the is conflicted Kylian Mbappe and Paris Saint-Germain has gone beyond being just another chapter in the long-running battle between a superstar and his club to become a landmark legal case in European football. There is no longer a question of a failed renewal or relocation real madrid but something deeper: what happens when the big contracts of modern football end up in court and the words clash on paper.
The starting point is the key. In France, the dispute is not resolved in sport but in normal labor jurisdiction. Xavier Salvatore, partner in the litigation department of Baker McKenzie in Paris, explains it clearly: “The Conseil de Prud’hommes is a first-level labor court that is competent in individual disputes between an employer and an employee, in this case between a club and a footballer”. The reason is structure: “in France they are employees, employed and employed under temporary employment contracts”.
The court’s decision is not final, but it sets the playing field. Salvatore explains that “this is the first decision that can be appealed to the competent appellate court within one month of notification of the decision to the parties”. However, the ruling includes a crucial element that conditions any club policy: provisional enforcement.
At the heart of the litigation, the legal debate has focused on a very specific issue. Carlos Hurtado, a sports lawyer at Baker McKenzie Madrid, explains that “the amount PSG has been ordered to pay Mbappe corresponds to unpaid wages and bonuses”. However, the court did not accept all of the player’s claims: “Mbappe’s claim to have his temporary contract reclassified as an indefinite contract was dismissed, as was his claim for moral harassment”. Nevertheless, the ruling was otherwise powerful: “the court also ordered the provisional enforcement of the judgment – meaning that PSG must pay the amount to Mbappe, even if it decides to appeal – and also ordered the publication of the judgment on PSG’s website”.
The amount PSG have been ordered to pay Mbappe corresponds to unpaid wages and bonuses
PSG’s main argument was based on the existence of an alleged verbal agreement in which the player would have waived these amounts. From a legal point of view, French law does not prohibit it, but it makes it almost impossible.
Salvatore reminds that “in theory, an oral contract can be valid under French law”, although he introduces a key nuance: “in practice, it is very difficult to prove its existence”. In fact, he emphasizes that “the French Court of Foreign Exchange tends to dismiss such claims, where the employer has not demonstrated the existence of such an agreement”.
The French currency court tends to dismiss such claims where the employer has not demonstrated the existence of such an agreement.
The Court’s exact reasoning cannot yet be analyzed in detail. “We haven’t had access to the full decision, so we can’t give a detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning,” Salvatore cautions. For now, he adds, “The decision is not yet available to the public, but it will soon be published on PSG’s official website, where the club has been ordered to make it available for one month”.
Under French law, an oral contract is not automatically void; however, it has very little chance of being enforced in practice
However, the legal framework is clear: “according to French law, an oral contract is not automatically void; however, it has very little chance of being enforced in practice, as it is extremely difficult to prove its existence”. Everything therefore points to the fact that “the court’s reasoning has focused on evidentiary elements that determine either the absence of such an obligation or the insufficient evidence to determine its existence”, something that can only be confirmed when the full text is made public.
During the proceedings, the pressure reported by the player’s defender was also discussed. Hurtado recalls that “one of Mbappe’s accusations was that he was subjected to moral harassment”, a figure which “according to French labor law consists of repeated actions that cause a deterioration of the working conditions of the individual and may have consequences for his physical or mental health”. However, he categorically concludes that “This claim was not accepted by the court”.
A special case
PSG also launched a high-profile economic offensive based on concepts such as perte de chance. Hurtado explains that “perte de chance” refers to the certain and direct loss of an opportunity that had a reasonable chance of materializing” and that “it is only compensable if the opportunity was real and serious, not imaginary. In this particular case, he adds, “one of PSG’s claims related to having lost the opportunity to have been able to transfer Mbappe to another club and receive a price for such a transfer.”
Even more complicated was the claim for moral or reputational damage. Hurtado recalls that “in most football-related litigation, claims for moral or reputational damages are usually made by players and not by clubs”. French jurisprudence on awarding parties such damages “is extremely limited, although not excluded in principle” and requires “the demonstration of real and direct damage to their image, supported by concrete evidence”.
The appeal appears to be the next logical step for PSG, although it is not without risks. Salvatore issues a clear warning: “If there is an appeal, the decision of the Court of Appeal could be even worse for PSG, as the Court of Appeal may consider that other claims made by Mbappe should be accepted and have been dismissed.
Apart from the special case, the impact on the market is obvious. Hurtado believes so “this case should encourage stricter contract-making practices”.
This issue should encourage stricter contract drafting
The trend, he explains, is that “clubs and players want to ensure to a greater extent that bonuses, loyalty bonuses and exit clauses are precisely defined and documented in writing”. “the formal integration of any secondary agreement into the main agreement to reduce the risk of litigation”.
In his professional experience, “many of these conflicts originate in a contract that does not clearly state the responsibilities and consequences of each party,” and when that happens, the risk of litigation increases.
From the player’s point of view, Hurtado perceives repeated mistakes. “It is not uncommon for players to rely on informal or verbal guarantees, side deals, or contracts that are not properly documented,” which then creates evidentiary issues. It also happens that “they sign contracts with vague or irreplaceable language without sufficiently anticipating the consequences of how these provisions can be interpreted in the event of a conflict” or even that they break formal obligations that weaken their legal position.
Looking to the future
That’s why he insists that “all commitments, especially financial ones, should be clear, precise and broad contractual provisions, leaving little room for interpretation,” and on the growing importance of obtaining expert advice, even where one party has more bargaining power.
Looking to the immediate future, Hurtado has no doubts: “It is most likely that PSG will appeal to the Court of Appeal”. The club, he explains, “has a significant financial and reputational interest in challenging the court order” and has already publicly stated its intention to do so, claiming it was in good faith.
Even so, he admits that “it is very difficult to predict the outcome of the appeal with certainty, but the majority of opinion is that the chances of success are low”, especially because “the Labor Court is the second authority to rule in favor of Mbappe, following the decision of the LFP Joint Appeal Committee on 25 October 2024”.The case remains open, but it leaves a lesson hard to ignore in elite soccer: When a conflict is played out in court, words carry little weight. What matters, almost always, is what is written.