23/07/2026

On 17 July 2026, the Masaf, through its Directorate-General for Horse Racing (DIPP), approved by decree (D.D.G. No. 350786) the "Promotion and Communication Plan for Horse Racing," signed by Director-General Remo Chiodi and published the same day on the Ministry's institutional website. The document implements, for the racing sector, the framework of the broader Masaf "2026 Communication Plan," approved on 5 February 2026.

The objective stated in the decree is written with almost disarming honesty: to change the perception Italians have of this world. Not to change horse racing itself. To change what Italians think about horse racing. The text states that it is necessary to "counter negative perceptions" — in short, to stop portraying the races as a betting business and start portraying them as sport, tradition, Made in Italy. More costumed performers, more Armed Forces horses at exhibitions, more food-and-wine tastings at racetracks, more "emotional" social media content. Fewer numbers, more stories.

It is fair to ask why an entire ministerial apparatus would feel the need to correct a perception, if that perception were not in some way deserved. Institutions do not pour substantial resources into repainting something that is already working well. They do so when something is creaking, and in this case the creaking has a very concrete sound: racetracks closing or left without the ministerial recognition required to operate, municipalities going into debt to keep alive races that no one wants to fund anymore, a public — especially younger people — looking at this world with growing detachment. IHP has been documenting this for months, case after case, city after city. The Communication Plan, in a sense, confirms from the inside what we denounce from the outside: Italian horse racing is struggling. Only the response chosen by the Government is not to change things. It is to change the story we tell about them.

And where are the horses in this story?

They appear, certainly. As extras, though, not as protagonists of the problem. "Animal welfare" is mentioned as one of many ingredients in the narrative, alongside tourism, fashion, local cuisine, and mounted units. There is a passing reference to the need to address horses at "end of career" — to place them, the text says, in "social and therapeutic activities." One line, within a plan that otherwise talks about editorial platforms, hashtags, replicable formats, and the involvement of hospitality schools for event catering.

Nowhere in this Plan is there a single euro dedicated to guaranteeing that every horse that stops racing has a legally protected future. There is no obligation for owners. There is no fund for retirement, for veterinary care, for rehoming. There is communication. Plenty of it, well-structured, professional. But on the one point that, for IHP, is truly decisive — what happens to a horse once it is no longer useful for winning — the silence is nearly total.

And it is a silence that comes at a cost. IHP knows this because that is precisely the gap through which the worst enters: horses that leave the official circuit and, when traceability fails, end up in illegal races or abusive slaughter.

A political choice

The 17 July decree does not establish its own budget allocation: the resources to implement it are drawn from funding already earmarked for the racing sector. The 2026 Budget Law (Law No. 199/2025) allocates €152.1 million to horse racing for 2026 alone — with comparable continuity planned for the entire 2026–2028 period — plus an additional €1 million earmarked for the Capannelle racetrack. That money could have funded a mandatory system to protect horses at the end of their careers. It could have funded real controls on horse traceability — the same traceability that, when it fails, opens the door to fraud and clandestine slaughter, as IHP has been denouncing for years and as is now emerging in the trials where the association is a civil party. Instead, it funds a press office, a revamped website, a social media strategy.

IHP is not asking for horse racing to be told better. It is asking for it to be treated differently: with a system of genuine accountability toward the animals that make it possible, not with a communications package designed to make us look away. The citizens funding this Plan with their taxes deserve to know what they are actually paying for. And the horses deserve something more than a better story.