Legal Dispute Between PSG and Mbappé: New Developments in €55 Million Case

May 13 — According to Relevo's report, there have been new developments in the legal dispute between Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) and Kylian Mbappé. On Monday, PSG officially submitted a request to the Paris court to lift the temporary injunction that had frozen €55 million in their accounts. This injunction was imposed in April when the court ordered the seizure of the funds due to PSG's alleged debts for Mbappé's wages, signing bonus, and other incentives.

During the hearing with the executing judge on Monday, PSG's lawyers stated that Mbappé "failed to provide sufficient evidence of the debt and could not demonstrate any risk of insolvency on PSG's part."

Legal expert Thomas Azaro noted that PSG "has filed a lawsuit to request the annulment of the payment order of €55 million issued by the Legal Committee of the Professional Football League."

This request will be heard on May 26, the same day a formal ruling will be made.

Additionally, PSG has filed a new lawsuit against Mbappé, seeking up to €98 million in "counter-claim" damages, arguing that Mbappé's "delay tactics" have caused significant losses to the club, and he should compensate PSG.

In response, PSG's lawyers stated, "Our goal is not to actually make him pay us €98 million, but to prove that he also has a responsibility to compensate us, thus his claim to the debt is unfounded."

Mbappé's lawyers indicated that the bank has effectively refused to cooperate with the court's injunction, pointing fingers at Qatar: "We are facing a sovereign state—Qatar—which has long been funding this club. The current situation is that PSG's finances lack transparency and their reports have issues, making it quite difficult to recover the funds owed to us."

The crux of the dispute centers around a purported verbal agreement reached in August 2023. According to PSG, both parties agreed that "if Mbappé left the club freely, he would voluntarily forgo €55 million in bonuses," but Mbappé's side vehemently denies this claim and asserts that such a statement has no legal validity.