Almost a month has passed since the signing of the university agreement. In politics, where priority is too often given to the urgent rather than the important, it feels like it was a year ago. But it is not. We are in the final stretch of the second year of Bachillerato, soon the PAU arrives, the pre-registration, the cutoff grades and, above all, the moment when thousands of Madrid families do the math with a reality that has not changed: Madrid remains the place with the highest fees in all of Spain. And regarding scholarships, while the National Government allocates more than 180 million to Madrid students, the regional PP Government barely dedicates eight million, the vast majority to excellence scholarships for very high grades, with little coverage and little redistributive impact. Again, when these dates arrive, the concern of thousands of Madrid families and young people is who pays, how much they pay, and who cannot pay and is left out.
Read more The challenge of photographer Jack Davison: three days in London and 111 portraits (37 per day)
Who are you going to believe: the Government or your own eyes? Groucho Marx asked. Here the answer is simple: the data. And the data says that the agreement signed on March 3, 2026, is based on three lies and fine print.
First lie: “Madrid puts in 14.8 billion”
The overall framework 2026-2031 sums up to 14,790.7 million euros. However, that amount is not the contribution of the regional Government. Its contribution is 8,958.9 million, 60.6% of the total. The remaining 39.4% is not put in by Madrid: it comes from the State and other estimated system revenues.
And what is inside that drawer called other revenues? Here lies the core of the deception. It includes system’s own revenues: fees and public prices paid by students and families (in 2022 they were 423.5 million), competitive fundraising and university activity.
However, families, students, and universities are not the regional Government. Turning the families’ effort into a political medal is not communication, it is appropriation of others’ sacrifice and hides the central fact for any family looking at the PAU: that the agreement does not lower the cost nor change the structure of fee dependency.
And it also happens in a context of tension, real loss, and growing dependence on own revenues. First, the threat of a drastic cut was installed for weeks — a 30% cut was talked about — and then the agreement was put on the table. It is the “lesser evil” turned into policy. It is, in cinematic terms, the Budget Godfather: “I’m going to make you an offer you can’t refuse.” Not because it is good, but because the threat is worse. It is selling as “historic” what is a patch, claiming others’ money and asking for applause. It is not a 14.8 billion agreement: it is a headline with others’ money.
Second lie: the “40%”
The Ayuso Government boasts a 40% increase. That percentage is designed for the headline. It is obtained by comparing the last year with 2025 to increase the increment, but the agreement period is 2026-2031, and from 2026 the increase is 28.1%: from 1,280.8 million to 1,640.1 million. In other words: the 40% is the poster photo. The real agreement is 28%.
If the Government wants to sustain the 40% narrative as the agreement increase, it would have to increase the 2026 budget immediately. If it does not, it could also acknowledge that the increase is 28%. But it is unlikely to do either.
Third lie: “historic recovery”
Here the propaganda falls apart on its own. In current euros it may seem an improvement. But if we discount inflation and see the budget evolution from the previous economic crisis of 2009 to 2025, the conclusion is very clear: the agreement does not recover what was lost.
Read more The Generalitat is finalizing the creation of the Office for the Promotion of Catalan Teams
To maintain in 2031 the same purchasing power as in 2009, compensate for the increase in the cost of living and maintain the same real amount, the accumulated nominal increase should be approximately 59.8%. However, the planned increase, assuming it is actually fulfilled, remains at 35%. That is, 20 points less. In practical terms: at the end of the period we will still be below the real level of 2009.
That is the uncomfortable truth: there is no historic recovery. There is an improvement that arrives late, after years of accumulated loss, with more students, higher structural costs, and an excessive and unfair dependence on fees.
The fine print: the agreement is decided each year in the Budgets
This is the decisive fine print and, curiously, the one least repeated in headlines: the real concretion of the agreement is tied to the annual approval of the Budgets. The agreement does not automatically finance, but sets a path that will be applied without prejudice to its annual concretion in the Budget Law. That is, it is a framework that must be verified each year.
However, the PP Government has already failed to meet previous financing commitments and only did so when forced by the courts. That is why it is essential, and as citizens we must demand, that each year the breakdown is published and accountability is given to check what is fulfilled, what is postponed, and what is not.
From suffocation to induced coma
In conclusion, with these three lies and this fine print, the agreement does not correct the model: it maintains dependence on revenues outside the regional budget, maintains the weight of fees, and changes the public debate from sufficiency and rights to headlines and percentages. That is why the final image is the step from suffocation to induced coma. Institutional sedation to cool the conflict, while the underlying structure remains and families keep paying and young people compete for insufficient public places.
It is necessary to carry out a strategic planning of public university in the medium and long term and adopt a series of urgent measures to guarantee its quality and proper functioning. Among other issues: net and transparent regional financing, separating what Madrid contributes from what it does not; sustained reduction of undergraduate and qualifying master’s fees, with a clear path to approach gratuity, in coherence with state regulations; scholarships with real regional complement; stabilization of faculty and PTGAS, with a multi-year plan of positions to end structural precariousness; and an infrastructure and rehabilitation plan, programmed and verifiable in campuses, laboratories, energy efficiency, accessibility, and safety.
Let’s return to Groucho: Who to believe, the Government or your own eyes? Here there is no need to choose: just read the annex, separate sources, and look at the fine print.
Read more Referendum at Complutense
