What Society Thinks About Horses in Sport: Why the Persuadable Majority Matters

Professor Nat Waran OBE

The equestrian and racing industries face a unique challenge that sets them apart from virtually every other sport: their social licence to operate depends not on athletic achievement or entertainment value alone, but on public perception of how they treat the animals who are central to it all.  And increasingly, that perception is becoming more critical, more sceptical, and potentially more decisive for the future of these sports.

A Social Licence to Operate: Permission That Can Be Withdrawn

Social licence to operate isn't a legal right enshrined in statute. It's something far more fragile: the ongoing approval and acceptance granted by society, stakeholders, and local communities. Unlike a racing licence or competition permit, it cannot be applied for, purchased, or guaranteed. It's earned through trust, maintained through transparency, and can be withdrawn when public opinion shifts.

What makes this particularly challenging for equestrian sport, particularly horse-racing is that it operates under constant public scrutiny. Every stride, every fall, every interaction between horse and human is potentially visible, shareable, and subject to commentary. As was aptly described by the Director of the Conseil des Chevaux de Normandie (2023); asking someone to explain whip use to 30 children at the finish line of a horse race, would be a public relations nightmare, regardless of any scientific justification. The image matters as much as the reality.

'Society' -Who Are We Really Talking About?

When we discuss "the public", it's tempting to imagine a homogenous mass with a single view. Of course, the reality is more nuanced. For example, public opinion on involvement of horses in horse racing tends to fall into three broad groups that we can call:

The Committed (best estimate 5-10% of the population) are racing participants, owners, regular attendees, and enthusiasts who understand and support the sport. They're knowledgeable about welfare efforts and contextualise incidents within their broader understanding of the industry.

The Opposed (roughly 5-15%) are fundamentally against the use of animals in sport, often on ideological or animal rights grounds. No amount of welfare improvement will satisfy this group, who believe horses simply shouldn't be involved in racing or competition.

The Persuadable (probably the vast majority, 60-70%) are the critical 'swing' group. These are casual observers and have no vested interest - they are the general public with limited knowledge of racing or equestrianism. They're neither committed fans nor ideological opponents. They're people like ‘Sarah’: the 34-year-old primary school teacher with two rescue dogs who watches the Grand National occasionally but hasn't thought deeply about racing ethics or horse welfare. They're neutral, they're busy, and they can be influenced either way.

This majority lacks any real knowledge about horses, but forms opinions based on shared media reports and visible incidents. This persuadable middle ground is where social licence is won or lost.

What Does Society Actually Think?

Recent research into public attitudes reveals that 65% of the public are concerned about the involvement of horses in equestrian sport. More telling still, 67% felt that welfare standards were either not adequate or that it simply wasn't possible to provide for horses' welfare needs within a sporting context. Within horse-racing, the majority of the public who attend horse races do so for social rather than sporting reasons and only 22% of the public surveyed in a recent Australian study held a positive perception of horse racing.

The concerns are specific and revealing. The public worries most about horse welfare and safety, more so than human welfare, sustainability, or other social licence issues. They question whether horses enjoy being involved in sport. They're concerned about injuries and fatalities, the use of whips and training aids, and what happens to horses after their competitive careers end. Various factors influence opinion, including generational differences which compound these challenges. Younger respondents, particularly Generation Z, demonstrate more empathetic responses to animal welfare issues. These are the audiences of tomorrow, and their scepticism appears to run deeper than that of older generations.

Across various studies, consistent themes emerge:

Primary Public Concerns	Description
Horse welfare and safety	Injuries and fatalities on track
Whip use	Training aids and perceived harsh treatment
Horse enjoyment	Questions about whether horses want to participate
Aftercare	What happens to horses after their competitive careers
Ethics of racing	Fundamental questions about using animals for sport

The Perception-Reality Gap

Here's where it becomes particularly challenging for the industry. Although actual welfare standards may be improving (eg fatality rates declining, veterinary oversight mandatory, retirement programmes expanding, substantial investment in equine health research), public perception often lags behind or even actively contradicts these improvements.

