Former Manchester City star Benjamin Mendy was lent cash by three of his teammates when the club stopped paying him while he fought rape and sexual assault charges, an employment tribunal has heard.
Current and former players Raheem Sterling, Bernardo Silva and Riyad Mahrez supported the French international, who now claims to be owed £11.5m in unpaid wages by the Premier League champions.
The 30-year-old’s £500,000 per month wage was withheld by the club after he was charged in 2021, the tribunal was told.
The World Cup winner was subsequently cleared.
Mr Mendy, who now plays for French Ligue 2 club Lorient, brought employment tribunal proceedings against Manchester City, claiming for ‘unauthorised deductions’ from wages.
Benjamin Mendy has launched a legal claim for £11m in back pay he says the club owes him from when he was on trial for rape. He is pictured weeping having been found not guilty of rape, during a trial in July, 2023
Mendy, 30, was cleared of all charges against him after two trials at Chester Crown Court by July 2023 and subsequently left City to join French club Lorient (he is pictured playing for City)
His contract showed he would also receive a £900,000 bonus for appearing in 60 per cent of matches, a £1m bonus if City qualified for the Champions League, and an annual £1.2m payment to his image rights company.
Court documents shared with the Manchester employment tribunal said Mr Mendy ‘very quickly ran out of money’ and had to sell his Cheshire mansion to cover legal fees, bills and child support payments after his wages were withheld.
‘I struggled to pay my child support, I felt awful,’ the footballer said in a witness statement.
Mr Mendy said his agent, Meissa N’diaye, paid towards his legal fees, while teammates including England international Sterling offered ‘financial support’.
‘Raheem Sterling, Bernardo Silva and Riyad Mahrez all lent me money to help me try and pay my legal fees and support my family,’ he said in his witness statement.
The left-back described his 2021 charging as the day ‘my life was turned upside down forever.’
City’s legal team claim that Mendy was not ‘ready and able to fulfill his contract’ by being available to train and play because of a period in prison on remand, his subsequent bail conditions awaiting trial and because of an Interim Suspension Order imposed by the Football Association.
Current and former players Raheem Sterling (pictured), Bernardo Silva and Riyad Mahrez supported the French international
Riyad Mahrez, who now plays for Al Ahli in the Saudi Pro League, also supported Mendy
Man City player Bernardo Silva (pictured) was named as the third teammate who helped
An employment tribunal which started in Manchester heard that Mendy had a £6m-a-year contract for six years between August 2017 and July 2023.
City stopped paying his wages in September 2021 and did not pay him again. His contract was terminated on June 30, 2023.
Mendy gave evidence to the tribunal via a video link from his lawyer’s office and agreed with City’s lawyer Sean Jones that he had been paid £25m for playing in 123 games out of 240.
He accepted he was ‘incredibly well paid ‘ and that the club had a right to expect him ‘to conduct himself professionally’.
The player also agreed he went to nightclubs two or three times a week during his time at City and held parties at his mansion The Spinney in Prestbury, Cheshire.
Mr Jones said: ‘There was a consistent pattern in how you went about meeting women and having sex with them even though you barely knew them. You knew that involved risks?’
Mendy said: ‘I was not thinking like this at the time.’
He also accepted he continued to hold parties during Covid and after he had been released on police bail following allegations of sex attacks.
But he claimed he was acting no differently than other members of City’s first team, many of whom attended parties at his house.
Mr Jones said: ‘But they were ready and able to perform their duties. They had not been suspended.’
The tribunal heard Mendy had received a letter from City via his agent in September 2021 informing him he would receive no further payment until he was ready to perform his duties under his contract of employment.
The French World Cup winner claims City should pay him the wages it withheld after his arrest for rape and sexual assault against girls invited to parties at his luxury home in Cheshire between 2018 and 2021 (he is pictured in July 2023)
Mendy said he was in prison on remand at the time and accepted he had been suspended by the Football Association ‘from all footballing activities’.
Mr Jones said: ‘Even if City had wanted to play you, they would not be allowed.’
City said in a written outline of their defence of the claim that Mendy broke the terms of his contract because of his behaviour.
The statement said: ‘It was an express term of the contract that the claimant would not knowingly or recklessly do anything or omit to do anything which is likely to bring the Club or the game of football into disrepute ‘.
‘That obligation encompassed behaviour in the Claimant’s private life which might lead to scandal and, thus, disrepute.
‘Notwithstanding the claimant’s contractual obligation, he behaved with a recklessness and disregard of his obligations that can only sensibly be characterised as extreme.’
Mendy’s lawyer Nick de Marco, KC, in a statement of claim said Mendy was due £11,009,548 in unpaid wages.
He said that under employment law, City had no legal right to stop paying Mendy’s wages.
Mendy is pictured playing for his French club, Lorient in September 2023
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 constraint, any deduction of pay may be unlawful.
He said:’An inability to work due to a lawful suspension imposed by the employer by way of sanction will permit the lawful deduction of pay.By contrast, an inability to work due to an ‘ unavoidable impediment ‘ or which was ‘involuntary ‘ may render the deduction of pay unlawful.
‘Where the employee is accused of criminal offences, the issue cannot be determined simply by reference to the employee’s ultimate guilt or innocence,nor simply by reference to whether he or she was granted bail or not.
‘The approach in some of the cases that if the employee’s actions led to a suspension from work or the bringing of criminal charges then these were ‘avoidable ‘or ‘voluntary ‘ is too close to an assumption of guilt and therefore wrong in principle.’
The tribunal continues.
