Could Dimitri Payet’s signing turn Olympique Marseille around? Frank McCourt’s history suggests otherwise.

Dimitri Payet has returned to Olympique Marseille in a bit of a feel-good story. Marseille, in need of a boost, gets a superstar player. Payet, who didn’t want to play for West Ham anymore, gets to return to his former club. And while West Ham fans won’t be pleased with Payet, scoring a £25 million transfer fee while also getting all of Payet’s £120,000 ($149,785 U.S.) wages off the books is a coup. He’s 29 and in bad form, he went on strike, signed a huge contract in the offseason, and West Ham only paid £11 million for him in the first place. Everybody wins.

At least in the short-term, that is. In the long-term, Marseille supporters should probably be asking questions about whether this is a wise investment. It’s a lot of money for a player with minimal resale value, spent by a club that doesn’t generate big revenues, owned by a man with a history of guiding sports teams into financial problems.

That man is Frank McCourt, who you might remember as the former owner of MLB’s Los Angeles Dodgers. McCourt purchased OM for €45 million in October and pledged to invest €200 million in the club over the next four years. Before his purchase, the club was in deep trouble financially, and had to sell an army of solid players in order to pay the bills. Nicolas Nkoulou, Lucas Ocampos, Georges-Kevin N’Koudou, Michy Batshuayi, Benjamin Mendy, Brice Dja Djedje, and Steve Mandanda were all sold off to reduce the club’s payroll and debt.

Given the total gut-job that Marseille had to do on their squad over the summer, they’re not performing too badly. OM currently sits sixth in Ligue 1 and still has a shot to make Europa League. However, they’re 13 points out of a Champions League spot, a margin that’s probably too large for them to make up. Their plus-two goal differential — compared to third-placed Paris Saint-Germain’s plus-26 and second-placed OGC Nice’s plus-23 — suggests they’re lucky to be as close as they are.

Marseille needs to invest in good players — and a lot of them — if they want to enter next season with a chance of getting back into Ligue 1’s top three. But it’s worth noting that Marseille will be subject to financial fair play regulations once they get back into European competition. Those regulations prevent Marseille from spending significantly more money than they earn, and what they earn isn’t much.

Marseille currently sits outside of the top 30 in the Deloitte Money League after being a fixture inside of the top 20 for most of the time Deloitte has been tracking soccer clubs’ finances. Here’s what Deloitte had to say about French clubs in their report.

“While the development of Paris Saint-Germain both on and off the pitch continues apace, there is currently limited evidence of other French clubs challenging for a place in the top 30. Despite significant investment in stadium developments for the hosting of UEFA Euro 2016, it is unlikely that this will have a significant impact in pushing more French clubs into future Money League editions and former Money League regulars, Olympique Lyonnais and Olympique de Marseille, appear further away than ever in challenging to regain a top 20 position.”

While Ligue 1 is catching up with La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga in terms of television money, it’s still lagging a bit behind — and it’s miles behind the Premier League. Here’s another bit from the Deloitte report, on PSG’s finances.

“PSG’s broadcast revenue remains considerably lower than that of its Money League peers. It is over €90 million less than the three clubs with the largest broadcast revenue, and 13th of the clubs in the top 20 reflecting the relative strength of its competitors’ domestic league broadcast deals. Of PSG’s €105.8 million from broadcast sources over half (€56.2 million) is from UEFA distributions demonstrating the importance of participating in, and progressing to the latter stages of, the Champions League.”

Ligue 1 clubs make, on average, €9 million per club from domestic TV and €4 million per club from international TV. Because Marseille is a popular club that gets on TV frequently and usually finishes in the top half of Ligue 1, they make more than that, though we’re unable to figure out exactly how much, and Marseille didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment.

If Deloitte’s numbers are accurate, the rough ceiling for a French club’s domestic TV money is what PSG makes. A simple subtraction of UEFA distributions from total TV money leaves €49.6 million. They likely made some money from independently marketed friendlies, but the bulk of that money comes from Ligue 1 distributions.

If you’re wondering how it’s possible for PSG to make so much above the average, the terms of the league’s international broadcast deal have a clue — “any income earned over the guaranteed figure will be split evenly between the league and beIN Sports.” So it’s possible that beIN Sports is making a lot of money off advertising on Ligue 1 games, a disproportionate amount of that is on PSG games, and PSG is earning the bulk of that money. While we have no evidence or reason to believe that PSG is using beIN Sports to skirt FFP, we should note that Nasser Al-Khelaifi is the Chairman and CEO of both PSG and beIN Sports.

The current Ligue 1 domestic television deal runs through the 2019-20 season, while their international TV deal runs through the 2023-24 season. Marseille can’t count on Ligue 1 TV money getting better anytime soon. And even if they get closer to PSG’s earnings, they’ll still fall well short of the €93 million that the average Premier League team earns from the league in TV money — a big reason why historically small clubs like West Bromwich Albion and Swansea City have bigger revenues than Marseille, a historical giant.

