Benjamin Mendy tries to claim £11 million in back payments from Manchester City | Football | Sport

The French World Cup winner is demanding City pay him the wages they withheld after his arrest for raping and sexually assaulting girls invited to parties at his luxury Cheshire home between 2018 and 2021.

Mendy, 30, was acquitted of all charges against him after two trials at Chester Crown Court in July 2023 and subsequently left City to join French club Lorient.

City’s legal team claims Mendy was not “ready and able to fulfill his contract” by being available to train and play due to a period in prison on remand, his subsequent bail conditions pending trial and due to an interim suspension order imposed by the Football Association. Association.

An employment tribunal that began yesterday in Manchester heard that Mendy was on a £6m-a-year contract for six years between August 2017 and July 2023.

City stopped paying his wages in September 2021 and stopped paying him. His contract was terminated on June 30, 2023.

Giving evidence to the tribunal via video link from his law firm, Mendy agreed with City’s lawyer Sean Jones that he had been paid £25 million for playing in 123 of the 240 matches.

He accepted that he was paid “incredibly well” and that the club had a right to expect him to “behave professionally”.

The player also agreed that during his time at City he went to nightclubs two or three times a week and held parties at his country house The Spinney in Prestbury, Cheshire.

Mr Jones said: “There was a consistent pattern in the way you met women and had sex with them, even though you barely knew them. You knew that involved risks?”

Mendy said: “I didn’t think like that at the time.”

He also accepted that he continued to hold parties during Covid and after being released on police bail following sexual assault allegations.

But he claimed he behaved no differently to the other members of City’s first team, many of whom attended parties at his home.

Mr Jones said: “But they were willing and able to carry out their duties. They were not suspended.”

The court heard that in September 2021, Mendy received a letter from City through his agent informing him that he would receive no further payment until he was ready to carry out his duties under his employment contract.

Mendy said he was on remand at the time and accepted he had been suspended “from all football activities” by the Football Association.

Mr Jones said: “Even if City had wanted to play you they wouldn’t have allowed it.”

City said in a written statement of their defense against the claim that Mendy had breached the terms of his contract due to his conduct.

The statement said: “It was an express term of the contract that the plaintiff would not knowingly or recklessly do or omit to do anything likely to bring the club or the game of football into disrepute.”

‘That obligation included behavior in the plaintiff’s private life that could lead to scandal and therefore discredit.

“Despite the plaintiff’s contractual obligation, he has behaved with a recklessness and disregard for his obligations that can only be characterized as extreme.”

Mendy’s lawyer Nick de Marco QC said in a statement of claim that Mendy was owed £11,009,548 in unpaid wages.

He said City had no legal right under labor law to stop paying Mendy’s wages.

Mr De Marco argued that if an employee was “ready and willing” to work and his inability to work was the result of a third party decision or external coercion, any deduction from wages could be unlawful.

He said: “An inability to work due to a lawful suspension imposed by the employer as a sanction will allow the lawful deduction of wages. On the other hand, an inability to work as a result of an ‘unavoidable obstacle’ or that was ‘involuntary’ can make the withholding of wages unlawful.

“When the employee is accused of criminal offences, the issue cannot be determined simply on the basis of the employee’s ultimate guilt or innocence.

nor simply on the basis of whether or not he or she was released on bail.

“The approach in some cases is that if the employee’s actions led to a suspension from work or the laying of criminal charges, this

‘Avoidable’ or ‘voluntary’ is too close to an assumption of guilt and is therefore wrong in principle.”

The tribunal continues today.