If you own a racehorse the monthly training fees will be the same whether it's any good or not.
This I believe is why racehorse trainers are conflicted. On the one hand they want to train high achieving horses who are competing for top races and top prize money. On the other hand they want to maximise the number of horses they train and that requires them to persuade owners to buy in the first place and then, if the horse is an average or below average performer, keep it in training.
The "Any theories why Irish horses are routing Cheltenham thread" contains many hypotheses as to why British-trained horses fared so badly at the Cheltenham Festival last week. The most widely held view seems to be that the best horses are trained in Ireland because the racing programme and the prize money in Ireland is a vastly superior offering to the British equivalent which features too much low grade racing and poor prize money.
The vast majority of trainers are less concerned with training a Cheltenham Festival winner and more concerned with attracting new owners and retaining existing owners while the horses in their charge compete in bad races for modest purses. These trainers have a vested interest in preserving the status quo because any attempt to reduce the number of race fixtures and boost prize money at the top end will inevitably result in a reduction in the size of the racehorse population and that would destroy the business model that so many training operations seem to operate under.
The most appropriate direction of travel for British racing which would make it more competitive at the highest level would in all likelihood be fiercely resisted by many with vested interests in seeing quantity triumph over quality.