BHA criticises UK move to keep betting levy unchanged

The British Horseracing Authority has publicly criticised the UK Government’s decision to leave the Horserace Betting Levy unchanged following the 2024 review, raising concerns about the long term financial sustainability of the sport. In a formal statement issued on 25 March 2026, Chief Executive Brant Dunshea expressed disappointment at the outcome of a process that lasted nearly three years but resulted in no adjustment to the levy rate.

The organisation argues that the decision does not adequately reflect the financial pressures currently facing British horseracing. According to the BHA, there remains a widening gap between the cost of staging races and the income generated from betting activity tied to the sport. This imbalance, it suggests, risks undermining the economic foundation of racing in Britain.

Lengthy review process ends without reform

The criticism follows a Written Ministerial Statement confirming the conclusion of the Horserace Betting Levy Review. The review process itself extended over a prolonged period, during which the BHA engaged with policymakers and submitted evidence intended to support reform of the levy structure.

Dunshea noted that the outcome was particularly disappointing given the time invested by all stakeholders. The BHA maintains that it participated constructively throughout the process, providing detailed financial data and analysis intended to demonstrate the growing disparity between operational costs and betting-derived revenues.

From the BHA’s perspective, the absence of change suggests that the concerns raised by the industry were not sufficiently reflected in the final decision. The organisation characterises the result as a missed opportunity to address structural funding challenges that have been building over time.

Concerns over policy consistency

A further point of concern highlighted by the BHA relates to what it describes as inconsistency in the Government’s broader policy approach. The organisation points to earlier indications from policymakers that recognised the importance of horseracing within the UK’s cultural and economic landscape.

For instance, previous fiscal decisions avoided increasing betting duties on the sport, which was interpreted by industry stakeholders as a sign of support. Additionally, internal guidance from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reportedly suggested that racing would be unlikely to benefit without adjustments to the levy.

Against this background, the BHA has questioned why the final ministerial position diverged from earlier signals. The absence of a detailed explanation for maintaining the existing rate has been cited as a key weakness in the Government’s stance, leaving industry participants seeking greater clarity on future policy direction.

International comparisons highlight funding gap

The BHA has also drawn attention to comparative funding models in other major racing jurisdictions. According to figures referenced in its statement, racing industries in France and Ireland receive significantly higher returns from betting activity than their British counterpart.

While the exact mechanisms differ between countries, the BHA states that French horseracing benefits from a return of approximately 7.7 percent, while Irish racing receives around 8.4 percent. In contrast, British racing is said to receive less than 3 percent.

This disparity is presented as a competitive disadvantage in an increasingly globalised industry. The BHA argues that lower returns restrict investment in prize money, infrastructure and the overall quality of racing, potentially affecting Britain’s ability to maintain its international standing.

Debate over overseas betting contributions

Another key issue raised in the statement concerns the scope of the levy, particularly its exclusion of bets placed on overseas racing. The BHA contends that this limitation creates an uneven dynamic in which British racing does not fully benefit from betting activity that may still involve domestic operators or consumers.

From the organisation’s perspective, this situation effectively results in British racing contributing indirectly to the financial strength of international competitors. The BHA argues that extending the levy to include such bets could help rebalance funding and provide additional resources for the domestic industry.

It is important to note that the Government’s position reflects a range of considerations, including regulatory frameworks, market dynamics and broader policy objectives. The ongoing discussion illustrates the complexity of aligning industry expectations with public policy priorities.

Regulatory pressures and affordability checks

Beyond the levy itself, the BHA has linked its concerns to wider regulatory developments within the UK gambling sector. In particular, the organisation has raised questions about the potential impact of affordability checks on betting behaviour and industry revenues.

Affordability checks are intended to promote responsible gambling by assessing whether individuals can sustain their betting activity without financial harm. While these measures are supported by public policy objectives related to consumer protection, the BHA has expressed concern about possible unintended consequences.

Dunshea suggested that increased regulatory requirements could influence betting patterns, potentially reducing participation in regulated markets. He also indicated that there is a risk that some consumers may turn to unregulated or illegal operators, although the scale of such outcomes remains subject to ongoing debate.

The issue has also been acknowledged in government policy discussions. The allocation of funding to the Gambling Commission to address illegal betting activity reflects broader awareness of the challenges associated with market oversight.

