LFP and CVC Capital Partners agreement – The League won a legal victory against Le Havre

This is a first victory for the Professional Football League. The LFP obtained from the Parisian justice to cancel the seizure of 7.5 million euros granted to Le Havre as part of the conflict between the body to the club on the distribution of the financial manna of the CVC commercial subsidiary. The judge of the execution of the Paris judicial court, which contrasts the decisions in civil matters, ordered Friday “The release of the conservatory entry“Authorized on November 27, believing that” the claim is not founded in principle“, According to the decision consulted by AFP.

Le Havre, promoted to Ligue 1 in 2023, had denounced an unequal distribution of the sums resulting from the agreement concluded in April 2022 between the LFP and CVC Capital Partners. This agreement, which had given birth to a commercial company, was to bring 1.5 billion euros to French football (L1 and L2) in exchange for 13.04% of its lifetime income for the benefit of the Luxembourg investment fund. This distribution had been voted in general assembly in April 2022 unanimously, with the voice of the Norman club, then in L2.

The aid provided for a payment of 600 million euros in the summer of 2022, divided into three groups of L1 clubs. PSG received 200 million euros, six clubs (OM, OL, Nice, Rennes, Monaco, Lille) each obtained between 80 and 90 million euros, and the others, including Le Havre, had each won 33 million euros. In this amount, 16.5 million were paid in July 2022 and the other half in June 2023.

The L2 teams had to receive 3 million euros over the same period, if it remained in the second division from 2021-2022 to 2024-2025. This is not the case with Le Havre, promoted in the elite after his coronation in L2 in 2023 and which had been deprived of half of this sum. The Norman club considers herself cheated according to his lawyer, Gauthier Moreuil, because he only received 1.5 million euros instead of 3.

If the judge admitted that this sharing was able to arouse “misunderstandings”, these “However, are not enough to impose the reading of the agreement in fact the hac“. The initial agreement” did not impose “the LFP” to take into consideration the evolution of HAC status in this unforeseen sense by commitment “, specifies the judgment.