial
and 18 40+) were asked to select all their needs from a horse racing related television channel
or online streaming service as visualised in Figure 5. Presenting information is important as is
quick access to information with information presented visually important for 100% of
Millennials, 84.2% of 40+ and 72.7% of Gen-Z participants. Gen-Z participants showed an
increased requirement for channel related online communities with 21.2% selecting this
option, compared to 5.6% of Millennials and no 40+ participants. Other text box suggestions
included being presented with ‘information about the horses I’ve bet on and not all [horses] in
the field’. Participants who stated they have previously repeatedly watched (n=33) were asked
what they liked about the experience, 20.6% mentioned they liked the in depth interviews and
17.6% mentioned betting as a key factor driving their enjoyment of watching.
Participants (n=33) who had considered watching were asked what three factors posed
the largest barrier to watching, with answers visualised in figure 6a (note: only 8 Millennials and
8 40+ participants answered this question reducing the significance of the responses). 64.7%
of Gen-Z participants stated ethics concerns relating to horse welfare posed a barrier to
watching, compared to 43% of 40+ and only 25% of Millennial participants. 29.4% of Gen-Z
participants stated specialist terminology posed a barrier, compared to 50% of Millennial
participants and 57.1% of 40+ respondents.

15
Figure 5 Gen-Z, Millennial and older participants’ needs from a horse racing related television
channel or online streaming service.
Participants who had neither previously repeatedly watched nor considered it, were
asked which three factors posed the largest barriers to watching as seen in Figure 6b. The Gen-
Z chart mirrors the Gen-Z chart in figure 6a but the chart for Millennials differs markedly.
However, we note that the total respondents for Millennial is low in Figure 6a and will cause
variations. 80.6% of Gen-Z respondents stated ethical concerns relating to horse welfare to
pose a barrier to watching, as did 50% of Millennial and 38.5% of older participants. Ethics
concerns relating to betting also formed a barrier to watching horse racing for 36.1% of Gen-Z,
21.4% of Millennial and 38.5% of aged 40+ respondents. Many respondents selected the
“Other” box (free text) overwhelmingly stating lack of interest in watching horse racing on
television or an online streaming service as preventing them watching. This was the highest
choice for older participants.

16
Figure 6 (A) Participants who have not previously watched horse racing on television or an online
streaming service but have considered watching it selected their perceived top 3 barriers to watching it.
(B) Participants who have neither watched horse racing on television or an online streaming service, nor
considered watching horse racing on television or an online streaming service selected their perceived
top 3 barriers to watching it.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Specialist
terminology
Language
Barrier
Presentation
Quality
Cost Ethics of
horse
welfare
Ethics of
betting
Other
% of participants
Factor
What forms the largest barrier to watching on TV or streaming
service?
GenZ
Millennial
40+
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Specialist
terminology
Language
Barrier
Presentation
Quality
Cost Ethics of
horse
welfare
Ethics of
betting
Other
% of Participants
Factor
What prevents you from watching on TV or streaming service?
GenZ
Millennial
40+

17
Discussion
From our survey and focus group responses, participants expect horse racing to be
exciting, social and to have a good atmosphere. However, from Figures 1 and 2, the two biggest
factors preventing audience engagement in horse racing are ethical concerns around injuries
and the fate of horses once they are retired. These concerns far outweigh those registered for
other competitive sports. Concerns around doping and betting are in-line with those
registered for other competitive sports. Participants were less concerned by risk of injury to
jockey than risk of injury to horse, with a general consensus that whilst the jockey can consent
to racing, the horse cannot. A Gen-Z’s particularly potent quote from their survey answer
effectively summarises a range of issues relating to ethical concerns surrounding horse racing:
“Whether ethical transparency would make me more or less likely to attend/watch horse
races depends on what I find out. As it stands, I believe that racing horses puts them in
unnecessary danger, they have no choice in the matter (you can't know for sure that they
enjoy it), jockeys are not paid enough, and the industry revolves around making money. I
have enjoyed watching horse races in the past, but I will put the health and safety of the
horses above my own enjoyment now.”
Table 1 introduced some statements to investigate these concerns further. Here we
analyse the results for statistical trends and statistical significance. In Table 1 we noticed trends
among the responses for statements S1 - S4 across the different age groups. Table 3 confirms
that there are statistically significant differences between the age groups in their responses.
For statements S1 – S4, there is a statistically significant difference between aged 40+
and Gen-Z (p < 0.05). S1 also shows a statistically significant difference between the age 40+
and Millennials (p < 0.05). For S2 the mean rises with age as older people tend to agree more
that their friends would happily go to the races with them. For S1, S3 and S4 the mean falls
with age as younger people agree more that increasing ethical transparency would encourage
them to watch; horse racing is unethical which discourages them from watching; and their
friends would judge them if they engaged. These differences are significant. The Millennial
demographic shows the greatest standard deviation (most variance) indicating a wider spread
of opinions while the aged 40+ demographic shows the lowest variance indicating consistency
of opinion.