Financial implications for racing and government revenue

The BHA’s position is that the combined effect of an unchanged levy and additional regulatory measures could have financial implications not only for the racing industry but also for public finances. Reduced betting activity within the regulated sector may, in theory, affect tax revenues generated from gambling.

At the same time, policymakers must balance these considerations with the need to ensure consumer protection and maintain the integrity of the gambling market. The interplay between these objectives underscores the complexity of the policy environment in which decisions about the levy are made.

The BHA has indicated that it will continue to engage with government departments and regulators to present its case. The organisation emphasises the importance of a sustainable funding model that supports the long term viability of British horseracing while aligning with broader regulatory goals.

Industry response and ongoing dialogue

The statement issued by the BHA leaves little doubt that the organisation views the outcome of the levy review as unsatisfactory. However, it also signals an intention to remain actively involved in future policy discussions.

By linking issues such as levy rates, regulatory measures and illegal betting activity, the BHA is framing its concerns within a broader narrative about the sustainability of the sport. This approach reflects an effort to highlight the interconnected nature of these challenges and to encourage a more holistic policy response.

Government departments, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, are expected to continue engaging with stakeholders as part of ongoing regulatory and policy development processes. The extent to which future adjustments may be considered remains uncertain and will likely depend on a range of economic and political factors.

Direct statement from Brant Dunshea

Brant Dunshea, Chief Executive of the British Horseracing Authority, said:

“It is disappointing that it has taken almost three years to determine there should be no change in the Levy rate. Throughout protracted negotiations British horseracing engaged with the Government in good faith, including providing clear evidence of a substantial and growing gap between our costs of providing the sport and the return we receive from betting. British horseracing already gets a significantly lower return from the gambling industry compared to our nearest rival jurisdictions: while French and Irish horseracing get 7.7% and 8.4% respectively, we receive less than 3%. By refusing to extend the Levy to bets placed on overseas racing, the sport in Britain is effectively funding our international rivals and diminishing our global standing. Adding more regulation such as affordability checks will fuel illegal betting, deprive horseracing of funding and prevent the Government collecting millions of pounds in much-needed taxation.”

Conclusion

The debate surrounding the Horserace Betting Levy highlights the broader challenges facing British horseracing in a changing regulatory and economic environment. The decision to maintain the current levy rate has prompted strong criticism from the British Horseracing Authority, which argues that the existing framework does not adequately support the financial needs of the sport.

At the same time, the Government’s position reflects a complex balancing act between supporting industry sustainability, ensuring consumer protection and maintaining regulatory integrity. The differing perspectives illustrate the difficulty of designing policies that address multiple objectives within a single framework.

Looking ahead, continued dialogue between industry stakeholders and policymakers will be essential. The BHA’s emphasis on the interconnected nature of levy policy, regulation and market behaviour suggests that future discussions may increasingly focus on comprehensive solutions rather than isolated measures.

Ultimately, the outcome of this debate will play a significant role in shaping the future of British horseracing, influencing its competitiveness, financial stability and ability to adapt to evolving market conditions.

FAQs

What is the Horserace Betting Levy in the UK?
The Horserace Betting Levy is a mechanism through which betting operators contribute a portion of their profits to support British horseracing.

Why did the BHA criticise the Government’s decision?
The BHA believes the decision fails to address a growing gap between racing costs and betting-related income.

Who is Brant Dunshea?
Brant Dunshea is the Chief Executive of the British Horseracing Authority.

How long did the levy review process take?
According to the BHA, the review process lasted nearly three years.

What comparison did the BHA make with other countries?
The BHA stated that France and Ireland receive higher percentages from betting than Britain.

What are affordability checks in gambling?
Affordability checks are measures designed to ensure that individuals can afford their gambling activities without financial harm.

Why is overseas betting important in this debate?
The BHA argues that excluding overseas bets from the levy limits potential funding for British racing.

What role does the Gambling Commission play?
The Gambling Commission regulates gambling activities in the UK and oversees compliance with relevant laws.

Does the Government support horseracing?
Government policy has recognised the importance of horseracing but balances this with regulatory and consumer protection priorities.

Will the levy be reviewed again in the future?
Future reviews are possible but depend on policy decisions and industry developments.