Real Madrid star Kylian Mbappe suffers setback in legal battle with PSG over unpaid salaries

The French Football Federation (FFF) has chosen not to hear Kylian Mbappe’s appeal in his ongoing salary dispute with Paris Saint-Germain, RMC reports.

The ongoing spat centres around Mbappe’s claim for €55.4 million in unpaid wages and bonuses from his final season in the French capital.

The Madrid superstar is demanding €36.6m in a contractual bonus, €5.75m per month for salaries owed from April to June 2024, and an additional €500,000 per month in ethical bonuses for the same period.

The Professional Football League’s (LFP) Legal Commission and Joint Commission had previously ruled in Mbappe’s favour, but the FFF’s Appeals Commission refused to take up the case.

The commission felt it lacked jurisdiction, especially since PSG had already referred the case to the Paris Labour Court.

Mbappe’s legal team, led by attorney Delphine Verheyden, also wanted the court to impose sporting sanctions on PSG.

This included a request for UEFA to intervene and potentially prohibit the club from participating in the Champions League, but the governing body didn’t want to get involved.

PSG has consistently argued that the case should be handled through ordinary legal channels rather than football’s internal judicial systems.

With the FFF now sidestepping Mbappe’s appeal, they’ve effectively solidified PSG’s position, which will delay any potential financial payout while awaiting the court’s decision.

PSG may have won this battle, but the war is far from over.

Football’s governing bodies have stepped away from the case, leaving it to the discretion of the court, but there’s no telling how long it’ll take for them to reach a verdict.

The dispute dates back to Mbappe’s contract saga in 2023.

After signing a two-year deal with PSG in 2022, with an option for a third, he later informed the club that he would not be activating the extension.

PSG argue that Mbappe had verbally committed to forfeiting the €55m in question, but there’s no formal contract amendment to support their claim.