Alameda County Fair more profitable without horse racing — why some still want it back

PLEASANTON, Calif. - When horse racing left the Alameda County Fair two years ago, some worried that revenues might suffer. Instead, profits jumped — more than doubling, from $2 million to nearly $5 million. 

Nonetheless, one county supervisor is pushing to bring horse racing back to the Pleasanton fairgrounds and to have more county control over the fair in general. 

"There are many constituents who want to see horse racing return," Alameda County Supervisor David Haubert told KTVU in a recent interview. "And I'd like to see that happen if at all possible. I don't want to lose money. But I want to bring it back in a profitable way." 

Fair board association members say they also would like to bring horse racing back, even if only for a short time, but so far, haven't found a way to do so that's economically viable. In fact, they point out that the fair has essentially been subsidizing horse racing for millions of dollars. 

Alameda County Fair profits double without horse racing

By the numbers:

The fair has been profitable for the last three years – and more so without horse racing. 

This year, the county fair profited roughly $4.6 million, and in 2025, the profit was $5 million. 

Those figures are more than double the $2.2 million net profit in 2024 – the last year there was horse racing at the Alameda County Fair, according to data presented last week by Alameda County Agricultural and Fair Association CFO Vivian Wu to an ad hoc committee of county supervisors and fair association board members. 

In an interview, fair association board president John Smith, a Fremont volunteer who sits on the 21-person civilian nonprofit group, said he was "absolutely shocked" at how much more profitable the fair was without horse racing. 

"Horse racing could not support itself is the bottom line," Smith said. "That's why we have been very reluctant to step back into the arena of horse racing until we can be assured that we have some kind of financial partner that's going to be willing to take the reins." 

According to fair association data, the increase in fair profits is largely because it costs a lot of money to care for, train and "stable" a horse. 

Case in point: the fair's expenses were $12 million in 2024, according to the county's financial assessment. But this year, with no horses, the fair's expenses totaled about $9.5 million. 

The fair's revenues have stayed roughly the same at about $14 million for each of the three years. 

Questioning the numbers

In an interview, however, Haubert questioned the reasons behind the profitability. 

Is it really because of horses, he wondered, or could there be other factors involved? 

"I would like to learn more about what the financial operations generated in ‘23 and ’22 and '21 and pre-COVID," he said. "Anyone can conclude that the delta is solely based on whether or not we have horse racing. That has not been determined, in my opinion." 

He also said that before concluding that the fair made so much more money without horse racing, he wanted to know more about the "accounting methods the staff is using."

He referenced some cash loans made in prior years to buy out a golf contract – a one-time expense, and money the fair association has made on futsal, "which has no relation to the racetrack."

In Haubert's opinion, the gap between profits without horse racing could actually be much less than the numbers provided by the fair association if those factors were taken into account. 

Fair officials countered that the financial data presented only cover the 21 days of the fair, and does not count the "ancillary" activities Haubert is talking about.  

Why do people come to the fair? 

Local perspective:

The top reasons people flocked to the Alameda County Fair for the last two years were for the food, animals, carnivals, shopping and concerts, according to a survey by the fair association. 

This summer, Flo Rida and En Vogue, were the big musical draws. Plus, the 250th Anniversary of America was also listed as a top reason for attending this year. 

Fair association data shows that on average, each person also spends an additional $55.  This year, nearly 400,000 attended the three-week fair. 

How did Pleasanton get horse racing? 

The backstory:

Horse racing was also supposed to be a big draw at the Alameda County Fair, too.

But it turned out to be a costly draw. 

When Golden Gate Fields in Berkeley shut down in June 2024, the horse community pushed for the horses to be relocated to the Pleasanton fairgrounds, where there has been a racetrack for the last 100 years. 

At the time, Jerome Hoban, CEO of the Alameda County Agricultural Fair Association, the nonprofit that produces the fair and manages the fairgrounds in Pleasanton, said he knew that stabling the horses, on top of racing them, would be a financial struggle. He told people that he thought it wasn't a good idea and didn't make smart business sense. 