18
Table 3 Statistical significance (unpaired t-test) analyses of the responses across the age demographics
to the five statements in table 1.
Statement
Test Pair
p
-
value
S1. If there was more ethical transparency, I would be more likely
to attend/watch horse races.
Gen
-
Z vs 40+
0.0001
Mill vs 40+
0.0486
Gen
-
Z vs Mill
0.0883
S2. If I suggested going to the horse races, my friends would
happily go with me.
Gen
-
Z vs 40+
0.0459
Mill vs 40+
0.5587
Gen
-
Z vs Mill
0.2163
S3. I am afraid my friends would judge my
morals if I shared horse
racing related content on an app or website, or suggested
attending horse racing in person.
Gen
-
Z vs 40+
0.0015
Mill vs 40+
0.2471
Gen
-
Z vs Mill
0.1249
S4. I think horse racing is unethical, therefore I would not consider
attending/watching horse racing.
Gen
-
Z vs 40+
0.0015
Mill vs 40+
0.2750
Gen
-
Z vs Mill
0.0714
S5. My friends would find horse racing related content interesting,
if I shared it on a social media-based app, or a website.
Gen
-
Z vs 40+
0.9660
Mill vs
40+
0.8961
Gen
-
Z vs Mill
0.8344
If horse racing as a sport wishes to engage the younger audience then it needs to
address their concerns around injuries and the fate of horses when they retire. These
concerns are also high among Millennial and aged 40+ audiences. A common inductive theme
within ethical concerns relating to horse welfare was questions regarding where unsuccessful
racehorses end up. Several participants stated if there was more transparency regarding this,
they might become more interested in engaging with horse racing. Furthermore, Table 1 and
Table 3 indicate that Gen-Z and Millennial respondents agree with the statement “If there was
more ethical transparency, I would be more likely to attend/watch horse races” with a mean Likert
response of 3.5 for Gen-Z and 3.05 for Millennials. This indicates they are open to persuasion.
Aged 40+ respondents showed a mean of 2.4 for the statement so are less likely to be
persuaded though they registered lower levels of concern regarding injuries and the fate of
horses anyway. During the focus groups, participants were asked whether they feel horse
racing is trustworthy and open, 4/10 participants (all Gen-Z) felt that horse racing is trustworthy
and open, stating they ‘don’t think it’s deceitful’, 6/10 participants (5 Gen-Z and 1 Millennial) felt
horse racing is not trustworthy or open. One participant stated the ‘amount of money from
horse racing titles and breeding leads to corruption’, and one felt ‘behind the scenes stuff is kept