Marseille will also struggle to emulate PSG’s model of generating revenue through sponsorship. PSG’s biggest sponsor is the Qatar Tourism Authority, whose €175 million per year deal with the club provides an estimated 36 percent of their revenue. PSG is owned by the Qatar Investment Authority, a state-owned holding company.

The Qatar Tourism Authority is a branch of the government of Qatar. PSG was hit with FFP sanctions over their initial deal with the QTA, but they were eventually lifted. PSG renewed the deal with QTA in 2016, and believes that they will not be sanctioned by UEFA this time around because they’re a much stronger global brand, and therefore the deal now reflects fair market value.

It’s likely that Marseille will get a boost in kit manufacturer revenue shortly, though it won’t be huge. They currently make €10 million per season from their deal with Adidas, who has offered €14 million per season to renew. Between their ambitious signing of Payet and bids from other companies, they’ll probably get an even better deal than that, but they’ll struggle to match their competitors. PSG’s deal with Nike pays them €22 million per season, while Juventus and AC Milan each make that much or more as well.

This is to say nothing of the monster deals that FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, and the four most popular Premier League clubs pull in. The two of the Premier League’s big six that are lagging behind — Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City — will pass them shortly. Spurs’ new deal is worth an estimated £30 million per season, while City’s current contract with Nike runs through the 2018-19 campaign.

Marseille is, notably, not backed by the Emir of Qatar or the head of state of any other rich nation. McCourt is not in charge of a country’s tourism authority or a major international broadcasting company. He does not control a major international apparel company. There is no easy avenue for Marseille to take to become a financial powerhouse.

Given all of this information, it’s fair to ask how McCourt can pump €200 million into Marseille, comply with FFP if the club makes it back to continental competition, and provide him with a significant return on investment.

Thanks to his sale of the Los Angeles Dodgers, McCourt should have quite a bit of money, so that’s no worry right now — it’s estimated that he made nearly $2 billion off the sale of the team, and he still makes seven figures per year off their parking lots. Having said that, his management of the Dodgers and issues with his personal finances near the end of his tenure do not inspire confidence.

McCourt’s Dodgers won their division the year he bought them, but finished with a 71-91 record in his second season, leading to a major front office and roster reshuffle. The team had a winning record over the next four seasons, but just prior to the 2009 National League Championship Series, he started divorce proceedings with his now ex-wife Jamie, who was the Dodgers CEO at the time. He fired her and said she had no claim to ownership of the team, leading to a two-plus year dispute over the Dodgers.

During those proceedings, Frank McCourt struggled to meet the Dodgers’ payroll and attempted to take the team into bankruptcy to retain ownership. Jamie McCourt’s attorneys also accused Frank of using the Dodgers like a “slush fund” for himself. He was eventually stripped of the team by MLB, who sold the team to the current owners, Guggenheim Partners. Frank McCourt reached a settlement with Jamie worth $130 million, which was paid to her out of his profits from MLB selling the team for him.

So Marseille — a team that was in serious financial distress just six months ago, and that also has no reasonable hope of significantly increasing their revenue anytime soon — is trusting this man to make sound decisions. McCourt just committed €60 million over the next four and a half seasons to a 29-year-old who went on strike at his last club and was in poor form before he did so.

If there’s a model for how to go from nowhere to big club in Ligue 1, it’s AS Monaco. Dmitry Rybolovlev — a far richer man than McCourt — purchased the club in 2011 and quickly pumped tons of his own money into the team. However, FFP was passed soon afterwards, and Rybolovlev had to change his strategy. James Rodriguez was sold, Radamel Falcao was loaned out, and a slew of young players were purchased while most of the club’s talented youngsters were retained.

Since then, Monaco has continued to turn over their squad, selling players for big profits while replacing them with other young, inexpensive talents that are likely to appreciate in value. Because of those sales, Monaco is now a self-sustaining business that doesn’t need Rybolovlev’s personal fortune or help from other companies he has a stake in.

What Marseille should be doing is spending a lot of money on young players whose value is likely to increase while they’re not subject to FFP. Instead, they’re buying guys like Payet, who is unlikely to have significant resale value. They’ve also picked up 35-year-old Patrice Evra, who obviously has no resale value.

Also among the club’s current top contributors are 34-year-old Yoan Pele, 35-year-old Rod Fanni, 31-year-old Rolando, 31-year-old Tomas Hubocan, 31-year-old Lassana Diarra, and 31-year-old Bafetimbi Gomis. While those players’ signings all predate McCourt, they should have been a signal of what his team needs to do in the transfer market.

The signing of 22-year-old Montpellier midfielder Morgan Sanson is a good sign, but other rumors don’t inspire confidence in Marseille’s transfer dealings. Those rumored transfers include one for Gregory Sertic, who is already 27, and a €20 million move for Gianluca Lapadula, a 26-year-old striker who has only spent one half-season in a top flight league.

Marseille fans have suffered through five bleak campaigns since the 2010-11 season, the last time their club played up to what their standing in world soccer should be, based on their popularity. McCourt’s investment may return the club to success quickly, but there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical. Marseille’s transfer decisions have been poor, and they’re being signed off on by a man whose last ownership run turned disastrous.