Canal + will have to continue to broadcast Ligue 1 and pay for French football TV rights, after being dismissed by the Versailles Court of Appeal in a dispute between it and BeIN Sports, according to a judgment rendered on Thursday in which the ‘AFP got a copy.
The status quo is extended: forced by justice to honor its part of the contract this summer, the encrypted channel failed in appeal and will have to continue broadcasting two Championship matches per day at a price of 332 million euros per season, a amount that it considers overstated.
It is a success for BeIN Sports, but also for the Professional Football League (LFP), systematically confirmed by the courts in recent months in this interminable conflict which opposes it to its historical broadcasters, Canal and BeIN.
By choosing to entrust the majority of matches to a new entrant, Amazon, to the detriment of the encrypted channel last June, the LFP had nevertheless exposed itself to the resentment of the Vivendi subsidiary, which has multiplied its appeals, without success so far. the.
Canal + considers itself “incapable of valuing its rights” against Amazon, which only pays 250 million euros per year for 80% of the matches including the ten best posters, against 332 million euros annually for its competitor, holder of 20% of the matches.
Thursday’s decision concerns one of the few parts of the case where BeIN and Canal oppose each other, as they walk hand in hand in numerous parallel proceedings brought against the LFP.
Canal + considered itself entitled to terminate the sub-license agreement which binds it to the Qatari broadcaster, initial winner of the call for tenders for the 2020-24 cycle. After having promised 332 million euros annually for 20% of L1, BeIN had resold these rights at the same price to Canal, via this sublicence.
But the Court of Appeal considered that there “is a doubt about the irreparable or irremediable nature of the breach alleged by Canal +” to its co-contractor, going in the same direction as the judge in chambers of the Commercial Court of Nanterre , in its decision of 5 August.