HISA Files Enforcement Action Against Churchill Downs Over Unpaid 2025 Fees

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority filed enforcement proceedings accusing Churchill Downs Incorporated of failing to remit 2025 assessment fees tied to Churchill Downs Racetrack, Turfway Park, Ellis Park and Presque Isle Downs, and set a hearing before an HISA board panel for March 11. HISA warned it could bar the operator from conducting any covered horse races for each day the amount remains outstanding and could seek Federal Trade Commission action to restrict simulcasting, a step that would sharply curtail out-of-state wagering on Churchill products including the Kentucky Derby.

HISA chief executive Lisa Lazarus framed the action as an industry duty, saying, "For more than a year, we’ve worked in good faith to reach a resolution, but our responsibility is to the broader industry," and adding, "We are duty‑bound to treat all of our constituents the same, and the 37 other racetracks operating under HISA should not be asked to subsidize Churchill Downs. We’ve unfortunately been left with no choice but to proceed with this enforcement action." Lazarus also told local reporters, "I've tried for over a year to just get them to pay us that 2025 amount... For reasons I don't understand, because they always paid in the past, and now they just refuse to, so we had no choice but to take this action because we can't operate without the assessment fees. They are responsible for paying on four racetracks and haven't paid on any. That starts to add up over the year."

Churchill Downs Inc. rejected HISA’s allegations, saying the authority’s escalation was misplaced and pointing to prior investments in safety. Churchill's statement reads in part: "Churchill Downs Incorporated remains fully committed to the safety and integrity of Thoroughbred racing. Any suggestion that the company is not supporting safety efforts is inaccurate. Churchill Downs has invested significantly in safety initiatives, enhanced protocols and regulatory compliance across our racetracks and will continue to do so." The company added that "The Authority’s recent escalation reflects a troubling pattern of overreach that is harmful to the industry and inconsistent with the collaborative approach necessary to strengthen the sport," and said it would "not accept HISA’s mischaracterization of our actions." Churchill filed a federal lawsuit in December 2024 in the Western District of Kentucky challenging HISA’s fee assessments as unlawfully imposed.

The fee dispute centers on HISA’s assessment methodology and on money that underwrites national anti-doping and safety oversight - drug testing, lab accreditation, veterinarian review data and track safety inspections. HISA says its operational budget relies on assessments and that tracks awarding more in purses pay more; Churchill has argued HISA shifted from a starts-only model to a 50-50 split between starts and purses, a change it says disproportionately affects tracks that offer larger purses.

Reporting on the amount HISA seeks is inconsistent: one set of reports says HISA seeks $5.6 million, other reports cite $2.4 million, and the Courier-Journal reported a $2 million bill sent under the FTC‑approved methodology. HISA’s complaint uses language accusing Churchill of "freeloading" and a "failure to remit fees," while HISA officials say Churchill only partly paid 2023 and 2024 assessments and that HISA refrained from collecting those amounts while litigation proceeded.

The operational stakes are concrete. HISA warned the bar on covered races would take effect on the tracks' next scheduled race days, and HISA could ask the FTC to restrict simulcasting so wagers would be limited to those physically at the track. Last year wagering on the Kentucky Derby hit a record $349 million, a figure that underlines how simulcast restrictions could translate into hundreds of millions in lost remote bets. The March 11 HISA board-panel hearing will test the agency’s enforcement tools against Churchill’s parallel federal challenge and could determine whether HISA’s assessment regime can be compelled or blocked in practice.