19
secret’. Several survey and focus group participants suggested using horse and trainer welfare
ratings to improve transparency and attract new customers to the sport.
As with previous surveys [3, 4], the social aspect elicits the highest responses (Figure 3) as
to why respondents would attend horse racing in person. From Table 1, “If I suggested going to
the horse races, my friends would happily go with me” with mean value 3.12 across all ages
(SD=1.27) suggests that social influences can impact a person’s attendance and the mean
value increased with age suggesting older people think their friends would more likely follow
their lead and attend. Many of the previous surveys analysing the motivating factors behind
attendance at competitive sports events found team identification most important [21].
However, Pugh [22] analysed attendance at minor league baseball where fans have lower
levels of team identification. They posited that fans of lower league sports are highly motivated
to attend by the family and group affiliation rather than team affiliations. Smith & Stewart [23]
found that sport can provide a social dimension for fans. These findings correspond with our
findings in horse racing which is not a team-based event and where the social aspects are
crucial to attendance. Smith & Stewart [23] state that attendees travel to see a sport event as a
means to a social goal which extends well beyond the activity itself; it is a shared activity.
Understanding the motivational factors that attract fans to a particular sporting event can
allow event organisers and hosts (including horse racing) to increase fan attendance by
promoting these specific factors. In our survey, the Gen-Z respondents also show a particular
interest in the horse racing and Millennials are keen on betting. This latter point agrees with
the UK Gambling Commission survey [24] which identified that the 25-34 year old age category
had the highest level of per monthly gambling (excluding lottery) and the highest level of per
monthly online gambling in 2018.
Mirroring responses generally, ethical concerns are the largest factor that prevents
respondents who have not considered attending from actually attending and is a factor
stopping those who have considered attending. As previously, we note that increasing the
transparency and openness of the sport can overcome this barrier. For respondents who have
considered attending, cost is the largest barrier particularly among the younger Gen-Z but also
among older respondents that stops them attending. This contrasts with Smith & Stewart [23]
who state that longitudinal studies of sports fans suggest that attendance is only marginally
influenced by admission prices. Several participants felt horse racing was a middle/high class
sport, a perception which could be changed through careful advertising by the racing industry
to attract more customers, especially as racing is one of the most socioeconomically diverse

20
sports in terms of audience participation in the UK [3]. Crowd behaviour is a high concern to
Millennials who have not considered attending.
Gantz [25] found viewers’ motivations for watching televised sports were similar to their
motivations for attending sports events. We found this similarity for factors stopping
participants watching and attending horse racing with ethical considerations the biggest
barrier for both. For those who watch sports on television, from table 2, viewers clearly need to
seek information about the sports event during the broadcast (as noted previously older
participants seek information during the broadcast while Gen-Z prefer to wait for ad breaks).
All participants appreciate good infographics. They are less keen on allowing viewer questions
and are not interested in sharing hashtags during the broadcast. From Figure 5, the Gen-Z
demographic was most interested in forming online communities around horse racing (c20%
agreed) agreeing with Lim et al. [8]. We note respondents picked their top-3 needs so 20% of
Gen-Z considered it a top-3 requirement. Participants across all ages would appreciate a
dictionary of terminology. Figure 6a further supports the need for a dictionary with specialist
terminology dissuading those who had considered watching.
Participants who have either attended or viewed horse racing and engaged with other
competitive sports were asked to compare them. When asked what the other sport did better
(n=65 and free text responses), respondents answered with suggestions including: ‘interviews’,
‘fan engagement and … more media friendly participants’, ‘engages younger audience better
through coverage on mainstream TV’, ‘more free content for fans’, and ‘statistics’. When asked
what horse racing did better than the other sport (n=35), 14.3% of participants stated ‘betting
availability’ and 11.4% preferred horse racing because it was a ‘family day out’. Hammervold &
Solberg [26] revealed that in Norway individual winter sports, such as biathlon and cross-
country skiing, are more popular than football but football fans were significantly more
motivated to pay to view on TV than fans of individual sports. This is driven by affectionate
relationships toward their favourite club and sport which are lower in individual sports
including horse racing and the findings above support that. Our findings here further agree
with Wann et al. [21] and Pugh [22] that team/competitor identification is a motivating factor
and responses indicate that horse racing lacks celebrities that television viewers can support.
Horse racing broadcasts need to emphasise the horses and jockeys and provide more of a
celebrity focus with well-recognised names to support engagement of television and streaming
viewers and also to emphasise the sport’s social appeal.

