The question of the salary of the president of the SPA regularly resurfaces in the media and on social networks. It crystallizes a tension specific to large French associations funded by donations: how far can the remuneration of those who lead them go? The answer first requires untangling a persistent confusion between two very different roles within the Société protectrice des animaux.
Volunteer President and Paid General Director: The Confusion That Distorts the Debate
The majority of articles and online research refer to the “salary of the president of the SPA” when the president of the SPA is a volunteer administrator. Elected by the general assembly, he holds an unpaid social mandate. He receives neither salary, nor bonus, nor variable compensation for this role.
The individual whose remuneration has caused scandal is the general director, a salaried executive linked to the association by a standard employment contract, subject to labor law. This executive position has nothing to do with the associative mandate of the president. When questioning the president of the SPA and his salary, it is actually the remuneration of the general director that fuels the controversy.
This distinction between unpaid social mandate and paid executive position exists in all major associations in France. However, it remains poorly understood by the general public, which feeds the confusion and amplifies the outrage with each new revelation.
Remuneration of the General Director of the SPA: The Amounts Made Public
The figures that circulated in the press are precise. According to information published by L’Express and Le Monde, the general director of the SPA received 110,000 euros in fixed annual salary plus at least 35,000 euros in variable compensation. This total package therefore exceeded the usual standards of the non-profit sector.
For an association whose resources largely come from donations and legacies from individuals, these levels of remuneration raise a question of proportionality. The SPA manages dozens of shelters in France, employs several hundred staff, and cares for thousands of animals each year. The operational complexity justifies an experienced management profile, but the total amount has shocked donors and volunteers.
A Dismissal That Amplified the Controversy
The general director in question was dismissed under controversial circumstances. Le Monde reported a dismissal deemed “without real and serious cause,” which resulted in additional compensation costs for the association. The total cost of this departure, including accumulated salary and compensation, fueled the sentiment of extravagant management.
This case highlighted a structural problem: large associations are not subject to the same salary transparency obligations as publicly traded companies. Donors do not easily have access to the salary scales of executive leaders.
Transparency of Associations and Salaries of Leaders: A Still Vague Framework
The tightening of public scrutiny on salaries in the non-profit sector does not concern only the SPA. Since the media controversies of 2019-2020, several large foundations and animal protection associations have been questioned about their financial management. Donors demand to know what portion of their contributions finances the missions (shelter, adoption, veterinary care) and what portion covers structural costs, including executive salaries.
Some benchmarks help to situate the level of remuneration observed at the SPA:
- In the French non-profit sector, the executive director positions of similarly sized organizations are compensated at significantly lower levels than the package described for the SPA
- Associations recognized as being of public utility must publish their annual accounts, but the details of individual remuneration are not systematically included
- The Court of Auditors can audit associations that appeal to public generosity, but these audits are sporadic and their conclusions are not always publicized
The absence of a binding framework on the publication of salaries of non-profit leaders leaves a gray area. The available data do not allow for precise comparisons between the SPA and other animal protection or solidarity structures, due to the lack of a standardized public reference.
What This Case Reveals About Governance of Associations in France
Beyond the specific case of the SPA, the salary controversy has highlighted several vulnerabilities in French associative governance. The combination of a high fixed salary and a variable component linked to internal objectives, in a structure funded by donations, raises the question of the alignment of interests between executive leaders and social mission.
The board of directors, composed of volunteers, is supposed to oversee the remuneration of the general director. In practice, the asymmetry of skills between volunteer administrators and professional leaders can limit the ability to control. An administrator who dedicates a few hours a month to the association does not always have the tools to assess whether a salary package is appropriate for the market.
Improvement Suggestions Discussed in the Sector
Several voices in the non-profit world advocate for concrete measures:
- Mandatory publication of the salaries of the three highest-paid executives in annual reports
- Cap on the ratio between the highest salary and the median salary of the association
- Establishment of independent remuneration committees, modeled after publicly traded companies
- Obligation to mention the portion of donations allocated to operating costs in appeals for generosity
None of these measures have been made mandatory to date. The debate remains open, and each new controversy rekindles pressure on lawmakers.
The president of the SPA does not receive a salary. The general director, however, received a package of over 145,000 euros annually before his contested dismissal. The real question is not the amount itself, but the absence of a framework requiring associations to make this information accessible to those who fund them.