Separating emotion from capital
On December 22, 2025, on a Canal+ set, the image is striking. Marcel Desailly, former captain of the French national team, 1998 World Cup champion, double winner of the Champions League, collapses in tears. The harsh truth is revealed: nearly 2 million euros in debt, suffocating tax pressure, dried-up media revenues, loneliness exacerbated by divorce. What is even more troubling is that the French football icon admits to having lost several million euros in investments made in Africa, particularly in Ghana and, more indirectly, in Senegal. He, who believed to have generated nearly 100 million euros throughout his career, finds himself trapped by poorly managed projects, fragile partnerships, and inadequate governance.
This testimony shocked, divided, and sometimes disturbed. It raises a central question: is the problem Africa… or the way in which a part of the diaspora invests there? When emotion precedes method The Desailly case is not that of a cynical investor seeking quick returns. On the contrary, it is emblematic of an emotional investment: a return to the continent, a desire to “help”, to structure, to transmit. But the economy is indifferent to intentions. In his own words, the former international player admits to having committed significant capital without the standard safeguards: thorough due diligence, majority control, independent reporting, clear exit clauses. The figure is cruel: a few million euros invested without structure were enough to weaken a heritage built over several decades.
The classic bias of the diaspora
The African diaspora often invests with a dual logic:
• emotional impact (return, contribution, image),
• expected returns (real estate, sports, training).
The trap occurs when emotional impact supersedes financial discipline. “Impact” projects require even more rigor than traditional investments, as they operate in complex and sometimes asymmetrical legal environments.
Governance, always governance
In the Desailly case, as in many similar failures, the difficulties do not seem to come from the chosen sector, but from the governance of the projects:
• informal partnerships,
• dependence on a single intermediary,
• lack of operational control,
• insufficient traceability of financial flows.
The rule is universal: capital that does not control becomes vulnerable. Trust is not a governance strategy.
Fame ≠ investment competence
Another common illusion: confusing professional success with mastery of capital allocation. Fame opens doors, but it does not open balance sheets. Institutional investors who succeed in Africa proceed step by step: progressive investments, prior audits, investment committees, exit scenarios. Fame often skips these steps.
Taxation and liquidity: blind spots
Desailly’s testimony also highlights two risks underestimated by the diaspora:
• poorly anticipated cross-border taxation;
• illiquidity of assets, turning a “promising” investment into a financial trap. An asset can have a high theoretical value and yet be impossible to monetize.
In conclusion, three operational lessons emerge clearly:
1. Separate emotion from capital: invest methodically, not out of loyalty.
2. Institutionalize projects: strong legal structures, audits, independent governance.
3. Scale up gradually: test governance before increasing amounts.
It goes without saying that in this case, as in many others, Africa is not the problem. The case of Marcel Desailly should neither discourage nor stigmatize. It should alert. Africa is not a trap; it is a demanding market. Those who succeed there are not the most passionate, but the most structured. Diaspora investment will become more efficient when treated as a profession, not as an act of faith. Glory protects trophies, not capital allocation errors. Perhaps this is the toughest – and most useful – lesson that Marcel Desailly leaves us today.
