In the wake of Horse Sport Ireland’s (HSI) recent governance changes, questions and concerns have bubbled up from the grassroots of the equestrian community. The alterations to the constitution and articles of association—which notably reduce the quorum size and remove any clear definitions of affiliates — could suggest a move towards a more centralised and less inclusive control structure. This reorganisation raises significant questions about the transparency of the decision-making process and the implications for those at the grassroots level.

The absence of advisory councils and shared peer groups may be seen as a step back from the collaborative governance model that once defined HSI.

An example on a piece removed with “the latest update” to the constitution and articles. This is NOT IN THE LATEST VERSION. Just think about this. Think about the impact of this being removed.

One could possibly think that such changes might indicate a shift towards a governance framework that limits broad stakeholder participation. If you were a conspiracy theorist, you might think that reducing the number of voices in key decisions serves to streamline authority, potentially at the expense of a well-rounded and inclusive dialogue.

The potential ramifications of these changes are profound. Could this restructured governance model suggest that HSI is distancing itself from the diverse input that has historically helped stabilise and grow the sport? It might be that, without significant grassroots involvement, the governance of the sport could become disconnected from its base, leading to decisions that may not fully reflect the needs and wishes of the broader equestrian community.

Moreover, the lack of transparency in communicating these changes could be seen as a strategy to reduce pushback, suggesting an organisational move towards decisions made behind closed doors. This might raise concerns about how future policies will be formulated and whose interests they will ultimately serve.

As HSI has advanced with these changes, the equestrian community is left to ponder: What will the impact be on grassroots engagement? How might these governance changes alter the landscape of the sport? If grassroots voices are marginalised, what could be the long-term effects on the sport’s health and integrity?

These questions loom large as the community considers the future under this new governance structure. The call for a more transparent, inclusive, and respectful approach remains critical, emphasising the need to ensure that all voices, particularly those from the grassroots, are not only heard but actively considered in shaping the future of equestrian sport.

The Grassroots Gazette has reached out to HSI for Comment and is awaiting their reply.