Salary data is always uncomfortable. Not because the numbers are surprising, but because they force us to confront questions we often avoid; how our value is perceived, what actually shapes earning potential and whether the systems we operate within are really working in our favor.

The 2025/26 ELX Salary Insights, a project delivered by ELX and research partner Explori, moves beyond headline benchmarking and into something more useful for senior event leaders; understanding why compensation looks the way it does, and what structural forces are influencing it globally.

The survey was deployed across the entire ELX member base, and saw a 58% response rate. All data was collected completely anonymously, and subgroups with a base of <5 have been omitted from results to protect anonymity, or merged where appropriate. Today, it is the only compensation study in existence that focuses on senior level corporate event leader salaries, and the full results are only available to ELX members.

The results themselves are not a commentary on individual worth. It is a reflection of the ecosystem we work in.

Geography still matters. But structure matters more.

Ata global level, the US continues to lead on total compensation, driven in large part by significantly higher bonus structures. European salaries remain more conservative, particularly when it comes to variable pay.

But the real insight here is not simply “the US pays more.” It is that different markets reward event leadership in fundamentally different ways. Bonus culture, revenue alignment and commercial accountability play a much bigger role in total earning potential than base salary alone.

For global leaders, this creates tension. Internal equity becomes harder to manage. Talent mobility increases. And event leaders operating outside the US may find themselves needing to work harder to articulate value in environments that structurally reward caution over upside.

Sector and reporting line are silent pay drivers

One of the clearest patterns in the data is that event leaders aligned to technology, financial services and insurance consistently earn more than those in other sectors. This reinforces an uncomfortable truth that proximity to revenue matters.

The same dynamic shows up in reporting lines. Event leaders reporting into Sales, Marketing, or directly into the executive office earn more than those reporting into Finance or HR. Not because the work is more complex, but because the perceived impact is clearer.

This is not about job titles. It is about narrative and positioning. Where events “sit” in the organisation still shapes how they are valued financially, regardless of scale or responsibility.

For senior leaders, organisational design is not neutral. It has a direct impact on influence, budget ownership, and long-term earning potential.

Bigger teams do not equal better pay

Another assumption the data challenges is that managing larger teams leads to higher compensation. In reality, leaders managing mid-sized teams reported the highest overall packages, while those running the largest teams often earned less.

The same pattern appears when looking at overall company size. Leaders in very large organizations did not necessarily earn more than their peers in smaller or mid-sized businesses, which suggests that complexity and headcount do not automatically translate into leverage. In some cases, they dilute it.

For event leaders, this is an important recalibration. Growth in responsibility does not always come with financial recognition. Without deliberate renegotiation, it can lead to being overextended and under-rewarded.

Tenure reveals a dangerous dip

Time in role tells a particularly interesting story. Leaders in senior positions for3-6 years reported lower compensation than both newer incumbents and those with7+ years of tenure, although the median of 1-6 years does tell a pretty consistent story.

This suggests a “value lag” period, where experience is assumed but not actively rewarded. It is also likely one of the highest attrition risk windows in senior event leadership.

Longevity does eventually pay, but not linearly. Leaders who stay must actively reassert their value, rather than assuming tenure will do the work for them.

Loyalty does not pay in the way we might hope

Two findings reinforce this point. Leaders hired externally earn slightly more than those promoted internally. And those who have been at their organization for less time report higher overall compensation than long-tenured peers.

The market continues to reward perceived freshness and external benchmarking over institutional loyalty. This creates a tension many event leaders feel acutely: Stability versus earning growth.

Staying is not wrong. But staying without periodic recalibration is costly.

Gender, averages and why nuance matters

Gender pay data is a good example of why we cannot rely on a single metric. While mean averages suggest men earn more, the median tells a different story, with women slightly ahead.

Outliers skew the average. The median reflects the typical experience.

This is not a victory lap or a problem statement. It is a reminder that how we interpret data shapes the conclusions we draw. Pay equity conversations requirenuance, not soundbites.

Flexibility has become a financial advantage

One of the more striking insights is that fully remote event leaders report higher overall compensation than those working in hybrid or full-time office environments.

This is likely less about productivity and more about access. Remote work opens broader labour markets, increases competition, and shifts negotiating power.

Compensation strategy and working model are no longer separate conversations. Leaders and organisations treating them as such risk falling behind.

So…what does this actually mean for event leaders?

Three reflections stand out:

First, your compensation is shaped as much by structure as by performance. Geography, sector, reporting line and working models often matter more than workload or team size.

Second, loyalty is emotionally valued but financially inconsistent. If you stay, you need to actively manage your value narrative and compensation checkpoints.

Third, events are still rewarded differently depending on how close they sit to commercial outcomes. Until that changes, positioning matters.

The ELX Salary Insights are not a scorecard. They are a mirror. And for senior event leaders, they offer an opportunity to step back and ask not just “where do I sit?”, but “what system am I operating within, and is it still working for me?”

That is where the real leadership conversation begins.

Authored by: Chloe Richardson, ELX