21
Limitations
One limitation of this survey is using self-report questionnaires. These rely on the
assumption that respondents answer all statements truthfully and honestly. We supplemented
them with focus groups but these could be expanded further.
Although the Gen-Z participant group size was statistically sufficient, the Millennial and
40+ participant group sizes were smaller, therefore further research into Millennial and 40+
motivations regarding horse racing could be collected in future to complement this data set.
Further research could establish if participants who have ethical objections relating to
horse welfare are fixed in their perception, or whether reassurance and industry transparency
could encourage a new market of ethically aware customers to engage with horse racing.
Conclusion
The key findings from our survey are:
Ethical concerns and a lack of ethical transparency are reducing customer engagement
with horse racing and driving a reduction in in-person and on-screen horse-racing attendance
and viewing.
In particular, ethical concerns surrounding whip use, horse injury, jockey injury,
racehorse fate on retirement, and betting are deciding factors for many participants in
deciding whether to engage with horse racing and horse racing related media.
The majority of respondents who have attended or would consider attending horse
racing are motivated by the opportunity for social interaction, over the opportunity to watch
the racing itself.
As such, horse racing lacks easily identifiable figures and could be made more engaging
to the audience by creating celebrity focus on the horses and riders.
We found statistically significant differences between Gen-Z, Millennials and aged 40+
age groups. Older people tend to agree more that their friends would happily go to the races
with them while ethical concerns increase as respondents get younger.
Contributions
Contributed to conception and design: HP, VJH
Contributed to acquisition of data: HP, VJH
Contributed to analysis and interpretation of data: HP, VJH
Drafted and/or revised the article: HP, VJH
Approved the submitted version for publication: VJH, HP

22
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank PA Media Group for advising on the questionnaire
development, and assisting with disseminating the questionnaire.
Funding information
This work was supported by the Digital Creativity Labs (www.digitalcreativity.ac.uk), jointly
funded by EPSRC/AHRC/InnovateUK under grant no. EP/M023265/1, and InnovateUK KTP grant
no. 11986.
Ethical Approval:
The study was given ethical approval by the University of York, Dept of Computer Science
Ethics Committee. Only adults (>18 years) were involved. All participants took part on a
voluntary basis and could withdraw at any time. Information regarding the study purpose, the
potential uses of data, and the methods of data collection were provided to participants at the
beginning of the focus groups and questionnaire. All data were collected anonymously and it
was not possible to identify participants in the raw research data.
Data and Supplementary Material Accessibility
The datasets for this manuscript are not publicly available. Requests to access the datasets
should be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
[1] Henham Strategy (2019). British Horseracing's International Influence Report. Retrieved
from: https://www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/British-
Horseracings-International-Influence-June-2019.pdf [Accessed 09 November 2021].
[2] Riley, S., (2020). Attendances For British Racing Fall For Fourth Year In A Row. Racing Post.
Retrieved from: https://www.racingpost.com/news/attendance-crisis-looms-for-british-
racing-with-crowd-figures-falling-again/420377 [Accessed 09 November 2021].
[3] Two Circles (2020). Insight=Growth Industry Update. 1st ed. Race-Course Association,
Great British Racing & Two-Circles. Retrieved from: https://twocircles.com/gb-

