Median pay for FTSE 100 chief executives has reached £5.06m, according to new analysis from the High Pay Centre, widening the gap between boardroom rewards and average UK earnings.
The thinktank’s latest figures show that median chief executive pay in the UK’s largest listed companies rose by 8.6% in 2025 and reached around 130 times the salary of the average full time UK worker, estimated at £39,000. The ratio is the largest since 2018 and returns executive reward to governance scrutiny at a politically sensitive moment.
Total spending on executive pay across FTSE 100 companies was reported at £856.6m, with £550m going to chief executives. The highest paid leaders included AstraZeneca’s Pascal Soriot, GSK’s Emma Walmsley, and Barclays chief executive C.S. Venkatakrishnan. Although total payouts were affected by the absence of an unusually large award recorded in the prior year, pay increases were widespread across the index.
The figures land as companies face pressure from investors, employees, politicians, and customers over the balance between reward, performance, and social licence. Executive pay has always been defended partly on the basis of global competition for leadership talent, especially in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, banking, energy, and technology. That argument becomes harder to sustain when wage growth for ordinary workers is weaker and household costs remain high.
The governance question is not only whether a chief executive is paid too much. It is whether remuneration structures clearly align with long term value creation, risk management, workforce treatment, investment, and resilience. Annual bonuses and long term incentive plans can reward strong delivery, but they can also generate controversy where payouts rise despite restructuring, weak shareholder returns, safety failures, customer problems, or workforce disputes.
Earlier High Pay Centre analysis found that Britain’s CEO pay gap remained stark across the FTSE 350. The latest FTSE 100 figures intensify that debate because they focus on the largest listed companies and show the ratio moving higher again.
Pay ratio reporting has been mandatory for large UK listed companies since 2019, requiring disclosure of the relationship between chief executive pay and UK employee earnings at the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile. The intention was to make internal pay distribution more visible and give shareholders, employees, and wider stakeholders a clearer basis for scrutiny. The disclosures have improved transparency, but they have not prevented pay growth at the top.
Remuneration committees face a difficult balance. If they hold down executive pay too aggressively, they may argue that UK companies become less attractive to international leadership candidates, particularly when US packages are materially higher. If they increase pay without a clear performance case, they risk shareholder revolts, employee discontent, and reputational damage. That tension is acute for companies trying to compete globally while remaining listed in London.
The debate also intersects with the UK’s capital markets challenge. Some market participants argue that London listed companies need more flexible pay structures to retain and attract senior executives. Others argue that this becomes a race to justify higher rewards without addressing the underlying issues affecting UK equity valuations, including liquidity, investor appetite, growth expectations, and listing rules.
Workforce context is becoming harder for boards to ignore. Employers are managing higher National Living Wage rates, National Insurance costs, skills shortages, retention pressure, and growing expectations around wellbeing and progression. In that environment, large increases at the top can weaken trust if employees do not see a convincing link between company performance and shared reward.
The political climate is also shifting. A government focused on living standards and public service repair may face pressure to revisit executive pay rules, worker representation, tax treatment, or disclosure requirements. Even without formal reform, public scrutiny can affect investor voting, employee engagement, and brand reputation.
The latest figures do not mean every large company has a governance failure. They do show that executive reward is becoming more exposed to questions of fairness, performance, and legitimacy. Boards will need to explain not only what they pay, but why the structure remains defensible in a low growth, high pressure economy.
