BGRF and Greyhound Racing Funding: Where the Money Comes From

How Greyhound Racing Is Funded Through Bookmaker Contributions

Greyhound racing in the UK is funded, in large part, by the people who bet on it — though the mechanism is indirect. The British Greyhound Racing Fund collects voluntary contributions from licensed bookmakers and distributes the revenue to the sport through prize money, welfare programmes and track support. In the 2024–25 financial year, the BGRF received £6.75 million in bookmaker contributions, a figure that underpins the financial viability of licensed racing at all eighteen GBGB stadia, including Newcastle.

BGRF greyhound racing funding is the single most important revenue stream that the sport controls collectively. Individual tracks earn money from gate receipts, hospitality, sponsorship and media rights, but the BGRF levy is the industry-wide pool that funds the structures every track depends on: the regulatory body, the welfare programme, the prize money that keeps trainers and owners engaged. Understanding how the BGRF works — where the money comes from, where it goes and why it has been declining — is essential for anyone who wants to see the full picture of the sport’s economics.

The BGRF: Structure, Income Sources and Distribution

The BGRF operates as a trust, governed by a board that includes representatives from the bookmaking industry, the racing industry and independent members. Its primary function is to collect the voluntary levy paid by bookmakers and to distribute those funds to the sport. The levy is set at 0.6% of each bookmaker’s greyhound betting turnover — a rate that has remained consistent for years, though the total amount collected has fluctuated with the betting market.

In the 2023–24 financial year, BGRF income from bookmaker contributions was £7.3 million. For 2024–25, the figure dropped to £6.75 million, continuing a downward trend that reflects the broader decline in greyhound betting turnover. The BGRF distributes its income through several channels: direct payments to tracks based on the number of BAGS meetings they host, contributions to the GBGB’s regulatory and welfare operations, and allocations to the prize money pool that incentivises trainers and owners to keep their dogs in active competition.

The distribution formula matters because it determines how much each track receives. Newcastle, as a high-frequency BAGS venue running three midweek afternoons plus a Saturday evening meeting, generates a significant share of the national BAGS schedule and receives a proportionate allocation. Smaller or less active tracks receive less, which reinforces the economic advantage of running a full programme. The system incentivises volume — the more meetings a track hosts, the more BGRF funding it attracts — which is one reason why tracks like Newcastle maintain a four-day-a-week schedule even when individual meeting profitability is marginal.

The voluntary nature of the levy is the most debated aspect of the BGRF model. Unlike horse racing, where a statutory levy backed by legislation compels bookmakers to contribute, the greyhound levy relies on goodwill and commercial negotiation. Bookmakers participate because greyhound racing generates betting content that fills their screens and drives turnover, but there is no legal obligation to pay. If a major operator decided to reduce or withdraw its contribution, the shortfall would be immediate and there would be no legal recourse to recover it.

Revenue Trends and the Impact of RGD Changes

The direction of BGRF revenue has been downward for several years. Mark Moisley, Commercial Director of the GBGB, has acknowledged the trend directly, noting that revenue from bookmakers has been declining year on year. The causes are structural rather than cyclical: the retail betting market — the primary source of greyhound betting turnover — has been shrinking as consumer habits shift online, and the online greyhound market, while growing, has not compensated fully for the loss of shop-based activity.

A new pressure point is the planned increase in Remote Gaming Duty from 21% to 40% in the UK. The RGD is a tax on online gambling revenue, and a near-doubling of the rate will squeeze operator margins significantly. The concern within the greyhound industry is that bookmakers facing higher tax bills will look for costs to cut, and the voluntary levy on greyhound racing — which has no statutory protection — is an obvious target. If operators reduce their levy contributions in response to RGD increases, the BGRF’s income could fall sharply, with cascading effects on prize money, welfare funding and track support.

The industry has lobbied for the voluntary levy to be replaced with a statutory one, arguing that the sport’s contribution to the betting market justifies mandatory funding. So far, that campaign has not succeeded. The political environment — characterised by welfare concerns, the Wales ban and a general scepticism toward gambling-adjacent industries — has not been receptive to arguments for additional financial protections for greyhound racing. The result is that the sport remains dependent on a funding mechanism that is both declining and vulnerable to further erosion.

What BGRF Funding Means for Newcastle and Other Tracks

For Newcastle, BGRF funding is one component of a revenue mix that also includes media rights income from the Entain–ARC joint venture, gate receipts, hospitality revenue and sponsorship. The BGRF allocation supports the track’s prize money, contributes to welfare and regulatory costs, and helps fund the operational infrastructure that keeps the racing programme running. Without the levy, prize money at Newcastle would fall, which would reduce the incentive for trainers to enter their best dogs, which would weaken the quality of racing, which would reduce betting turnover — a downward spiral that the levy is designed to prevent.

The same logic applies across all eighteen GBGB tracks, though the impact varies by size and commercial strength. Larger tracks with diversified revenue — ARC venues with media rights deals, hospitality income and membership schemes — are better insulated against BGRF declines than smaller, independent venues that depend more heavily on levy income. The risk is that a continued decline in BGRF funding widens the gap between the strongest tracks and the weakest, eventually pushing the most vulnerable venues to the point where closure becomes the only realistic option. The sport has already lost dozens of tracks over the past half-century, and the BGRF trajectory suggests that further consolidation is more likely than not.

BGRF greyhound racing funding is, in the end, a reflection of the sport’s relationship with the betting industry. That relationship has been the foundation of greyhound racing’s economics since the first licensed meeting in 1926, and it remains so a century later. What has changed is the balance of power: bookmakers have more options, more entertainment products and less dependence on greyhound content than they once did. The sport’s challenge is to remain valuable enough to the betting market that the money keeps flowing — and to find additional revenue sources so that it is not entirely dependent on a single stream that it cannot control.