Marseille fight for TV rights

By Christian Isnard

A dispute over the distribution of television revenue has left one of France's most popular clubs, Olympique de Marseille, at loggerheads with the French League (LFP) and French Football Federation (FFF).

Marseille issued writ
After several months of argument, OM chairman Christophe Bouchet made the first move in a legal battle with France football's hierarchy last Thursday. Bouchet issued a writ against the FFF and LFP to secure a greater share of television revenue for the Provençal club.

Most televised team
Marseille are unhappy about the way income from television is presently divided between France's 20 top-flight clubs. They argue that, as the team who have played most televised matches this season, they deserve a larger slice of the pie. Thirty-two of Marseille's matches this season have been screened live, compared with just one of ES Troyes Aube Champagne's - yet the two clubs receive a near-equal share of television money.

Way the split works
In France, the division of television money sees 83 per cent of revenue shared between the 20 Ligue 1 clubs with only seven per cent divided according to which sides have their matches broadcast. The remaining ten per cent is doled out in accordance with a club's position in the table.

Heart of the matter
The clubs approved a draft plan in early 2002 which provided for half of the television revenue being distributed according to the number of live matches per team, their pulling power and league position. However, the document was revised, with the LFP amending it from 50 per cent to the current seven per cent - much to OM's anger.

Bouchet's case
Bouchet said: "The share should go like this. 50 per cent of the TV rights should be shared between all the clubs, 25 per cent should be distributed according to the position of the club in the standings and the rest should take into account the broadcasting of the games."

Thiriez responds
Frédéric Thiriez, the LFP chairman, who is a lawyer himself, described Bouchet's action as "media posturing". He said: "Without this solidarity there would not be professional competitions. Now this solidarity is written in the agreement every club has signed, including Marseille."

'No dialogue'
OM have also issued a complaint to the French Competition and Fraud Council. "The decisions [to broadcast matches] are taken without any dialogue," Bouchet said. "We don't know how these decisions are taken and how the timetable is set." OM estimate that they have lost €30-38m because of the present system of distribution and are seeking compensation.

In support
OM winning this battle would probably take French football a step closer toward the Italian model where the top clubs negotiate their TV rights individually. It is little surprise, then, that wealthier clubs are watching Marseille's battle with interest. An Olympique Lyonnais spokesman said: "Lyon are not against the ideas of Marseille, but we do not approve of the methods." Jean-Louis Triaud, the chairman of FC Girondins de Bordeaux, added: "We are considered as companies but we don't own all the tools to raise profits."

Troyes opposed
Troyes chairman Daniel Vacelet spoke up for the smaller clubs when he said: "To bring an action against the LFP is distressing. I'm firmly against the fact that heavyweights like Marseille should take more money." Gervais Martel, RC Lens president, who is also both chairman of the professional clubs' union and the LFP vice-chairman, added: "This proceeding will fail. We all agreed to solidarity and equal distribution two years ago. Marseille agreed too."