Why attempts to introduce Historical Horse Racing in California are causing controversy and putting the future of horse racing at risk
California’s horse racing industry has found itself on the verge of survival, facing an economic and social crisis. Expectations for the introduction of Historical Horse Racing (HHR)—a new form of gambling similar to slot machines—have become a recurring theme in discussions about the industry’s future. But can the launch of HHR truly change the course of events if the largest market players are set on conflict and tribes and lawmakers still hold control over the situation?
The horse racing industry in California faces the threat of extinction
Over the past decades, horse racing in California has lost its position as one of the leading events on the national sports calendar. Experts note a steady decline in the number of horses, participants, and organized races. According to the California Horse Racing Board, prize funds at the major tracks Santa Anita and Del Mar have stopped growing, and fan interest has noticeably decreased.
Problems are deepening against the backdrop of an aging and shrinking audience: the average age of horse racing fans has exceeded 60, and the number of new visitors to racetracks and bettors is falling every year. Financial pressure on organizers increased after the closure of several tracks, including Golden Gate Fields in the north of the state, which led to a redistribution of bets in favor of the remaining venues, but did not become a systemic solution.
The essence, operating principles, and reasons for the popularity of Historical Horse Racing
Historical Horse Racing are machines that allow players to bet on real races from past years. Operating on the principle of classic slot machines, these devices use archival video recordings of races: the player selects bets, and then the result depends on the actual outcome of a historical race, the identity of which is concealed.
The economic model of HHR is based on the so-called “takeout”: part of the collected funds is allocated to prize pools, while the rest goes to the owners of the machines. In a number of U.S. states, for example in Kentucky, the introduction of HHR has helped increase industry revenues and direct additional funds to support trainers and horse owners. According to economist Marshall Gramm, this practice has contributed to the revival of certain tracks and the creation of new jobs.
Why is HHR considered a potential lifeline for California horse racing? Because this format promises an independent revenue stream not tied solely to traditional betting and racetrack attendance.
Economic and legal barriers to the implementation of HHR
The implementation of HHR in California faces strict legal restrictions. The state originally allows only five types of gambling: casinos on Native American lands, card clubs, charitable bingo, the state lottery, and pari-mutuel betting on horse racing.
In 2000, following the vote on Proposition 1A, tribes received the exclusive right to install slot machines in their casinos. Any expansion of gambling outside these agreements requires either a new law or an amendment to the state constitution, which is extremely difficult to achieve. In 2004, a similar attempt to allow slot machines outside tribal lands failed, receiving only 16% of the vote.
Thus, the issue of introducing HHR comes down to both economics and a complex web of legislative norms, as well as the need for political compromise.
Exclusive tribal rights and historical context
California Native American tribes play a key role in regulating gambling in the state. Their exclusive rights to casinos are enshrined in both federal and California law, and their priority in gambling matters is also supported by cultural traditions.
The head of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, James Siva, stated directly: “California has for years turned a blind eye to illegal gambling, which happens at the expense of tribal interests. We will defend our rights and seek enforcement of the law.” According to Victor Rocha, industry analyst and head of Pechanga.net, any attempts to “circumvent” the tribes are doomed to fail: “Pressure on the tribes has never worked in California.”
The sovereignty and cultural significance of gaming revenues for the tribes make any negotiations with outside players a matter of particular sensitivity.
What scenarios are being considered for the introduction of HHR and what are their prospects
At an early stage of discussions, HHR supporters considered the following possible scenarios:
- Reaching a compromise with the tribes and jointly implementing HHR
- Attempting to install machines at tracks without prior approval
- Initiating changes through legislation or holding a statewide referendum
- Negotiating with a single tribe rather than a coalition
Most of these options have now lost relevance either due to legal impossibility or the firm stance of the tribes. Economists warn: circumventing existing regulation is virtually impossible, and political support for reform is quite limited. Any of the remaining paths is fraught with serious risks: from new lawsuits to public confrontation with the tribes.
Interestingly, the ban on online casinos in California is also directly related to the tribes. Online casinos are seen by the tribes as unregulated competition that undermines their monopoly. Since 2015, tribes have spent at least $7.6 million on donations to California lawmakers.
At the same time, some forms of online gambling, such as fantasy sports, still remain in a grey area, but traditional online casinos with real money betting are prohibited. Accordingly, California residents have no legal access to any online casino games—the ban concerns not specific games, but the very principle of the game.
This includes not only familiar gambling entertainment, but also new projects such as JetX. This crash game is very popular, as confirmed by the information presented here and data from a number of specialized sources. It is available to many gambling players, but not to California residents.
Legislative acts that prohibit the operation of online casinos are actively lobbied by the tribes. This also applies to the notorious law AB 831, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2025. At present, the issue of legalizing online casinos remains closed.
Arguments and positions of key players
The side of race organizers and track owners is represented by figures such as Aidan Butler (Stronach Group), Josh Rubinstein (Del Mar Turf Club), and former Racing Board head Keith Brackpool. Their common motive is to maintain the industry’s financial stability and attract owners and trainers through new prize funds.
The tribes are categorical: “Exclusive rights to gambling are the foundation of our sovereignty. Interference with this balance will lead to confrontation,” notes Victor Rocha. Government officials emphasize the complexity of the issue. “You cannot discuss such decisions publicly. Any careless statement can damage delicate negotiations,” says Butler.
Gambling experts, including Professor I. Nelson Rose, note: “The tribes have enormous political power, while the tracks are losing influence. However, horse racing still has a history of lobbying, which could prove decisive.”
Criticism and alternative opinions on the prospects of HHR
Skeptics believe that the introduction of HHR does not address the root problems of the industry. “The main problem is the lack of audience and betting. If the industry cannot attract new streams, no machines will save it,” notes Marshall Gramm.
Some experts point to the experience of other regions, where HHR only postponed the crisis but did not change the trend. “It’s not about saving horse racing, but about trying to support the business of track owners,” summarizes Victor Rocha.
Uncertainties and possible scenarios for the development of the situation
The issue of introducing Historical Horse Racing in California remains open due to numerous uncertainties: from legal prohibitions to political intrigue. The balance between the interests of the state, the tribes, and the race organizers requires an extremely delicate approach, and the closed nature of negotiations only increases the degree of uncertainty. Whether the horse racing industry will be able to find a compromise and adapt to new realities remains the main question for all participants in the process.