The Oxford Union, self-proclaimed “most prestigious debating society in the world”, has attracted thousands of members and international interest throughout its 200-year-long history, hosting figures from Michael Jackson to Malcolm X. The society is an unincorporated organisation, officially governed solely by elected Committee members, who are more often than not students of the University of Oxford.
According to a balance sheet and accompanying commentary for the 2024/25 academic year authored in January 2025 by the Union’s externally-employed bursar, viewed by Cherwell, the Oxford Union has two years of operation remaining at the current rate of operational losses. The full year budget forecasts a loss of over £358,000 by the end of budgetary year. Cherwell spoke to several current and former senior Union committee members, who were granted anonymity to speak frankly, to gain a comprehensive view of the systemic problems underpinning the Union’s financial circumstance. Additionally, Cherwell asked them about the key donors preventing the society from going under, including an adviser to a Saudi-Arabian minister, who has overseen more than 80% of fundraising for a key Union initiative.
The accounts
The Oxford Union Society is in a precarious financial situation, with its bursar and head of finance stating that the society “has two years of operation remaining” until the society is “no longer a going concern”. A company is a going concern if it is able to continue operating and meeting its financial obligations for the foreseeable future. The Union’s funds are needed primarily for administrative and operational costs, including paying staff, maintaining the society’s buildings, and funding meals for guest speakers and Committee. According to company management accounts and an accompanying commentary seen by Cherwell, the Oxford Union made a loss of over £99,000 in the first half of the 2024/25 budget year. Accompanying commentary notes that as the Union has a cash balance of £718,000, it could remain financially viable for only two more years if it sustains those same losses.
The majority of this deficit comes from “exceptional costs”, including a £137,000 toilet renovation and £39,000 window repair. Additionally, the roof of the Union building requires around a million pounds to be repaired, according to the estimate of one former senior committee member. An additional sum of around £11,000 was spent on legal and consulting fees, in part to address the legal aftershock of the Israel-Palestine debate. Cherwell recently reported that the Union’s standing committee was advised in December that it could face criminal liability amid an ongoing counter-terror investigation into comments made at that debate. Excluding these exceptional costs, the accounts still forecast an operational loss of over £148,000. These issues have arisen from a fatal coincidence of falling income and climbing costs.
Besides donations, the Oxford Union’s accounts project membership, debating competitions, and events as its three routes of income. Membership accounts for half of the Union’s income. However, the Union is forecasted to reach just 90% of its membership goal this year, falling short of its budgeted membership income by £80,000. Commentary authored by its bursar noted, “[We] are not sure if the decline in membership enrolment in MT24 [Michaelmas Term 2024] is a trend, a result of Union activity in MT24, or lack of effective marketing for MT24”, but emphasised the urgency of rectifying the issue. Michaelmas Term 2024 saw unprecedented turmoil in Union politics, with debates frequently derailed by student political maneuvering. The result was debates that were often delayed by more than an hour, with one source saying: “I think people came and they saw that in the environment, and they didn’t want to spend 300 [pounds] to join it.” In addition, debate competitions are projected to generate just 16% of their budgeted income, a disparity of £54,000.
The society’s 2024/25 budget anticipated that it would also generate income in published videos and food and beverage sales. However, these are both projected to be sources of significant financial loss, with the latter suffering from a variance of -1579.9% between its budgeted income and forecast loss. Additionally, despite recent price increases in the Members Bar, the accounts project a £9,000 loss due to food and beverages, despite the yearly budget expecting it to break even and make £600. Further, the Union produces YouTube videos of debates and speeches with the intention of attracting international attention and generating additional funding via advertising revenue. Whilst the accounts leave it unclear how much expenditure can be attributed to video production, the commentary notes that “this year the filming costs are greater than the revenue generated from the filming”, and “a model that costs the Society ~£100k per annum is not sustainable”.
No sign of stopping
Despite recurrent losses, the Union has displayed little urgency in reducing its expenditure, evident in its Hilary Term Ball. “We spent £5000 on Bollinger champagne […] there was £1,800 [spent] on peacocks, £750 [spent] on an ice sculpture”, one former senior Union committee member told Cherwell. Usually the Union’s student committee works at the balls and receives free tickets in exchange. This time, external staff were hired for around £3,000. A Union source added that two weeks before the ball, only 300 tickets of the 600 person capacity had been sold. Around 70 committee members still received free tickets, valued at £110.
Several sources stated that systemic short-termism is a major source of the Union’s financial problems. One former senior Union committee member asserted that in the span of eight weeks, it is difficult for presidents to make sustainable change beyond organising debates and events. “It’s very easy to come in and look at the accounts and think, ‘Well, there’s a problem, but it’s not my problem, because I’m only here for three months’,” one source told Cherwell.
The source added: “When the annual budget is presented, depressingly, there’s ten minutes of discussion, and that’s it […] standing committee continually approves loss-making budgets, because it’s never been at the point where those people are the people who actually need to reckon with the consequences.”
Consequently, multiple sources agreed that the current state of the Oxford Union was such that students engaged in front-of-house political activities, often discussing the positions that students would occupy. Meanwhile, significant decisions regarding finances and governance were made by donors behind closed doors.
