Sorry in advance for the tangent thatâs slightly off-topic (Sorry OP, I think all the advice has already been provided and best of luck!) and for responding to a post probably made several days ago, I wandered on here and this stood out and the discussion generally seems to have taken a fascinating turn.
I mean depending on the discipline, etc. it always HAS been for the wealthy.
Look at the USET back when the riders HAD to compete as âamateursâ (though many worked in horses and just found loopholes). Most of the show jumping riders in, say the '50s or '60s came from, if not flat-out wealthy, well-off families. I admittedly wasnât alive then but am pretty knowledgeable on history from that era of the sport, the show jumping riders from that early era in the first decade-ish after the cavalry disbanded were probably not like, Bezos-level Rich but their families had enough money these guys were riding and competing as children/teens during the Great Depression or WWII (so either most of the country didnât have much money or everything was rationed).
Yes, horses didnât cost as much back then but as my Grandma was known to say when kid me would ask her what things cost when she was a kid (e.g. Grandma, whoâd have graduated HS in the mid-1930s, once told me ice cream cost a nickel) âA nickel was a whole lot more money back then.â
E.g. itâs pretty well-known that Bill Steinkraus grew up riding and competing (I am not slamming the late, great legend himself here at all but as a pretty solid example of a rider from the '50s and '60s who was at the top of his respective discipline). If I have my randomly accumulated useless horse history facts straight here, his family wasnât like, Megabucks or anything, but his father was head of some sort of company or something, and they had enough money, during the Great Depression and the beginning of WWII, that they could have their son out riding and competing and winning trophies like the Maclay. Which put him on a pretty good track to, you know, being a USET rider and probably dang near the only full-fledged amateur on the team. Not to say the man didnât have to work in some way or another nor to diminish his accomplishments but yeah, a lot of those riders in history we all look up to, were from comfortably well-off families, at least.
Another example - GM wrote in his autobiography that he knew basically nothing about horse care. He was a rider, nothing more, nothing less, he hired grooms, heâd always had grooms to do it all for him and yet he considered himself a stickler for horsemanship.
You (general you, rhetorical question) think the average family during the Depression or WWII could afford show fees, etc. for their teenaged kid?
Look - I will say I rode horses as a kid in the early 2000s and did not grow up ârich.â But yes I was better off than some of my friends were, even though I was in a single-parent household (mom worked full-time but had a college education and worked in a field that required said education, was raised by Mom and Grandma). I never missed a meal, always had a roof over my head, good quality clothes on my back, someone to give me a ride to wherever, a parent who was engaged, involved and caring, etc. Not everyone grows up with THAT much. Yes, horses are for the wealthy in that you canât afford them unless the basics are covered and even then it can be a stretch for many.
We need to change the perception that our sport is for the wealthy but we also need to acknowledge that it exists for a reason and that yes, our sport is not easy to afford. I could go on but Iâve already written a lengthy post.
EDIT: Okay for modern examples - does anyone here really wanna tell me that all the current big names didnât come from some amount of money or connections? Beezie Madden, with all due respect, had parents who were trainers, IIRC. Boyd Martinâs parents (and I say this as someone who is generally a fan of Boyd.) were both Olympians in other sports, so his family presumably had some degree of money, maybe not, again, uber-rich, but âcould afford horses and for their son to pursue his dreams in the horse industryâ money.
EDIT 2: I mean for godâs sake you guys people used to dress in their absolute finest to see and be seen at the National Horse Show. Men were wearing tailcoats and top hats to sit in the audience. Go watch some of the footage from the late '50s and early â60s thatâs on the internet. I donât think, if the history is anything to go by, that itâs a new, recent development that our sport is a "rich peoplesâ hobby." 
EDIT 3: Will add western riding can be a different âvibeâ so to speak. But even that ainât always âaffordableâ to the masses. Especially in blinged-out disciplines like western pleasure.
EDIT 4: I do want to emphasize I mean no disrespect to most of the historic legends of the sport w/that point. Just refuting the âitâs now becoming a hobby for the richâ aspect. Bill Steinkraus was a legend and rightly so, Iâve nothing but respect for him and most of the riders of that era (GM excepted for obvious reasons). Just pointing out the obvious that given the era they came up in, none of them were probably from families that couldâve been construed as poor, working class, lower middle class, what have you.
, seems to be offering your classical working student position. But the market is so flooded with positions with the same title that she canât even get bites.