Massachusetts subsidizes horse racing. Why?

And when post time approaches for one of the 11 live races at Plainridge Park Casino in Plainville, about 45 minutes south of Boston, a couple dozen patrons amble up to place a bet of as little as $2.

The sport of kings is looking less than regal these days in Massachusetts.

Suffolk Downs, the state’s last thoroughbred track, hosted its final live races in the summer of 2019. And what remains of the industry — Plainridge Park’s harness track and several dozen breeding farms — leans on a public subsidy: a portion of the tax haul from the slot parlor attached to the Plainridge track and the state’s two full-scale casinos in Everett and Springfield.

In recent years, the subsidy has amounted to about $20 million per year.

That kind of public support has always been difficult to justify; why should government prop up, permanently, this one struggling business?

But now the argument is even harder to make, amid mounting concern about the quality of the jobs in the horse racing industry and the welfare of the horses that barrel around the track.

Last year, a New York Times investigation trained public attention on dodgy breeding and doping practices and shifty trainers and veterinarians. And a spate of horse deaths at high-profile tracks — Churchill Downs, Pimlico Race Course, and Saratoga Race Course — has left some fans queasy.

The thoroughbred racing at those tracks is more dangerous for the horses than the harness racing at places like Plainridge.

But even the junior varsity races can be deadly.

Last year, a half-dozen horses died or were euthanized after sustaining injuries during races at Plainridge — the largest annual toll in recent memory.

A series of necropsy reports obtained by the editorial board through a public records request offer a glimpse into the harrowing final minutes or hours of the horses’ lives.

In September, an 8-year old horse named Stihl N suffered multiple bone fractures and a “complete rupture of the palmar ligament” on his left front leg during the final race of the day; he was put down at a veterinary hospital a day later.

In October, 6-year-old gelding Sidd Finch had his right hind leg “fractured into multiple pieces” before he was euthanized.

And a few weeks later, the long pastern bone in Im Sir Blake A’s left hind leg shattered into 20 pieces; just a year before, he’d had four bone screws turned into his right hind leg after an injury.

The spike in deaths doesn’t necessarily mean that Plainridge is badly managed; the track provided the editorial board with a letter from an inspector who reviewed the facility in January, after the deaths, and found no problem with the racing surface or equipment. But when horses die even at well-maintained tracks, that speaks to the inherent danger in the sport.

Industry stalwarts will point out that tougher federal regulation has led to a decline in fatalities at some tracks in recent years.

But Patrick Battuello, founder of the advocacy group Horseracing Wrongs, says the number is still unacceptably high. His organization has confirmed 850 deaths for 2024 and is still counting; he suspects that the actual number of deaths each year is substantially larger than his organization can document.

“What level of killing is acceptable to the American public for — in the end — $2 bets and frivolous entertainment?” he asks.

One of the main arguments the industry makes for public subsidies is the jobs that they support — breeders, jockeys, track employees.

It’s difficult to get a full read on the number of jobs in the Commonwealth’s horse racing industry or how good they are.

But at the editorial board’s request, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts’ Donahue Institute, which has studied job quality at the state’s casinos, drilled down on data for Plainridge horse track employees.

The most recent data available, from 2023, covered 25 employees with job titles ranging from clerk to judge to supervisor. The median hourly wage was $19.57, according to the institute. And just 20 percent of employees earned more than a living wage for a two-income household with two children in their county of residence.

Plainridge says the median wage at the track is now up to $22.54. And it’s good to hear that pay has ticked up in the last couple of years. But it’s still hard to make a case that the state should be subsidizing lower-wage jobs.

Of course, the people holding those jobs might feel otherwise; and if the elimination of public subsidies put them out of work, the state would be obligated to help them transition to something new.

It’s worth noting, though, that when horse tracks shut down, they can be converted to other uses that have broader public benefits. Here in Massachusetts, for example, there are plans for a massive housing complex on the site of the old Suffolk Downs.

Even as memories of that East Boston track have faded, horse racing enthusiasts have made several efforts to build a new thoroughbred oval. They have all failed. And local opposition to the latest proposal in the central Massachusetts city of Leominster may deal the industry yet another blow.

But the battle over the future of horse racing shouldn’t just be fought on the local level.

It’s time for Beacon Hill to act.

Horse racing advocates have long argued that public support for the industry helps preserve open space. But there are better ways to accomplish that goal.

State Representative Brad Jones, the House minority leader, has long proposed shifting some of the horse racing subsidy to the Community Preservation Trust Fund, which cities and towns all over Massachusetts use to conserve open space, build outdoor recreation facilities, create affordable housing, and pursue historic preservation.

In the past, the state Senate has proposed putting what is now a $25 million surplus in the horse racing fund to other uses.

And last year, Governor Maura Healey issued her own call for a one-time diversion of horse racing dollars.

But these efforts have largely been about shoring up the state budget or making productive use of unused funds; they haven’t amounted to a principled stand against pouring public money into horse racing.

And we could use such a stand.

It’s one thing to use public funds as seed money for promising industries or to attract good, high-paying jobs.

But keeping a moribund business on life support, with no end in sight, is a different story. The economic argument for subsidizing horse racing is weak. And the animal welfare concerns are real.

Several years ago, Massachusetts became one of many states to ban greyhound racing.

There may be little appetite to do the same with horse racing. But we certainly don’t need to prop it up.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.