Manchester City could be liable to pay former player Benjamin Mendy £8.5 million in unpaid wages after he won an employment tribunal against the club.
The tribunal followed Mendy’s acquittal of rape charges, which City had cited as the reason for withholding his salary during the final 22 months of his contract—a sum originally amounting to £11 million.
Despite Mendy’s eventual exoneration, Manchester City argued that they were justified in not paying him due to his legal troubles.
However, the tribunal ruled that the club was only entitled to withhold five months of salary, equivalent to £2.5 million, covering the period Mendy was in custody for breaching bail conditions.
Judge Joanne Dunlop, who presided over the case, explained that Mendy’s custody was partly due to his breach of bail conditions, making this period a valid exception for withheld wages.
However, the judge found that during other periods, Mendy was unable to perform his contract obligations due to suspension by the Football Association (FA), which was precautionary, not punitive, and carried no findings of misconduct.
“The suspension imposed by the FA acted as an unavoidable impediment to Mr. Mendy’s contractual performance,” the judge noted, adding that his contract lacked provisions allowing City to withhold wages under these conditions.
Mendy’s claim for the full £11 million was adjusted to account for his time in custody, with exact payments to be determined by both parties or through further hearings if necessary.
During his suspension, Mendy reportedly received financial support from teammates, including Raheem Sterling, Bernardo Silva, and Riyad Mahrez.
He stated that his social activities, including parties, were in line with those of other players at the club.
Written evidence referenced an article naming Jack Grealish, Kyle Walker, and others as attending these gatherings, although no wrongdoing by his teammates was suggested.
Ultimately, while Mendy’s house parties and legal battles sparked intense scrutiny, the tribunal ruled in his favour for the majority of the withheld salary, recognising that the suspension and bail conditions were significant factors beyond his control.
