The fragile peace in American Thoroughbred racing has officially fractured. In a move that signals the end of bureaucratic patience, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) has leveled a formal complaint against Churchill Downs Incorporated (CDI), alleging that the home of the Kentucky Derby has failed to pay more than $2 million in required safety and integrity fees for the 2025 racing season.
What began as a disagreement over “fee methodology” has evolved into a high-stakes game of chicken that could fundamentally alter how horse racing is governed and consumed in the United States.
The “Freeloader” Narrative
HISA’s strategic communication has taken a sharp turn. By publicly labeling CDI’s refusal to pay as “freeloading,” HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus is framing the dispute as a matter of basic fairness. The argument is simple: 37 other racetracks—many with far thinner profit margins than the $6 billion CDI—are paying their share to fund drug testing, vet inspections, and safety protocols. By withholding funds while still utilizing HISA’s laboratory and investigative resources, Churchill is being cast as a corporate giant skirted its civic duty to the sport.
The Nuclear Option: A Simulcast Ban
The most explosive element of the HISA complaint is the threat to block CDI from interstate simulcasting. Under the Interstate Horseracing Act, tracks must be in compliance with applicable regulations to sell their signal across state lines.
If HISA follows through on this threat after the scheduled March 11 hearing, the financial implications would be catastrophic. Churchill Downs depends on the national betting pool; without the ability to take wagers from New York, California, or Florida, the “World’s Most Legendary Racetrack” would become a betting island. This isn’t just a threat to CDI’s bottom line—it’s a threat to the purses that attract the world’s best horses to Louisville.
A Corporate Strategy of Defiance
From a corporate perspective, CDI’s defiance is calculated. The company has long argued that HISA’s fee structure is “unlawful and excessive,” pointing to a trend where the cost per-start is rising even as the number of total races declines. For a publicly traded company focused on shareholder value, every million-dollar “regulatory tax” is a target for litigation.
However, CDI now finds itself increasingly isolated. Following the settlement between HISA and the New York Racing Association (NYRA) earlier last year, Churchill stands as the last major holdout. This isolation weakens their “industry leader” posture and makes their resistance look less like a principled stand for states’ rights and more like a budgetary maneuver.
The Path to March 11
The upcoming hearing before a HISA board panel is the final stop before the “nuclear option” becomes a reality. While the panel is almost certain to rule in HISA’s favor, the real drama will take place in the federal courts immediately following the decision. CDI will almost certainly seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the simulcast ban from taking effect.
The Bottom Line
The industry is watching a collision between two immovable objects: a federal mandate designed to clean up the sport’s image and a corporate powerhouse determined to protect its autonomy.
If HISA successfully enforces its fees against the most powerful name in racing, federal oversight will have finally proven it has “teeth.” If Churchill Downs successfully defies the mandate or ties it up in years of litigation, the entire federal experiment may begin to unravel. For the fans, owners, and bettors who rely on a stable, unified racing product, the stakes have never been higher. The “Sport of Kings” is currently a sport of lawyers—and the outcome of this standoff will define the next decade of the American turf.
Do We Have a Mexican Standoff:
