The United Nations has placed Real Madrid president Florentino Pérez’s multinational construction company, ACS (Actividades de Construcción y Servicios, S.A.), and its subsidiary SEMI on its blacklist for involvement in projects linked to Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. The decision has ignited debate across political, sporting, and corporate circles, marking one of the most significant intersections yet between global football, international law, and the Middle East conflict.
According to El Mundo, the UN accuses ACS and SEMI of facilitating construction and infrastructure development that sustain illegal settlements. These include projects that allegedly use local resources, reinforce housing for settlers, and support energy and surveillance systems. Their inclusion comes as part of a larger update to the UN database of companies accused of operating in areas deemed unlawful under international law.
A Growing UN List
The UN announced that 70 new companies have been added following an independent fact-finding mission in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, bringing the blacklist to 158 firms. The list highlights corporations accused of directly or indirectly supporting settlement activity, the demolition of Palestinian homes, or exploitation of natural resources in disputed areas.
An estimated 700,000 Israeli settlers live across more than 250 settlements and outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. These communities are widely considered illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population into occupied territory. The UN has consistently reaffirmed this stance, despite Israel disputing its interpretation.
Spanish Companies Under Scrutiny
ACS is not the only Spanish firm targeted. Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF), a global railway manufacturer, and Ingeniería y Economía del Transporte (INECO), a public engineering company, are also included. Both deny involvement in settlement activities. ACS, meanwhile, has publicly rejected the UN’s findings, stressing it no longer has control over SEMI following its reported sale to French construction giant Vinci.
The company maintains it has no active contracts in Israel or Palestine. Critics, however, argue that corporate divestments are often structured in ways that obscure past obligations or ongoing indirect operations, making accountability difficult to enforce.
Political and Sporting Dimensions
The decision arrives at a sensitive time for Spain’s football and political communities. While several Spanish clubs and athletes have voiced support for Gaza amid Israel’s ongoing military campaign, Real Madrid has refrained from issuing any official condemnation of Israel’s actions. This silence has not gone unnoticed. During a recent La Liga match, Osasuna supporters unveiled a banner declaring, “Give Israel a Red Card,” signaling growing fan activism on the issue.
For Pérez, who has led Real Madrid since 2000 (with a brief hiatus between 2006 and 2009), the development is not just a business setback. It risks damaging his reputation at the helm of one of the world’s most prestigious sports institutions. Pérez’s dual role as both a football executive and corporate magnate makes him uniquely exposed to criticism from multiple directions.
Broader Implications for Global Business
The UN’s move signals a stronger stance toward corporate complicity in settlement expansion. Companies on the list face reputational damage, heightened scrutiny from investors, and potential exclusion from ethical investment portfolios. Some may encounter direct legal challenges depending on the jurisdictions in which they operate.
This development also reflects the increasing role of consumer and shareholder activism in shaping corporate behavior. Pension funds, universities, and international organizations may reassess their holdings in companies accused of profiting from occupied territories. The boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which has long lobbied for financial pressure on firms linked to Israel’s settlement economy, is expected to use the updated list as a rallying point.
The International Legal Landscape
International law is clear in its condemnation of settlements, yet enforcement has always been challenging. The UN Human Rights Council established the blacklist in 2020 after years of lobbying from Palestinian authorities and human rights organizations. However, the list has no binding enforcement mechanism. Instead, it serves as a tool for transparency and moral pressure, relying on public awareness and state-level action to create consequences.
Israel has repeatedly criticized the database, labeling it discriminatory and politically motivated. Its allies, including the United States, have also questioned the utility of such lists, arguing they unfairly target businesses while doing little to advance peace talks.
Reactions in Spain and Beyond
Spain’s political establishment has so far responded cautiously. While left-leaning groups have expressed support for the UN’s decision, calling it a necessary measure for accountability, more conservative voices argue that Spanish firms are being unfairly targeted. For Pérez, who is one of Spain’s most influential businessmen, political fallout could complicate his long-standing relationships with government officials and European institutions.
In the wider footballing world, reactions remain mixed. FIFA and UEFA have avoided direct comment, but player unions and fan groups have increasingly raised questions about the ethics of club affiliations with controversial corporate figures. The Real Madrid fan base itself remains divided, with some supporters defending Pérez as a businessman unfairly maligned, and others demanding greater transparency and accountability from the club’s leadership.
What Comes Next?
The UN’s updated list will likely continue to reverberate. For companies like ACS, the primary challenge is reputational. Investors will be forced to evaluate whether continued association is consistent with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) commitments. Shareholder questions could emerge at annual meetings, and the company may face increased difficulty competing for public contracts in countries that explicitly reject engagement with blacklisted firms.
For Pérez personally, the issue poses reputational risks beyond his corporate role. As football becomes more entangled with global politics and human rights debates, leaders like him cannot separate business from sport. His response—or lack thereof—may shape not only ACS’s future but also Real Madrid’s global brand.
Conclusion
The UN’s decision to blacklist ACS, SEMI, and other Spanish firms underscores the deepening link between business operations and international law. It highlights the growing importance of corporate responsibility in conflict zones, where even indirect involvement can have significant reputational and financial consequences. For Pérez, the situation is especially fraught, straddling the worlds of global business and elite football. How he navigates this crisis will be closely watched not only in Madrid and New York, but also in Ramallah, Tel Aviv, and Geneva.
