Jockeys' chief responds to the fallout from the new BHA apprentice guidelines

Chief executive Paul Struthers explains the PJA's position regarding the BHA initiative

We have been at pains not to get into a public argument over the changes to the apprentices agreement, announced at the same time as it was announced that conditional jockeys would receive 100 per cent of their riding earnings, a change I am led to believe was supported by the National Trainers Federation (NTF) Jumps Committee.

It is becoming an increasingly depressing aspect of life that the truth and facts are no longer allowed to get in the way of putting a political point across. Unfortunately, that aspect of life applies to this particular issue and I am sad to say it has got to the point where maintaining a dignified silence is no longer tenable.

Firstly, it is worth highlighting what the changes mean. Under the current system, trainers netted more than £430,000 from apprentices’ riding earnings after VAT and paying their share of expenses including mileage.

Under the new system that figure will reduce to £206,000 and apprentices will be responsible for all their expenses including mileage. I appreciate some feel a “mountain has been made out of a molehill” and I fully acknowledge there are many good employers that were playing it by the book – and indeed in some cases going over and above what was required.

That said, since I took this role almost eight years ago no single issue has been so contentious and come up with such regularity – from both young jockeys and their parents – and I can assure everyone that it was very much a “mountain” that needed addressing for those impacted by trainers not adhering to their contractual obligations.

It is worth noting apprentices are already paid less, reflecting the wider world. The memorandum of agreement between the NTF and the National Association of Racing Staff (NARS) has different rates of pay depending on age and experience. The published rate for a trainee who is 16 or 17 is £178 per week; for an improver it is £212.99 and the next grade up from that £246. The equivalent rates for an 18-year-old are £246 and for a 21-year-old £301.40.

Looking at other comments made this week, Richard Fahey has referenced a meeting between himself, Richard Hughes, the BHA and PJA. I attended this meeting which occurred in October 2017 (not a year ago) and lasted less than two hours (not four). It could not have been clearer from this meeting that the BHA and PJA were fully aware of the VAT issue and knew trainers were liable and paid the VAT on the riding fee. Mr Fahey presented figures for some of his apprentices, which included travel expenditure being paid to each. No evidence was presented to support those travel expenses being paid.

Richard Hannon was quoted along the lines of “why couldn’t they meet us halfway?” and it is perhaps therefore worth detailing the process. A working group consisting of representatives of the BHA, NTF and PJA first met on 24th Jan 2019. This followed an initial meeting between the parties in July 2018 which agreed that the BHA should undertake an audit, the results of which were shared in late November 2018.

Multiple meetings and very positive and constructive conversations followed with the NTF and PJA willing to make concessions. The BHA undertook detailed analysis and presented various options, which were discussed and amended, with the NTF undertaking its own analysis and presenting a separate, alternative model.

The PJA suggested a minor amendment to the NTF’s proposal which actually saw trainers retaining slightly more than their own proposal. It therefore looked like we had reached agreement on a model (in September 2019) that would hopefully have the support of the NTF’s Flat Committee.

Unfortunately we were informed in early November that the NTF could not agree to the proposals. The NTF were unable to propose any alternatives and therefore the only way there was going to be any form of agreement was if the PJA agreed to the status quo remaining. There was no offer of further talks, no compromise and therefore no option to “meet halfway”.

Given the issues that had been uncovered in the audit, that echoed issues raised in a previous independent review carried out in 2015, it would have been a total dereliction of duty by the PJA to agree to the status quo. I am sorry if some feel that a mountain has been made out of a molehill but I am afraid that significantly underestimates the issue for those individuals impacted by poor practice. That said, we were grateful to the NTF for their efforts and remain so.

It was then left to the BHA to make a decision. It is the role of an independent regulator to make difficult decisions that won’t always be popular. In doing so it is important they take into account all of the evidence and viewpoints, and make the decision that is in their view the right one, not simply one that navigates a path of least resistance by appeasing those shouting loudest.

The proposal that looked like it might be agreed by all parties was presented to the BHA board, which unanimously agreed to the proposals.

We are of course deeply saddened by the prospect of those aspiring to be future jockeys being denied an opportunity to fulfil that dream with their employer of choice, particularly in circumstances where financial analysis demonstrated that those playing it by the book, let alone those going above and beyond what was required, would not be significantly worse off.

The PJA and BHA are getting criticised for what has happened and I understand why. Not everyone agrees with the decision the BHA took. Those that were doing it the right way feel aggrieved at the perceived slur on them and at a change forced upon a system that was working. Those that were not doing it the right way will lose out on a significant source of income.

I may not have mucked out or ridden, but just because I am an administrator does not mean I am not invested in the sport and its future. My mortgage and children’s futures depend on it like many thousands of others.

My dad was a printer who instilled in me the value of hard work. My first job was at the age of 13 working 12 hours a day without a break as a petrol pump attendant for £1 an hour and I have worked, and worked hard, ever since.

He also instilled in me his values of respect, compassion, honesty and fairness. It is these values that drive me and motivate me in the job I have – and love – representing jockeys.

My job – our job – is to protect and represent the best interests of our members while being mindful of the wider interests of the sport, and we will fight on their behalf based on those values of respect, compassion, honesty and fairness.

I passionately believe that is what we have done in this case. It isn’t about making it easier for apprentices. It isn’t about making it so apprentices don’t have to work hard. It's about making it fair for everyone.

Trainers shouldn’t be angry at me, Nick Rust, the PJA or BHA, and they should not take their anger out on the jockeys and work riders of the future.

Paul Struthers, PJA chief executive

More to read

Andrew Balding pulls plug on aspiring apprentices after BHA rule changes

Financial boost for apprentice jockeys after BHA bolsters prize-money share