By A. LEWIS
A recent Plaid Horse article describes the loss of UC Davis’s NCEA Division I team as a major setback for equestrian sports. The sadness felt by athletes, families, and coaches is real and should be acknowledged. For the students affected, moving from varsity to club status means losing scholarships, university recognition, and a dream they have worked toward for years.
Beyond the personal loss, this situation highlights deeper issues within collegiate equestrian sports, especially in public education. As a parent who has seen this process up close, I am concerned when pay-to-play varsity programs are seen as successes without considering access, fairness, or who gets left out. Having experienced both sides, it is clear that this system relies not just on talent but also on a family’s finances. Most NCAA sports, such as soccer, basketball, swimming, and track, are based primarily on merit. Equestrian is different, since opportunities often depend on resources before talent is even considered.
There is also an unspoken issue in the sport: while success is often described as a result of talent, hard work, or attitude, financial access actually plays a big part in creating opportunities. Families may blame themselves for disappointment, but in reality, access to top horses, training, and experience is usually the main factor in getting ahead.
Even getting noticed by a college recruiter now takes a huge financial investment. Qualifying for and competing in major equestrian finals, the events where riders hope to get noticed, is extremely expensive. The costs of horses, training, travel, coaching, entry fees, memberships, and participating in circuits all add up, making the recruiting process much easier for those with financial resources. This is not a criticism of the sport or the athletes who work hard in it. Instead, it is a criticism of a system that makes financial barriers seem normal while claiming to be merit-based.
At a large public research university like UC Davis, this mismatch is important. Public schools are meant to serve a wide range of people, use resources wisely, and increase access—not focus opportunities within small, privileged groups.
However, the NCEA model is a highly specialized and expensive program that serves a small group, mostly those with financial advantages. While it means a lot to those involved, it does not fit well with the goals of public education.
Calling the loss of a varsity equestrian program a threat to the sport’s future may be moving, but it misses a bigger question: are we protecting a future where elite opportunities are dictated by money, or one where talent and hard work are the true determinants? The real question is not whether equestrian deserves respect as a sport—it does. The issue is whether the pay-to-play varsity model can continue in public schools without addressing its built-in inequalities.
Seen this way, the decision at UC Davis is more than just a loss. It is a turning point. It shows that this model, while valued by many, may not fit with the values and needs of public education. It is also a chance to rethink how college sports can balance competition with access, fairness, and their educational mission, especially in the NCEA model. Maybe it is time to imagine a future for equestrian sports that is not just competitive and elite, but truly inclusive.