Further, personal politics take precedence over the endurance of the society’s financial sustainability. Multiple sources stated that standing committee fails to scrutinise the society’s finances, making key decisions based on their slates and the minutiae of Union politics.
Reliance on donors
Due to the failures of fundraising and development channels in the society’s current governance structures, the Union relies extensively on donors to keep its doors open.
In particular, the Union has relied on a former Union president turned adviser to a Saudi minister, Michael Li. Li has personally donated more than £50,000 to the Oxford Union, and helped raise more than 80% of the money for a key fundraising drive.
In March 2024, the Union published the Minute Book, a fundraising brochure aimed at alumni and prospective donors. The brochure outlines a fundraising goal of £5,000,000 by the end of 2025, of which £1,600,000 is said to have been secured at the time of publication. The Minute Book states that this fund is intended to “prevent the closure of the independent buildings” and ensure that the Union can continue to be the “last bastion of free speech”. Over 80% of these donations have come from the US Oxford Union Foundation (OXUF), a US-based non-profit established in 2023 that was set up to process fundraising for the Union in the United States.
The publication of the Minute Book was a moment where sources described realising the opacity of the Union’s finances. A former committee member told Cherwell that “almost none” of the brochure had been presented before the Union’s standing committee prior to publication. They expressed particular frustration at the implication that there could be an authority with power to undermine the elected governing body of the Union: “I thought, why on earth do you think that you can give all this to the alumni, but you don’t feel any obligation to tell standing committee about it?”
The brochure notes that Li, a former Union president from Trinity Term 2017, is the chair of OXUF, and recognises Li’s efforts in supporting the Union financially throughout. The rest of the fundraising comes from OLDUT, a financial trust that owns the Oxford Union’s buildings and grants the Society a licence to operate on its premises.
Li was previously pictured signing a deal between the Oxford Union and the Saudi Arabian think-tank, the Future Investment Initiative. In a brochure for an Arab-China business conference, Li is described as an adviser to a Saudi minister in the Ministry of Investment of Saudi Arabia.
A previous standing committee member described Li’s role primarily in terms of securing high-value donors and speakers for the Union. A senior former Union officer told Cherwell that Li was involved in the invitation of the Saudi ambassador to speak to the Union in 2022 about the country’s Vision 2030 programme. Former Union president Charlie Mackintosh also previously told journalists from The Oxford Student newspaper in 2023 that Li had passed on invitations to the ambassadors of the UAE and Bahrain on his behalf.
However, the Union as an organisation has appeared unaware of Li’s formal role and his influence within its financial and governance structure. In response to a press enquiry, Li was said to have no role within the society, its spokesperson stating in September 2023 that Li “does not represent the Society in an official capacity”. In response to earlier comment requests, however, the Union had asserted that Li was “chair of US fundraising”, with Li “giving up his time to focus on US development”.
Multiple sources attested that they were unsure of Li’s formal role in the Union’s governance. Discussing Li’s role, the former Union committee member said: “He very clearly has a very large amount of influence despite not having any formal role, let alone any elected authority. The people who do have formal roles and elected authority have no idea what is going on […] decisions that should be made by standing committee are not made by standing committee, they’re made by OLDUT or Michael Li.”
According to previous reporting, Li signed an agreement on behalf of the Union with the Future Investment Initiative (FII). The FII was set up by Saudi Arabia’s main sovereign wealth fund, and became notorious after it was blacklisted by major companies as a result of the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Li represented himself to the FII as the Union’s Chair of Development Board, a position that the Union then confirmed did not exist.
OLDUT told Cherwell: “OLDUT does not take, and has never taken, decisions that should be taken by the Oxford Union Society’s Standing Committee. The Oxford Union Society, as a members’ club, is governed by its members and its rules.
“Michael Li, ex-President, is Chair of OXUF, the Oxford Union Friends, and liaises with potential donors in the US. He takes no decisions on behalf of OUS or OLDUT.”
An uncertain insurance
Multiple Union sources told Cherwell that unceremonious conduct in the Oxford Union may, however, have deterred donors, which most visibly manifested in Lord Heseltine’s walk out during the 7th November debate. Multiple sources told Cherwell that the Union was expecting to be signed into Heseltine’s will, though that now seems unlikely.
Multiple sources told Cherwell that if the Oxford Union does not address its financial issues by becoming incorporated or fundraising, there is a plausible scenario where it ceases to exist. A former Union committee member told Cherwell: “I see [a bail out by donors] not necessarily happening this time around, because the Union has gotten into all these controversies”.
A current Union committee member summed up the financial state of the society: “Ultimately, it is a student run society […] there are permanent staff that have far greater capacity to deal with these issues than a lot of us”. Internal politics and financial irresponsibility on the committee’s side pose a major threat to the Oxford Union’s immediate future. The society’s prospects are perhaps not so bleak, however, with options including a transition to an incorporated company with a permanent board of trustees to prevent a future financial crisis. Alternatively, the Union may remain dependent on figures like Michael Li and other donors, though the past year’s turbulent Union politics do not serve well to attract more patrons and maintain old beneficiaries. Whether or not the Oxford Union will continue to operate for more than two years remains to be seen.
The Oxford Union did not respond to Cherwell‘s request for comment.
