Diversity and inclusion in European racing
/By Dr Paull Khan
When France decided in 2016 to introduce a weight allowance for female riders, it set the racing world murmuring and shone a light on the issue of gender diversity among jockeys.
Jean-Pierre Columbu, vice-president of France Galop, explains: “My president, Edouard de Rothschild, who had introduced Lady Riders’ races about a decade earlier, still felt they were something of a ‘ghetto’, and wanted to do more to see females compete on equal terms”. The 2-kg (4.4lbs) allowance applied to both flat and jump races, but excluded Pattern races. Last year, the allowance was reduced on the flat to 1.5kg.
It was a bold step and one that has quickly produced some dramatic results. Within three years, female professional flat jockeys are getting three times the number of rides they used to, and their winners tally has risen by a staggering 340%. Despite the exclusion of the most lucrative races, the prize money won by horses ridden by females has also nearly trebled, from €4.1M to €12M. To Columbu, this increase in earnings among lady riders is crucial to the recruitment and retention of women. “In our Jockey School”, he notes, “65% are now female. And there are, of course, many, many females in our stables who must have the opportunity to earn money”.
Indeed, it could be said that that the allowance has achieved its objective. Female riders’ percentage of rides, which are winners, has improved from 7.14% to 9.08%—rapidly closing in on the male riders’ equivalent figure of 9.73%. So has the experiment run its course, and will the allowance soon be phased out? Columbu does not think so.
“The allowance is going to stay”, he concludes. “I used to be a surgeon. In males, 35% of body weight is made up of muscle. In women, that figure is 27%. That is why the allowance is needed”.
Of course, France is far from being alone in experiencing under-representation of women riders.
Other countries have been studying the French experiment with interest from afar. In Britain, flag-bearer Hayley Turner’s exploits are well-known. However, not all in the garden is rosy. Rose Grissell, recently appointed Head of Diversity and Inclusion for British Racing, notes: “Recent successes should be celebrated and promoted, but there is further to go. Fourteen percent of professional jockeys are female, but women receive just 8.2% of the rides and, in 2018, no woman rode in a flat Gp1 race. So, while the trends are in many ways encouraging, they do not apply across the board”.
These concerns are echoed by the organisation Women in Racing. Established in 2009, Women in Racing was formed to encourage senior appointments at Board level across the industry and to attract more women into the sport. That ambition remains, but today, according to its chair, Tallulah Lewis, there is more focus on strengthening career development for women at all levels. For Lewis, a prime concern is the attrition rate; in other words, the fact that the 14% figure for female riders that we have noted above occurs despite the ratio of new recruits entering into racing through the two racing schools in Britain, being as high as 70:30 in favour of females. Understanding their lack of progression is a key aim.
Grissell, indeed, intends to examine issues of recruitment, training and retention, looking to help either remove the barriers to lady riders’ success or to lend support. One tactic might be to challenge the perception of the innate inferiority of the female jockey. Grissell again: “A study by PhD student Vanessa Cashmore identified that punters undervalue women riders: a woman riding a horse at odds of 9/1 had the same chance of victory as a man riding one at 8/1”.
Hayley Turner
Such findings call into question the need for a gender-based riders’ allowance and, indeed, British lady riders themselves have voiced opposition to the concept.
The French experiment—and its undoubted success—presents a dilemma to those who seek better outcomes for women riders but who are convinced that they are equally effective as their male counterparts, given the opportunities.
“We applaud what the French have done in this experiment, as it gives us all more information than we had before”, says Lewis. “Our concern is that it is based on the premise that women are not men’s equal when it comes to race riding—something the evidence disproves”.
Belgium, which boasts the highest percentage of the countries polled, has crunched the numbers and decided against following the French example. Marcel de Bruyne, director of the Belgian Gallop Federation, explains:
“We have the same percentage of females—43% among our professional and amateur riders and, as they achieve approximately the same percentage of winning rides as the men, we do not envisage giving a weight allowance for females”.
(All of which suggests Belgium would make an interesting case study.)
Spain, by contrast, is due to have introduced a 1.5-kg allowance for females by the time this magazine is published. It would be surprising if other countries did not decide to follow suit, either by replicating the weight allowance or conjuring some other incentive for the female jockey. A prize money premium for connections who engage female riders would be one such option, which would have the benefit of leaving the actual terms of competition undistorted.
Of course, gender diversity is but one aspect of diversity in general. It is often the first to be tackled because of the (at least traditional) binary classification applying to the sexes, and the relative ease of data collection. But diversity and inclusion in ethnic or racial terms, in sexual orientation and identification, in physical ability, etc. are all key components when assessing the extent to which a sub-group reflects the wider society in which it sits.
The argument is now widely accepted that homogeneity stifles innovation and that, in addition to any altruistic motivation for advancing the cause of the under-represented, there is also an economic, self-interested imperative for organisations to do so. And there is every reason to suppose that this applies equally to racing. The benefits, in terms of staff recruitment and retention, for example, that would likely flow from well-managed diversity should be just as applicable to, say, a trainer’s yard as to any other commercial operation.
Talking of trainers, the table below shows the percentage of female professional licensed trainers by country, and as with the professional jockeys, again reveals a very wide variation.
What, if anything, is being done to address this disparity? Or indeed, manifestations of a lack of diversity among other groups within racing: administrators and racecourse executives, for example, or, looking more broadly, among those who attend races, or place bets on horseracing?
The short answer would appear to be: not a lot. The country which has done by far the most work in this space would appear to be Great Britain where, two years ago, the British Horseracing Authority established a Diversity in Racing Steering Group.
The story starts in 2017, when Women in Racing jointly commissioned and published a study by Oxford Brookes University, entitled ‘Women’s representation and diversity in the horseracing industry’. The report found evidence of ‘a lack of career development opportunities (at all levels including jockeys), progression and support, some examples of discriminative, prejudice and bullying behaviour, barriers and lack of representation at senior and board level, and negative experiences of work-life balance and pastoral care’.