The Parisian club’s lawyers have made a counterclaim of €98m for the striker’s “delaying tactics”
Paris Saint-Germain are launching a staggering €98 million counterclaim against former striker Kylian Mbappe as the bitter divorce between the two parties drags on.
Back in April, Mbappe’s lawyers secured a court order for the seizure of €55 million from PSG’s bank accounts, as payment for the player’s outstanding wages. Mbappe claims that the club failed to pay him wages and bonuses owed before his contract expired, but PSG have always insisted that he agreed to waive these payments before being readmitted back in the squad in 2023.
In the latest development, PSG’s legal team submitted the counterclaim in the Paris Judicial Court on Monday to overturn the court-ordered seizure.
PSG are saying that the World Cup winner should pay them €98 million for employing “delaying tactics” that have caused financial and reputational harm to the club. They argue that he lacks evidence that the money is owed, or that there is a risk of non-payment.
Precautionary seizure orders like the one Mbappe obtained are typically granted by the court if the claimant can show a credible debt and a risk that the debtor might evade payment.
“Kylian Mbappe owes PSG money through the delaying tactics that have caused the club harm,” Renaud Semerdjian, one of PSG’s lawyers, told AFP. “Mbappe demanded the world from PSG, received it, and then tried to run away and steal it all, hoping no one would notice. Simply because he is Kylian Mbappe.”
Semerdjian clarified that the €98 million counterclaim is only to show that Mbappe has no case. “The purpose is not to recover the €98m but to show that if he owes us money, his claim is unfounded,” he said.
But Mbappe’s legal camp claim that only a fraction of the €55 million allegedly owed has even been recovered (around €14 million) and the rest is still outstanding, which they believe shows just how important the seizure is.
“Where is the money?” asked Mbappe’s lawyer Thomas Clay. “It wasn’t that easy to seize; the banks refused.
“We are dealing with the sovereign state of Qatar that permanently finances this club. There is a risk of recovery when there is a lack of transparency in the accounts, and we know the difficulties with the states.”
Both parties are preparing for a ruling by the Paris Judicial Court on 26 May.