23
en/articles/growing-racings-fanbase-through-sport-wide-customer-insight/ [Accessed 09
November 2021].
[4] Choy, Y.Z. , (2018). Racing from alienation: horse betting as a “safety valve” amongst elderly
Chinese punters at the Singapore turf club. Undergraduate report. National University of
Singapore.
[5] Roberts, C. (2017). “On The Drift”: Could The Sport Of Kings Become The Sport Of Paupers?
Gemba Group. Retrieved from: http://thegembagroup.com/news/drift-sport-kings-
become-sport-paupers/ [Accessed 09 November 2021].
[6] Lera-López, F., & Rapún-Gárate, M. (2007). The demand for sport: Sport consumption and
participation models. Journal of sport Management, 21(1), 103-122. DOI:
10.1123/jsm.21.1.103
[7] Budzynski-Seymour, E., Conway, R., Wade, M., Lucas, A., Jones, M., Mann, S. and Steele, J.,
(2020). Physical Activity, Mental and Personal Well-Being, Social Isolation, and Perceptions
of Academic Attainment and Employability in University Students: The Scottish and British
Active Students Surveys. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 17(6), 610-620. DOI:
10.1123/jpah.2019-0431
[8] Lim, J., Hwang, Y., Kim, S. and Biocca, F., (2015). How social media engagement leads to
sports channel loyalty: Mediating roles of social presence and channel commitment.
Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 158-167. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.013
[9] Hwang, Y. and Lim, J., (2015). The impact of engagement motives for social TV on social
presence and sports channel commitment. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 755-765.
DOI:10.1016/j.tele.2015.03.006
[10] Bergmann, I., (2015). Sustainability, thoroughbred racing and the need for change.
Pferdeheilkunde Equine Medicine, 31(5), 490-498. DOI: 10.21836/PEM20150509
[11] Arthur, R. M. (2011). Welfare issues in horse racing. In McIlwraith, C.W. & Rollin, B.E. (Eds.)
Equine welfare (chapter 11). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
[12] Evans, D. L. (2007). Welfare of the racehorse during exercise training and racing. In, The
welfare of horses (pp. 181-201). Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-306-48215-1_8
[13] Jones, B., Goodfellow, J., Yeates, J., & McGreevy, P. (2015). A Critical Analysis of the British
Horseracing Authority’s Review of the Use of the Whip in Horseracing. Animals, 5(1), 138–
150. DOI:10.3390/ani5010138
[14] Hood, J., McDonald, C., Wilson, B., McManus, P., & McGreevy, P. (2017). Whip Rule
Breaches in a Major Australian Racing Jurisdiction: Welfare and Regulatory Implications.
Animals, 7(12), 4. DOI:10.3390/ani7010004

24
[15] Forrest, F. & Simmons, R. (2003). Sport and Gambling. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
19(4): 598–611, DOI:10.1093/oxrep/19.4.598
[16] McManus, P., & Graham, R. (2014). Horse racing and gambling: Comparing attitudes and
preferences of racetrack patrons and residents of Sydney, Australia. Leisure Studies, 33(4),
400-417. DOI:10.1080/02614367.2012.748088
[17] Holtgraves, T. (2009). Gambling, gambling activities, and problem gambling. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 23(2), 295. DOI:10.1037/a0014181
[18] Wardle, H., Petrovskaya, E. and Zendle, D. (2020) Defining the esports bettor: evidence
from an online panel survey of Emerging Adults Gambling Survey. International Gambling
Studies, (Accepted for Publication) DOI:10.1080/14459795.2020.1826559
[19] Melnick, M. J., & Wann, D. L. (2011). An examination of sport fandom in Australia:
Socialization, team identification, and fan behavior. International Review for the Sociology of
Sport, 46(4), 456–470. DOI:10.1177/1012690210380582
[20] Sullivan, G. M. & Artino, A. R., Jr (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type
scales. Journal of graduate medical education, 5(4), 541–542. DOI:10.4300/JGME-5-4-18
[21] Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Please, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology
and social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge Press.
[22] Pugh, A. S. (2015) Motivational Differences in Why Sports Fans Attend Minor League
Baseball and Roller Derby Events. Master’s Thesis. United States: Western Kentucky
University.
[23] Smith, A.C.T. & Stewart, B. (2007) The Travelling Fan: Understanding the Mechanisms of
Sport Fan Consumption in a Sport Tourism Setting. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12:3-4, 155-
181, DOI: 10.1080/14775080701736924
[24] Gambling Commission (2019). Gambling participation in 2018: behaviour, awareness and
attitudes. Annual report. Retrieved from: https://gamblizard.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/gambling-participation-in-2018-behaviour-awareness-and-
attitudes.pdf [Accessed 09 November 2021].
[25] Gantz, W. (1981). An exploration of viewing motives and behaviors associated with
television sports. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 25(3), 263-275. DOI:
10.1080/08838158109386450
[26] Hammervold, R., & Solberg, H.A. (2006). TV sports programs—Who is willing to pay to
watch?. Journal of Media Economics, 19(3), 147-162. DOI:10.1207/s15327736me1903_1