Photographed on May 12, 2021, Maxime Saada here embodies Canal+’s decision-making power over French cinema. His image criterion now fuels a conflict with the CGT Spectacle. Credits: EnzoCorse / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.
Canal+ had just concluded a €980 million agreement to finance French and European cinema between 2028 and 2032. The next day, Tuesday, July 28, Maxime Saada confirmed that the group would sideline certain projects to protect its image. The CGT Spectacle sees this as a “blacklist” targeting 4,500 professionals. This confrontation is putting the group’s commitments to plurality made with the industry to the test.
Maxime Saada’s “1%” Versus the CGT’s “4,500”
Maxime Saada is standing by the position he set out in May, during the Cannes Film Festival. In a segment aired by France Inter, the chairman of Canal+’s management board spells out his stance. He says: “If people harm Canal+’s image, we won’t finance their film.” He says this decision would concern only 1% of the signatories of the Zapper Bolloré op-ed, without identifying the people or projects targeted.
The Zapper Bolloré op-ed was published on the eve of the 2026 Cannes Film Festival. Its authors denounced what they describe as the growing influence of Vincent Bolloré and the far right on cinema. It had about 600 signatures when Maxime Saada responded in May. By late July, public counts range from more than 4,500 to 4,600 signatories.
The CGT Spectacle uses the figure of 4,500 professionals to gauge the possible scope of the decision. Yet the two sets do not clearly overlap. Maxime Saada alternately speaks of the films’ “instigators” and of a fraction of the signatories. The union believes they all risk being affected. At this stage, no specific refusal attributed to this criterion has been made public. The material existence of a blacklist kept by Canal+ has not been established either.
A Civil Lawsuit Already Filed In Nanterre
The legal action did not begin with the new remarks on July 28. On May 23, CGT Spectacle and the Human Rights League announced that they had filed a lawsuit against Canal+ before the Nanterre court. AFP said it had reviewed the filing. It asks the judge to prohibit the group from exclusion measures or refusals to collaborate targeting signatories.
A filing brings a civil court case; by itself, it does not prove discrimination was committed. That remains the claim of the plaintiffs until the court rules. When contacted by AFP in May, Canal+ management declined to comment on the proceedings.
On Tuesday, CGT Spectacle general secretary Ghislain Gauthier again denounced a risk for “4,500 professionals”. He said he hoped for a hearing date in January and called for a law against financial concentration in cinema. The timeline mentioned remains a union indication: as of July 29, no hearing date announced by the court is known.
A €980 Million Deal Promising Plurality
The contrast is all the sharper because Canal+ had just concluded what was presented as a historic deal. Signed on July 27 with the BLIC, several organizations that are members of the BLOC, and L’ARP, it commits Canal+ and CINÉ+ OCS for five years. The group must dedicate a total of €980 million to French and European films starting in 2028.
In the joint statement, the parties promise to preserve the diversity of works, the plurality of perspectives, and the renewal of talent. They announce stronger support for new filmmakers, debut features, and animated works. Also included are films from the diversity sector and so-called “mid-range” productions. Their economics sit between ultra-low-budget cinema and the most commercial projects.
Canal+ also stresses that this investment will allow it to keep offering films six months after their theatrical release. Maxime Saada, for his part, says the group will not change its diversity policy. The statement, however, does not define “harm to image” or the authority that will assess this criterion. It provides no public mechanism to verify its compatibility with plurality commitments.
Why Canal+’s Choice Matters Before Filming Even Starts
French cinema financing partly relies on money committed by broadcasters before films are finished. The CNC defines pre-purchase as the advance acquisition of broadcast rights. For a producer, this promise of revenue helps secure a film’s financing plan before or during production.
A Canal+ refusal therefore does not amount to a ban on shooting. A project can look for other broadcasters, co-producers, or funding sources. But losing a major pre-purchase can weaken its budget, delay production, or reduce its ambition. It is this upstream selection power that gives the dispute real weight, beyond public statements.
The €980 million commitment confirms Canal+’s clout in this ecosystem. It does not prove that signatories will actually be denied funding. Still, the definition of the criterion announced by Maxime Saada concerns the entire industry. A decision targeting one person can affect a collective project involving writers, producers, technicians, and performers.
Three Gray Areas At The Heart Of The Conflict
The first concerns who is targeted. The word “instigators” may refer to the people behind a film, the authors of the op-ed, or an even narrower group. As it stands, the 1% figure put forward by Maxime Saada contradicts the idea that all 4,500 signatories would be excluded. Canal+ has not made public any list or selection method that would resolve this contradiction.
The second concerns how the criterion will be applied. No rejected project, no internal procedure, and no appeal process have been publicly documented. Without a concrete case, the economic effect of the group’s position remains impossible to measure. Nor can one distinguish between a general threat and a policy already implemented.
The third is legal. The lawsuit exists and its request is identified, but its timetable remains to be confirmed. The court will examine the arguments of the applicant organizations and those of Canal+. No ruling today allows the denounced practice to be legally qualified.
As of July 29, two facts are therefore established. Canal+ has promised an unprecedented investment along with commitments to plurality. Its leader maintains that harm to the group’s image may weigh on certain film choices. The term “blacklist” remains the CGT Spectacle’s. The issue now will be to determine whom this criterion applies to and whether it produces verifiable refusals.