tThe conflict between Kylian Mbappé and Paris Saint-Germain has become more than just another chapter in the long-running battle between superstar and club, it has become a landmark case in European football. It’s no longer a question of a failure to renew his contract or a move to Real Madrid, but a deeper issue. This is what happens when modern soccer’s big-ticket contracts end up in court, and words and documents collide.
The starting point is important. In France, this dispute is resolved in normal labor jurisdiction rather than in sports litigation. Xavier Salvatore, a partner in the litigation department at Baker McKenzie in Paris, makes it clear: “The Conseil de Prudhomme is a labor court of first instance that has jurisdiction over individual disputes between employers and workers, in this case between clubs and football players.” The reason for this is structural: “In France they are employees, hired and employed on a fixed-term contract.”
Kylian Mbapp scores an incredible goal during Real Madrid’s training session
The court’s decision is not final, but it sets the playing field. “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,” Salvatore explained. However, this judgment incorporates a decisive element that conditions the club’s strategy of provisional enforcement.
At the heart of litigation, legal arguments focus on very specific issues. Carlos Hurtado, a sports law lawyer at Baker McKenzie Madrid, said: “The amount that PSG has been ordered to pay Mbappe represents unpaid wages and bonuses.” However, the court did not accept all of the player’s claims, saying: “Mbappe’s claim to have his fixed-term contract reclassified as a permanent contract was rejected, as was his claim for moral harassment.” Still, the ruling was enforceable in other ways. “The court also ordered the provisional enforcement of the judgment, meaning that PSG must pay the amount to Mbappé even if it decides to appeal. It also ordered that the judgment be published on PSG’s website.”
The amount PSG has been ordered to pay Mbappe represents unpaid wages and bonuses.
PSG’s main argument was based on the existence of a verbal agreement in which the player waived these amounts. From a legal point of view, French law does not prohibit it, but it is subject to an almost impossible test.
“In theory, an oral agreement may be valid under French law,” Salvatore recalls, but he introduces an important nuance: “In practice, it is very difficult to prove the existence of an oral agreement.” In fact, he emphasizes that “the French Court of Cassation tends to reject such claims because the employer cannot prove the existence of such an agreement.”
The French Court of Cassation tends to reject such claims because the employer cannot prove the existence of such an agreement.
The exact reasoning of the court cannot yet be analyzed in detail. “We do not have access to the full text of the decision, so we cannot accurately explain the court’s reasoning,” Salvatore cautioned. For now, “this decision is not yet available to the public, but it will be published soon on PSG’s official website, as clubs have been ordered to make it accessible for one month,” he added.
According to French law, oral agreements are not automatically void. However, it is highly unlikely that it will actually be enforced
However, the legal framework is clear: “Although oral agreements are not automatically invalidated under French law, their existence is very difficult to prove and therefore it is unlikely to be enforced in practice.” Everything thus points to the fact that “the court’s reasoning focuses on aspects of the evidence that determine either the non-existence of such a promise or insufficient evidence to determine its existence,” something that can only be confirmed if the full text is made public.
During the proceedings, pressure reported by the player’s defense was also mentioned. “One of Mbappé’s claims was that he had been subjected to moral harassment,” Hurtado recalled. “According to French labor law, moral harassment refers to repeated acts that cause a deterioration of a person’s working conditions and may affect his physical or mental health.” However, he categorically concludes that “this argument was not accepted by the court.”
special case
PSG also launched a major economic offensive based on concepts such as perte de chance. Hurtado explains that “coincidence” refers to the definite and direct loss of an opportunity that has a reasonable probability of becoming a reality, and that “it is compensated only if the opportunity is not hypothetical, but real and serious.” In this particular case, he added, “one of PSG’s claims related to the loss of the opportunity to be able to transfer Mbappe to another club and receive compensation for that transfer.”
Even more complex were claims for moral or reputational damage. Hurtado recalls: “In most football-related cases, claims for moral and reputational damage are usually brought by the players, not the clubs.” French case law awarding companies such damages is “very limited, although not excluded in principle” and requires “demonstration of genuine and direct damage to the company’s image, supported by concrete evidence.”
Although not without risks, this appeal looks like a logical next step for PSG. Salvatore issued a clear warning: “In the event of an appeal, the Court of Appeal’s decision could be even worse for PSG, as the Court of Appeal may consider that other claims dismissed by Mbappe should also be allowed.”
Beyond the specific case, the market impact is clear. Hurtado believes that “this case should encourage stricter contract drafting practices.”
This incident should encourage stricter contract drafting practices
He explained that the trend is that “clubs and players want more certainty that bonuses, loyalty bonuses and exit clauses are precisely defined and documented in writing” and are choosing to “formally integrate secondary contracts into main contracts to reduce the risk of litigation”.
In his professional experience, “many of these disputes originate from contracts that do not clearly define each party’s obligations and consequences,” and when this happens, the risk of litigation increases rapidly.
From a player’s perspective, Hurtado detects repeated mistakes. “It is not uncommon for players to rely on informal or verbal guarantees, side agreements, or agreements that are not properly documented.” That raises the issue of evidence. It also happens that “contracts are signed with ambiguous or remediable language without fully anticipating the consequences of how these terms will be interpreted in the event of a conflict,” or even that a formal undertaking is breached, weakening the legal position.
Looking to the future
He therefore argues that “all promises, especially financial ones, should be expressly set out in clear, precise and comprehensive contractual clauses, leaving little room for interpretation” and that it is all the more important to obtain expert advice even when one party has a large share of the negotiations.
Looking to the immediate future, Hurtado had no doubts: “PSG is most likely to appeal to the Court of Appeal.” The club said it had “significant financial and reputational interests in challenging the court’s decision” and insisted it had already publicly announced its intention and was acting in good faith.
Still, he acknowledged that “it is very difficult to predict with certainty the outcome of the appeal, but the majority opinion is that the chances of success are low,” especially since “the Labor Court is the second body to rule in favor of Mbappé, after the decision of the LFP Joint Appeal Board of 25 October 2024.” Although the case remains unresolved, it leaves a lesson that is hard to ignore in elite soccer. Words carry little weight when disputes reach court. Most of the time it determines what is written.
