The BGRF Levy: £6.75m and 0.6% Funding British Greyhound Racing

The voluntary levy mechanism

Most people who watch greyhound racing at Hove or anywhere else in Britain have no idea where the money comes from. Not the prize money — that’s visible on the card. The money behind the money. The infrastructure budget, the welfare spending, the veterinary cover, the homing centres, the regulatory apparatus that keeps every licensed meeting running to standard. A large portion of that funding flows through a single mechanism: the British Greyhound Racing Fund levy.

The BGRF collects contributions from bookmakers at a rate of 0.6% of greyhound betting turnover. In 2024-25, that levy generated £6.75 million — the total annual contribution from the betting industry to the sport it profits from. The levy funds prize money, track infrastructure, welfare programmes and the regulatory framework that GBGB administers. It is, in practice, the financial bridge between the betting shop counter and the greyhound running on the sand at Hove.

How the 0.6% rate is applied

I once tried to explain the BGRF levy to a friend who bets on greyhounds every Saturday. His first question was how much of his tenner goes to the dogs. The answer — roughly six pence for every ten pounds of turnover — surprised him in both directions: smaller than he expected as a fraction of each bet, larger than he expected when multiplied across the industry.

The 0.6% is applied to total greyhound betting turnover, which in the financial year to March 2024 reached approximately £794 million in off-course betting alone. That’s the denominator — every pound wagered on a greyhound race through a licensed bookmaker, online or in-shop, contributes to the levy base. The 0.6% rate yields the £6.75 million headline, and the levy is collected from participating bookmakers on a regular reporting cycle.

The rate has remained at 0.6% for a sustained period, and the industry debate around whether it should be increased centres on two competing pressures. On one side, the sport needs more money — welfare programmes are expanding, track maintenance costs are rising, and the regulatory apparatus that GBGB runs requires staffing that grows with the regulatory scope. On the other side, bookmakers argue that their own margins on greyhound racing are declining, that the 0.6% is already a significant commitment relative to their greyhound-specific revenue, and that an increase would discourage participation in the scheme.

The £6.75m 2024-25 allocation

The £6.75 million is distributed across several categories. Prize money is the largest allocation — the BGRF contributes to the total prize pool that produces the £15,737,122 distributed across British greyhound racing annually. Track grants fund infrastructure improvements, surface maintenance and facility upgrades at GBGB-licensed stadiums. Welfare allocations support the Greyhound Retirement Scheme, the Injury Retirement Scheme, and the veterinary infrastructure that underpins race-day welfare compliance.

How the money reaches Hove specifically. Brighton & Hove Stadium receives BGRF funding through two channels: as a contribution to the prize money on offer at Hove meetings (which sustains the Regency’s £20,000 purse, the Brighton Belle’s £10,000 and the other category-race prizes) and as track-infrastructure grants that support surface maintenance and facility upkeep. The exact allocation to Hove isn’t published as a separate line item, but the stadium’s five-meeting-per-week schedule — one of the busiest in the GBGB calendar — means it generates a significant portion of the betting turnover from which the levy is drawn, and receives a proportionate share of the funding it produces.

BGRF vs statutory Horserace Betting Levy comparison

Every discussion of the BGRF levy eventually reaches the same comparison: the Horserace Betting Levy Board. Horse racing in Britain benefits from a statutory levy — a legally mandated contribution from bookmakers, set by the government, that generates roughly ten times the revenue of the BGRF’s voluntary scheme. The structural difference is everything.

The horse racing levy is compulsory. Every bookmaker offering bets on British horse racing must contribute at the rate set by the Levy Board, and non-compliance carries legal consequences. The BGRF levy is voluntary. Bookmakers contribute to the greyhound fund by agreement, not by obligation, and a bookmaker that chose to withdraw from the scheme would face reputational consequences and industry pressure but no legal penalty. The practical result: the horse racing levy raises £100 million or more per year; the greyhound levy raises £6.75 million.

The gap is not proportional to the relative size of the two sports. Greyhound racing’s off-course turnover — £794 million — is a fraction of horse racing’s multi-billion-pound market, but the levy rate is also lower (0.6% vs the horse racing rate which is set to capture a larger share of turnover), and the voluntary nature of the greyhound levy means the rate can’t be increased without bookmaker agreement. Online (remote) gambling GGY reached £7.8 billion in the year to March 2025, and greyhound exchange betting is a component of that total — but exchange turnover isn’t captured by the traditional BGRF levy mechanism in the same way that off-course bookmaker turnover is.

The comparison highlights what the greyhound sector doesn’t have: a statutory funding base. The industry has lobbied for a statutory levy for greyhound racing, arguing that the sport’s welfare obligations demand a funding mechanism that can’t be withdrawn by commercial decision. That lobbying has not yet succeeded, and the BGRF levy remains voluntary — which means the £6.75 million is a gift from the betting industry to the sport, not a right.

Funding pressures: declining bookmaker revenue

The BGRF levy is 0.6% of turnover, but turnover itself is under pressure. Mark Ruskell MSP, the sponsor of the Scottish greyhound ban, argued during parliamentary debate that the case against greyhound racing has never been stronger, with international consensus to end the sport now unstoppable. That political pressure is one dimension of the challenge. The commercial dimension is equally important: bookmaker revenue from greyhound racing is declining year on year, which means the 0.6% rate generates less money even if the rate doesn’t change.

Why revenue is declining. The shift from shop-based to online betting has changed the composition of the greyhound betting market. Shop punters who wagered on afternoon greyhound racing as a habitual activity are ageing out of the market, and online punters have a wider range of betting products competing for their attention — in-play football, virtual racing, casino games — that greyhound racing has to compete with. The result is a gradual erosion of the turnover base from which the levy is drawn.

What this means for Hove. If the levy generates less money each year, the prize pool shrinks, the welfare budget tightens, and the infrastructure grants that keep tracks maintained come under pressure. A stadium running five meetings a week, with the surface wear, veterinary staffing and facility demands that entails, cannot sustain its operation on declining revenue indefinitely. The BGRF levy is the mechanism that connects the betting market to the track, and when the market contracts, the track feels it. The complete Hove track guide covers the broader market context — GGY, off-course turnover, BAGS volumes — that the levy operates within.