13/06/2026
Every year since 2022, British charity, World Horse Welfare have surveyed around 4,000 people in the United Kingdom on their views about the uses of horses in sport, the welfare of sport horses and the use of equipment that causes pain and shared the findings at a public forum.
Over the five years around 60% of respondents say they're not content with the status quo and in 2026, nearly 40% of respondents said they were not comfortable with the use of horses for sport at all and nearly 80% of people said it was not acceptable to use even short term pain to to achieve a performance goal.
World Horse Welfare are to be commended for running these surveys and sharing the results but what interests me is how those results are then presented.
The pattern over the past five years has been to assemble a group of experts from racing, equestrian, a vet and in some years an animal welfare scientists and veterinary ethicist who discuss the findings, what they mean for the future of horse sport and what needs to be done to maintain the social licence, or more recently, public acceptance of the use of horses in sport.
The consistent response to the findings has been that the problem is one of communication: more openness, better social media, more behind-the-scenes content. Show people how much we love our horses to improve trust and confidence that sport horses are well cared for. A kind of bait and switch. Communication, not welfare.
And when welfare is discussed there's a pattern about how it is discussed and framed. When the panellists argue for better welfare - more turnout, less whip use, more humane training, the justification that is used is "performance".
Happier horse, better horse. As one prominent rider put it: "if you've got a happier, more content horse, you're gonna have a better horse."
On the surface it sounds and feels right. But it's not.
To begin with, current science doesn't support it beyond the obvious- sick or lame horses don't perform well.
The data on whether horses who experience better or even good welfare outside of competition, (regular social contact, freedom of movement, behavioural choice)or during training are more competitive hasn't been demonstrated.
In some disciplines the evidence points the other way. In dressage, conflict behaviours, open mouths, tail swishing, pinned ears are not penalised and horses showing those signs win gold medals.
So why ask the general public what they think about welfare and then pivot to welfare as a performance metric or communication as the solution to the welfare issue identified by the public?
The performance framing makes the welfare argument palatable to an industry that finds the alternative unpalatable: that horses have interests that matter independently of what they do for us.
That welfare isn't a tool for better results or better public relations. That it defines how horses experience their lives and that experience should be a constraint on how horses are used for sport and performance purposes.
Five consecutive years of survey data say clearly that people want welfare prioritised, not packaged as a slick video. And yet the organisations positioned as guardians of horse welfare keep bringing the conversation back to messaging. What to say. How to say it. Who to say it to.
Not what to change. Not what horses actually need beyond vague ideas about turnout and ad-lib hay in stables. Not what the evidence says causes them harm.
Welfare as its own justification- that horses deserve good lives because they are the kinds of beings who can have good or bad lives shouldn't need a performance metric as a justification to care about or do something about it.
The public already knows this. It would be good if the people who speak for horses advanced this too.