But he said he ended up trying anyway because of all the people who would lose their jobs and the families it would affect.

"It was something we were willing to subsidize," Hoban said in an interview, "because of our traditions." 

Horse racing fell apart

But the finances of horse racing in Pleasanton fell apart in 2025. 

That's mostly due to the financial structuring of the system favoring racetracks in Southern California, Hoban said. 

And then there was a bad deal the Alameda County Fair Association made when it ended up losing $3.2 million when it bought the Pleasanton Golf Center to make room for the horses. 

Hoban told KTVU that he expects it to take six or seven years to make that money back by selling golf passes. The golf course is still running and nets about $500,000 a year after expenses, Hoban said. 

"But the narrative was that we botched it," Hoban said. "The fair association became the scapegoat."

Pushing to get horse racing back

What's next:

Many Alameda County constituents went to Haubert to see what he could do to help bring horse racing back on a more regular basis.

"I think Supervisor Halbert is very connected with the agricultural community and horse racing community and would like to see horse racing back on the grounds," said Smith, the fair board association president. "And we would like to see horses racing back on the ground too. But it has to be profitable because if it's not profitable, we drive the association into bankruptcy." 

Haubert countered in an interview that horse racing is part of the contractual terms the county has with the fair association board.

"When you have a term in the contract, you expect it to be adhered to," Haubert said. 

Fair association officials countered that the contract states they must put on the annual fair and horse race meet if licensed by the state of California, which it is no longer. 

Fair contract threatened

Dig deeper:

At the ad hoc meeting last week, shortly after the fair's profits were discussed, Haubert surprised some fair association board members and staff by saying he was considering ending the county contract with the fair association, which has run the fair for 84 years. Haubert did not specify who should run the fair instead. 

Haubert told the committee that he feels Alameda County and the fair association are "far apart" on issues of transparency, governance and communication. 

In an interview, Haubert spelled out an example of what he meant: The fair association board does not currently televise their meetings and doesn't post recordings of their meetings or minutes to the public. 

The fair association, which is a private nonprofit, does provide its minutes to the county clerk, and allows for public attendance at its meetings.

Haubert said he also feels like the fair, which is supposed to be agricultural in nature, has brought in so many "ancillary, commercial activities," citing a proposal for pickleball as an example, and that he doesn't believe these items have been fleshed out in a full, public forum.

At last week's meeting, Smith got a bit testy with Haubert's threat to terminate the contract.

"We think things are going pretty damn good," Smith told Haubert. "You're giving us 22 days before a deadline that we thought was good to go."

Chuck Moore of Castro Valley, the past fair board president and current board member, added: "This feels like a threat here, but it doesn't need to be a threat." 

But in an interview, Haubert said all he's trying to do is nail down some of the finer points of the contract. He said he simply wants to extend the deadline past Sept. 30 — instead of rubber-stamping it on that day – to take time to work out the details. 

"That seems like a very reasonable position for someone to take," Haubert said. "And I don't think that anyone in the community would think that it was unreasonable to extend the deadline so we can continue. That requires that the fair board agree to that." 

Haubert added: "However, if they fail to agree to a simple extension, then we really have no real realistic option but to terminate." 

Control of the fair board

The debate:

But there's another sticking point that Haubert presented to the fair board that is also causing some angst: the number of fair association members and who gets to pick them. 

Haubert wants to reduce the fair board committee from 21 to 15 members, with 10 appointed by the county – effectively giving the county more authority. 

"I think what the issue is with Supervisor Haubert is one of control," Smith said in an interview. "He wants more control of the fairgrounds."

Haubert acknowledged that he believes Alameda County should have more say. 

"The county is the owner of the fairgrounds property," Haubert said. "It is one of our most valuable assets. The fair board is our agent, and it's not unreasonable, in my opinion, that we would have tight understanding and tight controls over the operator as our agent of the fair."

But Haubert insisted he's not trying to gain control as an individual. 

"Remember that I have colleagues and we all have the option to appoint people to the board," he said. "So this is not about one person controlling the board. That's never been an option in my mind."