The activities of IFEMA, the main shareholder behind the Formula 1 Spanish Grand Prix in Madrid, have become the subject of growing debate.
The Community of Madrid has transformed Spain’s largest exhibition centre into an organisation that generates enormous financial resources while operating with limited transparency. IFEMA is far more than the venue that hosts internationally renowned events such as FITUR, the tourism trade fair that set a new record in January by welcoming professional visitors from 156 countries.
It has become a powerful economic engine capable of generating wealth, prestige and influence, operating with a budget exceeding €180 million and an estimated economic impact of nearly €5.8 billion across the Madrid region. Despite being predominantly publicly owned, however, it remains outside many of the oversight mechanisms that normally apply to the rest of the public sector.
Since 2018, IFEMA has no longer been included in the Community of Madrid’s general public accounts. This exclusion, reaffirmed every year through the regional budget laws, keeps the organisation outside standard public oversight even though it is owned equally—31% each—by the Community of Madrid, Madrid City Council and the Madrid Chamber of Commerce, with the remaining 7% held by the Montemadrid Foundation.
As a result, IFEMA effectively operates as an independent entity, following a governance model more commonly associated with private companies of the past, without being directly accountable to citizens. The justification relies on a transitional provision contained in Law 27/2013, despite the fact that Law 40/2015 now requires all majority publicly owned companies to be consolidated into the financial statements of the relevant public administration. This exceptional status has raised questions over its compatibility with Spain’s national legal framework.
Consequences for governance and financial risks
The absence of integration into the public accounts effectively places audits, contracts and spending decisions solely under IFEMA’s internal management, with limited external supervision and without parliamentary scrutiny. This has resulted in a consolidated model of financial self-governance operating under the protection of the regional executive.
The approach reflects a broader philosophy in the management of Madrid’s public affairs: considerable freedom for economic initiatives, limited transparency regarding public funds and exposure to financial risks that many believe could have been avoided.
One of the clearest examples is IFEMA’s appointment as organiser of the Formula 1 Spanish Grand Prix. Although the project has the potential to generate strong public support, it remains surrounded by uncertainty precisely because of the perceived lack of transparency and dialogue.
The main construction works have been estimated at €83.2 million, with a further €51 million required for additional modifications. Overall financial exposure could reportedly reach as much as €270 million. The contract signed with Formula 1 companies has never been made public.
Even the Montemadrid Foundation requested to withdraw from the consortium after judging the financial risk to be unsustainable, while both the regional government and Madrid City Council continue to defend the project as a major opportunity for the Spanish capital.
The concerns over transparency are nothing new. As early as 2013, opposition parties were already reporting difficulties in obtaining access to IFEMA’s financial accounts, despite the organisation being majority controlled by public institutions. At the time, annual revenues were around €100 million, with 427 employees and approximately €18 million spent on salaries. However, access to the information was denied on the grounds that the figures had not been produced directly by the public administration.
More than a decade later, little appears to have changed. Parliamentary groups in the Madrid Assembly continue to see requests for information regularly rejected on grounds they consider to be merely procedural excuses. By contrast, organisations such as Fira de Barcelona are fully integrated into municipal accounts, benefiting from stronger auditing and oversight procedures while maintaining their operational independence.
Ferrari inaugurates the Madring
Against this backdrop of infrastructure development centred around IFEMA, Ferrari completed a filming day at the Madring, becoming the first team to officially inaugurate the circuit while gathering valuable track data and giving race marshals their first practical experience.
On Thursday, Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton drove the SF-26 around the new 5.416-kilometre layout, completing the maximum 200 kilometres permitted under Formula 1 filming day regulations. It marked the very first laps by a current-generation Formula 1 car on the hybrid street-permanent circuit, which features 22 corners, high-speed straights capable of producing speeds above 340 km/h, and the spectacular 24% banked corner known as “La Monumental.”
Beyond its promotional purpose, the session also enabled Ferrari to collect valuable information on grip levels, asphalt characteristics and the overall behaviour of the circuit ahead of the Spanish Grand Prix, which is scheduled to take place on 13 September. Ferrari therefore earned the distinction of becoming the first team to officially christen the new Madring with a modern Formula 1 car.
A model that privatizes benefits while socializing risks
According to critics, IFEMA represents a model of governance that tends to privatize profits, socialize risks and shield decision-making from public scrutiny. What should function as an institution serving the wider community risks becoming an organisation that operates without full accountability, where public resources are managed according to private-sector logic.
Bringing IFEMA into the Community of Madrid’s general accounts—as has been successfully implemented elsewhere—would not reduce its operational flexibility but would instead strengthen its transparency and democratic legitimacy. Maintaining the current structure, on the other hand, only reinforces a system that distances public authority from genuine oversight by citizens.
Leave a Reply