Using MAT finances to strengthen pay bargaining
If you work in a multi-academy trust (MAT), understanding how its finances work can be an important tool for bargaining around pay.
In a growing number of cases, NEU members have had to fight back against cuts being made in academies, while large amounts of cash are taken to fund central teams.
Excessive leadership pay is a key issue across the sector, with numerous examples of MAT CEOs receiving inflation-busting pay rises on top of already huge salaries.
To help tackle these issues, the NEU has produced a bargaining toolkit on ‘Leveraging MAT finances’ which provides a more detailed overview of MAT finances, guidance on how to interrogate them, and how to use this information to inform bargaining and campaigns.
How MATs manage school funding
The most important point to understand is that a MAT board (its trustees) has the ultimate power to decide how funding is used across the trust.
There are two MAT funding models:
1. A “top slice” percentage taken from each academy to fund central services.
2. “GAG pooling”, where a MAT pools its academies’ income – including the General Annual Grant (GAG) - and distributes this to individual schools as it sees fit. A proportion of this funding is then retained to pay for the central functions of the trust, including the CEO and senior MAT managers’ pay.
The overall trend is that MATs are taking larger amounts from their academies’ budgets, while a growing number of MATs are GAG pooling.
It is important to underline that:
- Both systems lack transparency and accountability to schools and staff.
- GAG pooling is even less transparent, as the MAT decides how much it takes from the budget of each academy without setting out any figures.
- Money ultimately belongs to the trust, not its academies.
- The MAT does not need to set out in any meaningful detail what services it supplies to schools and how much these cost.
- MATs are not required to consult on changes to the top slice or on whether to operate a GAG pooling model.
How MAT funding differs from maintained schools and why it matters
Local authorities also retain funding for central services. However, unlike MATs, these decisions are made transparently through the Schools Forum, where maintained schools are represented and funding decisions are publicly recorded.
Why should I care about how my MAT funds it schools?
In some cases, the amounts of money that MATs take from their schools have been hidden from staff and local communities while cuts were being imposed. For example, in 2025, NEU members at twenty schools within the Arthur Terry Learning Partnership took strike action over job cuts and contractual changes.
Both members and parents were outraged that the trust’s proposed cuts stemmed from financial mismanagement and that huge sums were being diverted from academy budgets to fund trust central services - the trust was hoovering up close to 29 per cent of school budgets. The successful action forced the trust to withdraw its proposed cuts and commit to greater transparency and consultation on its finances.
The NEU believes that decisions around funding should be based on consultation with schools and their staff, who should have access clear information about much is being taken from school budgets by MATs.
How can I find information about my MAT’s finances?
MATs are legally required to publish their annual accounts, often referred to as ‘financial statements’, on their website. These can usually be found via a web search, or on the trust’s website. The accounts will say whether the school used top slicing or GAG pooling in the previous financial year. This information is published under a section headed ‘central services’.
If your MAT top slices, you can review previous financial statements to see whether the amounts charged have increased over time. If the information in those statements doesn’t align with what you know about your MAT’s funding situation, this could be used to put pressure on the trust to be more transparent about its finances.
Argue for greater transparency and accountability
It is important to argue for maximum financial transparency, especially if the MAT is using financial arguments to justify decisions around pay. Controversial decisions should be challenged when a MAT is not being forthcoming.
Recognised trade unions are entitled to information for collective bargaining purposes, which includes financial information of the kind available to trustees.
Be aware that employers will often present financial evidence to support decisions they have already committed to making, so it’s important to scrutinise the information provided carefully and not accept it at face value.
Executive pay in MATs
Excessive MAT CEO and executive pay is becoming an increasingly salient issue, particularly as MATs seek to make cuts or implement restructures.
Figures on MAT leadership pay can provide useful leverage in discussions around pay. For example, if a MAT has chosen to give its CEO a large pay rise while it imposes restraint for other staff. The information can also be important in agitating with members and the wider community.
Until recently, the Government has refused to impose any limits on MAT leader pay or bring in national pay scales for these roles. However, in June 2026, the Government announced its intention to introduce a cap of £174,000 on MAT leader pay – a level roughly in line with the Prime Minister’s salary. Disappointingly, this would not apply retrospectively, meaning MAT leaders whose salaries already exceed the cap would not be affected.
The NEU’s position is that there should be a fair and mandatory national pay structure to include pay arrangements for MAT CEOs. This should also include transparent processes, with effective monitoring and challenging of pay outcomes.
However, the figure is a useful benchmark for campaigning and bargaining within MATs. It can be used to exert pressure on trusts that are intransigent on pay and funding issues, while continuing to pay their CEOs more than the proposed cap. Again, this could be a useful focus for member and wider community agitation.
Finding information on leadership/executive pay in your MAT
MAT annual accounts show how many staff are paid over £60,000, grouped into £10,000 pay bands. Although job titles are not included, comparing accounts over several years can show whether spending on higher-paid staff has increased.
Where the CEO is also a trustee, their total remuneration must be published under headings such as:
- Trustees' remuneration and expenses
- Directors' remuneration and expenses
- Directors' emoluments and expenses
If the CEO is not a trustee, their salary is likely to be the highest figure shown in the higher-paid staff table.
If you cannot identify the CEO's pay, ask the MAT directly. Leadership pay should be transparent, particularly where financial pressures are being used to justify decisions affecting staff.
Actions for reps
Reps should use the pay bargaining toolkit to address member concerns about school funding and high pay of the CEO and other leaders in your MAT.
Use the leveraging MAT finances bargaining toolkit to help you learn more about MAT finances, how to challenge decisions, mobilise members, demand more transparency and defend terms and conditions.
Use our model letter to request MAT financial information from your trust.