In the weeks leading up to Real Madrid’s latest general assembly, most of the real movement was happening away from microphones and formal speeches. Conversations were taking place with lawyers, financial advisers and a small circle of trusted executives, all circling the same question: how far the club could go in reshaping its economic structure without breaking with its identity as a members-owned institution.
That context may explain why Florentino Pérez’s harsh language on the Negreira case landed
when it did. In November of last year, the Madrid president delivered some of his strongest public attacks yet on FC Barcelona and Spanish refereeing. The tone was sharper than usual, even by his standards. Publicly, it was framed as a matter of principle. Internally, at least according to Barcelona-based Mundo Deportivo, it was also because the club was edging toward a decision that would require broad support from its membership.
The project under discussion involves the creation of a new commercial company linked to Real Madrid, initially valued at around €8 billion, with internal estimates suggesting it could reach €10 billion. The club would retain a dominant position, somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of the shares, while a minority stake would be opened to an external investor, respecting the minimum thresholds required by Spanish company law.
Anas Laghrari, Pérez’s long-time financial confidant, has become central to the process. After years operating discreetly through Key Capital, the financier has taken a more visible role since launching his own firm, Anel Capital, alongside his wife. Spanish media have linked him to exploratory contacts with international investors. These range from U.S. funds to European private capital, as the club maps out how such a structure could work in practice.
Florentino himself had already prepared the ground publicly. At the November 2025 assembly, he told members: “Our club must have an organizational structure that protects us as an institution and also protects all of us as owners of Real Madrid. For that reason, I confirm that we will bring to this assembly a proposal for a corporate reorganization that secures our future, protects us from the threats we face and, above all, guarantees that the members are truly the owners of our club and its economic assets.”
The key point, as reported by El Periódico, is that this would not turn Real Madrid into a sports limited company – that is, a company owned by shareholders and not members. Spanish law offers no middle ground similar to the German 50+1 model that Pérez has reportedly often cited in private conversations with members. Instead, the workaround would be a subsidiary company handling certain commercial activities, while the club itself remains formally owned and governed by its socios.
Real Madrid already has experience in this area. Real Madrid Estadio SL, created in 2021, manages parts of the Santiago Bernabéu’s business ecosystem and owns other companies such as Aparcamientos del Santiago Bernabéu SL. The club’s agreement with Sixth Street and Legends, which involved selling 20 percent of future stadium revenue for 20 years in exchange for €360 million, followed a similar logic: cash without surrendering ownership of the core asset.
According to Mundo Deportivo, groups focused on protecting the club’s heritage are pushing for firm limits written into the statutes, specifically to prevent any external investor from ever exceeding 50 percent within a future company. The fear is not about tomorrow, but about what could happen through successive capital increases years down the line. This shows that not everyone within the club is happy with the plan.
It is against that backdrop that Pérez’s renewed focus on the Negreira case has been read by some as politically useful, even if not officially framed that way. Speaking at the assembly last year, the president said: “It’s not normal that Barcelona has paid the vice president of referees more than €8 million for at least 17 years, whatever the reason. I repeat: Whatever the reason, it’s not normal.”
The Negreira case centers on payments made by FC Barcelona between 2001 and 2018 to a company linked to former referees’ committee vice president José María Enríquez Negreira, which the club says were for technical reports and refereeing advice. The matter remains under judicial investigation, with Barcelona denying any sporting corruption. There is no final ruling, meaning no crime has been conclusively proven, or at least not yet.
Pérez went further, questioning the possibility of neutrality while figures connected to that era remain within Spanish refereeing structures, and noting that FIFA did not appoint a single Spanish referee to the last Club World Cup.
We can’t say for sure that this rhetoric is deliberately being used to distract from Real Madrid’s internal debate, and the club has made no such admission. What is true is that both conversations are unfolding at the same time. One plays out loudly, in assemblies and headlines. The other moves more cautiously, through draft proposals, legal opinions and closed-door meetings that could eventually redefine how the club finances its future.
Any formal step will still require approval from the membership, possibly through an extraordinary assembly or even a referendum. Until then, Pérez’s most ambitious off-pitch project remains unfinished. Real Madrid continues to balance public confrontation with quiet structural change. And whether that’s a coincidence or connected is up to you to decide.