The public focuses on visible incidents and injuries. They see whip use and they question it. They have limited awareness of aftercare programmes or regulatory safeguards. Media coverage amplifies negative incidents whilst welfare improvements receive little attention. This perception-reality gap is the challenge. Negative perceptions threaten social licence regardless of actual improvements.

Speed of Information Transfer

We live in an era where news, particularly bad news, travels with unprecedented speed. Research shows that 75% of links shared on Facebook are shared without users clicking through to read the actual content. Facts don't seem to matter when a dramatic image or headline tells a story, accurate or not, that confirms existing suspicions.

An incident at a race or competition isn't just witnessed by those in attendance anymore. It's filmed, shared, commented upon, and disseminated to millions within minutes. The industry's response time has shrunk from days to hours, and the audience judging that response has expanded from those on the inside to anyone with a smartphone.

The negative impact of ‘Welfare Washing’

Consider a scenario: during a televised race, a horse falls and sustains a catastrophic leg fracture. Vets attend immediately, but the horse must be euthanised. Sarah, our representative of the persuadable majority, is sent this on social media by a friend.

What happens next depends entirely on how the industry responds.

Scenario A: Transparent and Welfare-Focused

Within two hours, an official statement acknowledges what happened, names the horse, explains the immediate veterinary care provided, and expresses genuine condolence. Within 24 hours, the industry provides context about veterinary protocols, racecourse safety measures, and their broader welfare strategy. Within a week, a transparent incident review is published.

Sarah's response: "It's tragic, but they clearly take welfare seriously and are working to prevent this."

Scenario B: Defensive Welfare-Washing

Eighteen hours pass before a brief statement mentions "an incident" without naming the horse. Industry defenders flood social media with dismissive comments: "Horses love to race!" "More horses die in fields!" "Critics don't understand racing." Generic welfare messaging appears with glossy images but no specific data or accountability.

Sarah's response: "They seem more concerned with defending racing than caring about horses. I don't trust them."

The facts were identical. The horse, the injury, the outcome, all the same. The difference was entirely in communication. In Scenario A, Sarah remains persuadable, seeing racing as imperfect but improving. In Scenario B, she moves toward opposition and will share her concerns with friends.

The Trust Erosion Pathway

Without proactive, credible communication about horse welfare, people will move through predictable stages. They begin with passive acceptance ("Racing or use of horses in sport exists, I don't think about it"). Then awareness and concern develop through media exposure ("I've seen worrying stories"). This progresses to questioning legitimacy ("Do we need horse racing?") and can end in active opposition ("Racing should be restricted or banned").

Each negative incident, poorly handled, pushes people further down this pathway. Each transparent, pro-active, welfare-focused response can halt or even reverse the progression.

What Industry Can do

Several crucial lessons emerge from understanding society's perspective:

1. First, social licence depends on what people like Sarah perceive, not on what the industry believes to be reality. Industry cannot award itself a social licence. What matters to society is what society says matters.

   
   

2. Second, proactive honest communication is essential. Without prior, credible information about welfare advances, people default to suspicion when incidents occur. Trust must be built before it's needed.

   
   

3. Third, Sarah and the persuadable majority she represents are not nuisances or enemies. We know what concerns them and what they believe. There's an opportunity to build trust and ongoing acceptance by genuinely addressing these issues, not dismissing them.

   
   

4. Fourth, investment must flow in two directions: doing welfare well AND being trusted by the public that welfare is being done well. Excellence without trust is invisible.

Horse Welfare and Proactive Communication are Key

The increasing awareness of social licence in equestrian sport and racing represents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is that industries must now meet standards set not by themselves, but by an evolving, more animal-welfare-conscious society. The opportunity is that by genuinely prioritising horse welfare and communicating transparently about both successes and failures, the industry can build lasting trust with the very people whose acceptance they depend upon.

The committed will continue supporting regardless. The opposed will continue campaigning regardless. But Sarah, and the millions she represents, are genuinely persuadable. They want to believe that horses are cared for. They accept horse use in sport and can even accept that accidents can happen. What they won't accept is defensiveness, dismissiveness, or the suspicion that industry cares more about human agendas and protecting its image, than ensuring that horses are genuinely prioritised and their welfare safeguarded.

'What matters to society is what society says matters'