The Voluntary Levy on Greyhound Betting — How UK Racing Is Funded and the Statutory Debate

The greyhound voluntary levy is the mechanism through which UK greyhound racing is funded by the bookmaking industry — and it is a mechanism under growing strain. Unlike horse racing, which benefits from a statutory levy that bookmakers are legally required to pay, greyhound racing depends on a voluntary arrangement: bookmakers agree to contribute 0.6 per cent of their greyhound betting turnover to the sport, and the money flows through the British Greyhound Racing Fund to stadiums, welfare programmes, and prize funds. The key word is “voluntary.” Nothing compels a bookmaker to pay, and the percentage has not changed in nearly two decades.

Following the money in greyhound racing leads directly to this levy, and the picture it reveals is one of a sport that has been slowly squeezed between declining betting revenue on one side and rising welfare and operational costs on the other. Understanding how the levy works — and why the debate over replacing it with a statutory alternative has intensified — is essential context for anyone who follows the sport beyond the nightly results.

How the 0.6% Voluntary Levy Works

The mechanics of the levy are straightforward. Bookmakers who take bets on greyhound racing agree to pay 0.6 per cent of their greyhound turnover to the BGRF (British Greyhound Racing Fund). The BGRF collects these payments and distributes them across the sport: funding prize money at GBGB-licensed stadiums, contributing to welfare initiatives including the Injury Recovery Scheme, and supporting the administrative infrastructure that keeps the racing schedule running.

The system is estimated to capture 90 to 95 per cent of all greyhound betting revenue, according to BGRF figures based on Gambling Commission data. The near-universal coverage reflects the fact that virtually all major UK bookmakers participate in the voluntary arrangement — bet365, William Hill, Ladbrokes, Coral, Paddy Power, and Betfred all contribute. A small number of operators outside the scheme account for the remaining 5 to 10 per cent, but the voluntary system’s coverage is broad enough that its defenders argue a statutory levy would capture little additional revenue.

In the 2026-25 financial year, the BGRF received approximately £6.75 million from voluntary levy contributions. This figure represents a significant decline from historical peaks: in its strongest years, the fund generated between £10 million and £14 million annually, and in one exceptional year the total exceeded £20 million. The downward trajectory is not caused by bookmakers reducing their voluntary percentage — the 0.6 per cent rate has remained constant — but by the underlying decline in greyhound betting turnover, which has been falling steadily for years.

More than three quarters of the levy income is directed towards welfare and integrity, with the remainder supporting prize money and operational costs. The allocation reflects the sport’s awareness that its social licence depends on demonstrating responsible stewardship of the dogs that race, and that welfare spending is not optional but essential to the industry’s continued existence.

Why Levy Income Is Falling

The decline in levy income is a direct consequence of falling betting turnover on greyhound racing. Adjusted for inflation, turnover dropped by 23 per cent over the three years to March 2026, according to Gambling Commission data reported by Racing Post. When the betting market shrinks, the 0.6 per cent levy generates less money in absolute terms, even though the percentage itself has not changed.

The causes of the turnover decline are structural rather than cyclical. The shift from retail to online gambling has moved betting activity away from the high-street betting shops where greyhound racing historically performed strongest. Online customers have access to a wider range of betting products — football accumulators, casino games, in-play markets on international sports — and greyhound racing competes for attention in a way it never had to when the betting shop was the primary gambling venue. The sport has lost share of wallet, and the levy income has followed.

GBGB chief executive Mark Bird has been direct about the problem: “Since the GBGB began operating in 2009, there’s been no increase in the percentage that’s being paid, which is 0.6% of greyhound turnover. What that has meant is that the amount year-by-year has steadily gone down” (Gambling Insider). More than three quarters of the levy income goes to welfare and integrity, and if the total income continues to fall, the point will come where the fund cannot meet its obligations without either increasing the rate or finding an alternative source of revenue.

The pressure is compounded by the closure of stadiums. Each track closure removes a fixture from the BAGS schedule, which reduces the number of races available for betting, which in turn reduces the turnover on which the levy is calculated. The contraction feeds itself: fewer tracks mean less racing, less racing means less betting, less betting means less levy income, and less levy income means less funding for the tracks that remain. Breaking that cycle requires either reversing the decline in turnover or changing the funding model.

The Case for a Statutory Levy

The argument for replacing the voluntary levy with a statutory one — a legally mandated payment rather than a voluntary agreement — has gained momentum as the income decline has become harder to ignore. Horse racing has had a statutory levy since 1961, requiring bookmakers to pay a percentage of their horse racing turnover to the Horserace Betting Levy Board. Greyhound racing has no equivalent.

Proponents of a statutory levy argue that the voluntary system is inherently fragile. It depends on goodwill: bookmakers pay because they choose to, not because they must. If a major operator decided to withdraw from the voluntary arrangement, the BGRF’s income would drop immediately and the sport would have no legal recourse. A statutory levy would remove that vulnerability, providing a guaranteed revenue floor regardless of individual bookmaker decisions.

Opponents raise several counterpoints. The voluntary system already captures 90 to 95 per cent of greyhound betting revenue, so a statutory levy would add only a marginal amount. Implementing a statutory levy requires legislation, which is time-consuming and politically uncertain. And some argue that the fundamental problem is not the collection mechanism but the underlying decline in greyhound betting turnover — a statutory levy on a shrinking base still produces a shrinking income.

There is also a political dimension. The horse racing levy exists because Parliament legislated for it in 1961, at a time when the sport had sufficient political influence and public support to secure that protection. Greyhound racing in 2026 occupies a different position in the public imagination: smaller, less visible, and facing active legislative challenges in Wales and Scotland that question the sport’s right to exist at all. Securing statutory levy legislation would require parliamentary time and political support at a moment when the sport’s defenders are also fighting rear-guard actions against prohibition in two of the UK’s devolved nations.

The debate is unlikely to be resolved quickly. It sits at the intersection of gambling policy, animal welfare, sport governance, and commercial interests, and each of those domains moves at its own pace. In the meantime, the voluntary levy continues to fund the sport — more thinly each year, but still functioning. Following the money in greyhound racing means watching this number, because the amount that flows through the BGRF determines how much the sport can spend on welfare, how much prize money it can offer, and ultimately how many tracks it can sustain.