Deva Racing and the Future of Shared Racehorse Ownership

The collapse of Deva Racing should not become an argument against syndication. It should become the catalyst for making shared racehorse ownership safer, clearer and more professional.

Syndicates have opened racehorse ownership to thousands of people who could never justify owning a horse outright. They spread costs, bring new participants into racing and allow members to experience the yard, the racecourse and a horse’s progress together.

What happened at Deva Racing?

Deva Racing was a successful and highly visible ownership operation managed by Ryan Tongue. Its best-known horse, Imperial Emperor, won the Group 1 Al Maktoum Challenge at Meydan before finishing fourth in the Dubai World Cup.

Behind that success, serious concerns were emerging. Syndicate members have alleged that prize money was not distributed and that shares in horses—including Imperial Emperor—were oversold. Further reported concerns encompass unpaid training fees, horse-sale proceeds, advance payments, breeding nominations and bloodstock investments. These remain allegations, and criminal wrongdoing has not been established.

In July 2026, the British Horseracing Authority cancelled Tongue’s syndicator licence, preventing Deva Racing horses from running under its ownership in Britain. The BHA opened a regulatory investigation and has communicated with relevant overseas authorities and the police.

Deva Racing Group subsequently entered liquidation. Published reports state that the company owed more than £2.15 million to 59 creditors, while listed racehorse assets were valued at approximately £160,000. Creditors may therefore recover only a small proportion of what they are owed.

Why does the case matter?

The central weakness exposed by the case is the difference between registering a syndicate and independently verifying the economic interests held by each member.

The BHA can record a syndicate as the registered owner, but it has reportedly not maintained a definitive record of every member’s percentage interest in each horse. An owner asking the regulator to confirm whether a stated holding represents a genuine share may therefore not receive the independent verification they expect.

Britain had already recognised the need for stronger oversight. The BHA introduced licensing for people managing publicly advertised or commercially administered syndicates and racing clubs. From 1 January 2026, existing operators were required to hold a licence. Applicants are expected to complete training and provide ownership agreements, business plans and evidence of sound finances.

If someone pays for a share in a racehorse, who independently confirms what they own and protects money held on their behalf?

Seven protections racing should consider

1. A central ownership ledger

Every percentage sold in every syndicate horse should be recorded on a secure central system. Members should be able to verify their holding independently, while the system should prevent allocations from exceeding 100 per cent.

2. Ring-fenced client accounts

Prize money, sale proceeds and advance payments should be kept separate from the syndicator’s operating funds. Failure of the management company should not automatically consume money beneficially belonging to owners.

3. Direct prize-money statements

Members should receive statements showing gross prize money, authorised deductions and the balance payable. Distribution should take place within a defined period.

4. Independent annual reconciliation

Commercial syndicators should confirm their horses, members, share allocations, income, costs and liabilities each year, with independent checks above an appropriate threshold.

5. Standard ownership agreements

Contracts should explain precisely what the member owns, the recurring costs, management fees, voting rights, insurance and what happens when a horse is sold, injured, retired or affected by insolvency.

6. A visible complaints and warning system

Owners need one recognised route for reporting missing payments or disputed interests. Repeated complaints should prompt early scrutiny before losses become irrecoverable.

7. An orderly transfer process

If a syndicator loses its licence or becomes insolvent, genuine owners should not be left indefinitely unable to race their horse. A defined process is needed to confirm interests and transfer management.

The future of syndicates

The future of shared ownership remains potentially strong. It is one of racing’s most accessible ways to attract and retain participants. Its direction, however, should move from informal syndication toward verified, digitally recorded and professionally governed ownership.

online access to contracts and verified ownership percentages;
transparent accounts and clearly itemised charges;
prompt prize-money distribution;
documented veterinary, training and sale decisions;
protection if the management company fails;
a recognised and responsive complaints process.

The best operators should welcome stronger safeguards. Greater transparency can distinguish responsible syndicators, reassure existing members and give newcomers the confidence to enter ownership.

A watershed moment?

The lesson is not that syndicates are inherently unsafe. It is that enthusiasm, racing success and a licence cannot replace independently verifiable ownership and financial controls.

The Racehorse Owners Association has said it is working with the BHA and Racehorse Syndicates Association following the Deva situation. Racing now has the opportunity to treat this as the watershed moment affected owners have requested—and to build a shared-ownership system in which trust is designed into the structure rather than assumed.

Sources and further reading

Editorial note: This article distinguishes reported allegations from established regulatory and insolvency events. It will be updated if the BHA, liquidator or relevant authorities publish material findings.