Russell Group v-c salaries rise as 7,000 job losses confirmed

Leaders of research-intensive universities see pay top £350,000 despite financial strife faced by institutions

Published on
January 12, 2026
Last updated
January 12, 2026
Source: iStock/selensergen

The average salary among Russell Group leaders increased above £350,000 last year, despite these universities losing almost 7,000 staff members due to cost-cutting.

Times Higher Education analysed the financial accounts released by 20 members of the research-intensive mission group so far for 2024-25 – a year in which many universities fell into deficit.

The median total pay package awarded to these Russell Group vice-chancellors dropped slightly from £401,000 to £397,000 – a fall partly explained by changes to pension contributions and fewer large payouts than last year.

But the median base salary for vice-chancellors increased by 5 per cent from £334,500 in 2023-24 to £350,500 last year. This was an increase from just £314,000 in 2021-22.

ADVERTISEMENT

The largest award went to Irene Tracey who received a total pay package worth £666,000 from the University of Oxford – up from £573,000 in 2023-24. A large portion of this related to reimbursement for tax liabilities on the property that Tracey lives in.

But it also included an increase in base pay from £410,000 to £427,000 – which gave Tracey the largest salary among the group.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was closely followed by Deborah Prentice at the University of Cambridge (£414,000 base salary) and Michael Spence at UCL (£410,000).

RankRussell Group providerVice-chancellor(s) remuneration (£)Vice-chancellor(s) salary (£)

The biggest increase in pay came at the University of Manchester where new vice-chancellor Duncan Ivison received almost £150,000 more in pay and benefits than his predecessor.

Ivison was awarded a base salary of £350,000 a year, which was 35 per cent more than the £260,000 that Nancy Rothwell was paid for seven years in a row before her retirement.

As a result, Manchester no longer has the lowest remuneration in the Russell Group – an accolade that now belongs to the University of Glasgow where the recently retired former principal Anton Muscatelli received total compensation worth £300,000.

Glasgow was one of three institutions, alongside Newcastle University and Durham University, which did not increase leaders’ salaries in 2024-25.

ADVERTISEMENT

Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, renewed her criticism of pay packages at the top in the wake of the findings.

She said vice-chancellors were “accepting salary bumps and massive bonuses for themselves as the sector goes up in smoke”, something that “just beggars belief”.

ADVERTISEMENT

In total, the 20 universities spent £8.3 million on remuneration for their vice-chancellors. The accounts also reveal they collectively let go almost 7,000 staff in the same year – costing £124.6 million in compensation for loss of office.

Mike Short, head of education for Unison, said: “Vice-chancellors seem perfectly happy to take inflated sums for themselves, yet plead poverty when it comes to staff pay.

“With record numbers of higher education jobs under threat, it’s staggering university bosses continue to think their wage hikes should be way above the paltry 1.4 per cent rise they offered the people who keep their institutions running.”

THE’s analysis of accounts so far has also revealed several large bonuses given to leaders. Within the Russell Group, Adam Tickell received £28,000 in performance-related pay from the University of Birmingham – as part of his £453,000 remuneration.

And Larry Kramer received a £30,000 annual review contribution award as part of his £530,000 total package from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

With many universities speaking loudly about the ongoing funding crisis, Amira Campbell, National Union of Students president, said it was surprising to see vice-chancellors’ salaries continue to rise.

ADVERTISEMENT

“While tackling vice-chancellors’ pay alone will not solve the crisis in higher education funding, with 12 per cent of students accessing foodbanks, the salaries at the top are hard to hear.”

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (5)

Well done THE for running this piece and keeping this scandalous issue current.
It's not just the pay issue per se, but many of us have seen our school research budgets shrink or disappear. A very modest sum which would hardly be sufficient for VC;s annual bonus, say £5k for example could make an enormous difference to fund individual research visits to archives or for conference attendance for several colleagues pursuing their research projects. I know many now fund these things out of their own taxed income, especially as the REF pressures are still there and become even more pressing as the census deadline for REF2029 inelectably hoves into view. VCs, it seems, just award themselves (via the "independent" remineration committee of course: hahaha) these unjustified and probably unjustifiable increases and now they also give themselves generous annual bonus payments to boot! It's just so insensitive, indeed contemptuous. Do they realise what they look like to the rest of us, to the students at their institutions, and to the general public?
As an ex-Professor of Leadership, I offer the insight that truly transformational leaders would lead from the front by taking a salary cut in these austere times. In a comment that may be related, Nigel Nicholson, after a lifetime of academic leadership research and leadership consultancy work, as inter alia, a Professor of Leadership, suggests that once senior management positions are reached, the field of candidates available for topmost leadership is marked by its lack of integrity. The good, the caring, and the honest have long since been weeded out (Nicholson, 2013). The appointment of a toxic leader of some sort is, therefore, more or less inevitable. Toxic leaders only take pay rises, not cuts. We have to get better at leadership selection procedures!
In his excellent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2017), Thomas Piketty reflects on the rise of inequality in our current system: "this spectacular increase in inequality largely reflects an unprecedented explosion of very elevated incomes from labor, a veritable separation of the top managers of large firms from that of the rest of the population". He speculates rather archly, that " One possible explanation of this is that the skills and productivity of these top managers rose suddenly in relation to those of other workers. Another explanation, which seems to me more plausible and turns out to be much more consistent with the evidence, is that these top managers by and large have the power to set their own remuneration, in some cases without limit and in many cases without any clear relation to their individual productivity, which is in any case very difficult to estimate in a large organisation" (pp. 32-33). Piketty is not referring specifically to Universities here of course, but we can see, with the marketisation of the HE system, how our VCs have imported these toxic practices (including exorbitant and unmerited annual bonus payments) into the realm of higher education, poisoning the system and corrupting its historic modes of governance.
Money grabbing good for nothings, salaries should be capped at max 2 time that of the average professor. They don't work twice as hard as the average Professor and probably work far less.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT