Manchester City must compensate former player Benjamin Mendy for most of the wages withheld during the legal proceedings that saw him accused of serious criminal charges.
After Mendy’s acquittal on all charges, an employment tribunal ruled that he is entitled to a significant portion of his £11 million unpaid salary. Judge Joanne Dunlop’s verdict, published on November 6, 2024, highlighted the former City defender’s rights to wages during periods he was not in custody, determining that he had been unjustly denied payment while on bail.
Table of Contents
The Case Against Withholding Wages
The tribunal’s decision emerged from a complex employment case in which Mendy, a player who once commanded a world-record fee for a defender, disputed Manchester City’s choice to halt his pay from September 2021 until the expiration of his contract in June 2023. During this period, Mendy was defending himself against multiple charges, including rape and sexual assault, of which he was ultimately found not guilty. In her ruling, Judge Dunlop affirmed that Mendy was entitled to financial compensation for the approximately 17 months during which he was unable to play for the club while not in detention.
Judge Dunlop reasoned that Mendy’s employment contract did not allow for withholding pay during suspension periods when he was “ready and willing” to fulfill his role but was restricted by circumstances beyond his control. The judge noted that Mendy was willing to perform his duties during these times but was prevented from doing so by “impediments,” including bail conditions and an FA-imposed suspension that barred him from fulfilling his contractual obligations.
A Timeline of Events Leading to Benjamin Mendy’s Suspension
Mendy’s legal issues began in November 2020, when he was accused of raping a woman he met in a bar. Although released under investigation, Mendy faced further charges in January 2021 after a second woman accused him of sexual assault. Despite these accusations, he continued to play for Manchester City under a conditional bail arrangement, which prohibited him from hosting parties at his home. However, another accusation emerged after Mendy allegedly held an afterparty, leading to his club-imposed suspension and eventual placement on unpaid leave.
Following these incidents, Mendy was charged and remanded to custody in August 2021. The French defender experienced two separate stints in detention before he was granted bail. According to Judge Dunlop, Manchester City was within its rights to withhold wages for the periods he was in custody due to his “own culpable actions” in violating bail conditions. However, the judge maintained that the non-custodial periods warranted compensation, as Mendy was unable to play not due to any misconduct but because of precautionary measures imposed by external authorities.
Judge Dunlop’s Key Observations
Judge Dunlop’s ruling on the case underscores the principles governing employer obligations in employment disputes of this nature. She stated, “I found that Mr Mendy was ‘ready and willing’ to work during the non-custody periods, and was prevented from doing so by impediments (the FA suspension and bail conditions) which were unavoidable or involuntary on his part.” This interpretation aligns with legal principles that protect employees from wage suspension unless explicitly permitted by contract.
The judge further emphasized that wage obligations persist under circumstances of suspension when not implemented as punishment. “The obligation on the employer to pay wages (absent an express contractual provision) subsists during a suspension imposed not as a sanction, but as an interim, precautionary measure,” Dunlop clarified, affirming that Mendy’s wages should have been maintained during those times.
Divergent Perspectives of Mendy and Manchester City
Judge Dunlop’s ruling acknowledged the distinct perspectives surrounding Mendy’s case. Mendy maintains that he is an innocent individual whose career and life were marred by false accusations, lamenting what he described as abandonment by his club during a critical period. City, on the other hand, argued that Mendy’s choices and disregard for advice were significant contributors to his situation, framing his lifestyle as a catalyst for his troubles.
“To a degree, both sides presented arguments which went to the question of whether or not Mr Mendy deserves to be paid the wages that Manchester City chose to withhold from him,” Dunlop noted. She remarked that while both narratives hold merit, the tribunal’s role was not to judge Mendy’s conduct but to assess the legality of Manchester City’s actions regarding his unpaid wages.
Implications of the Verdict for Employment Law in Football
The tribunal’s ruling in favor of Mendy underscores the legal framework surrounding wage disputes in football and employment law. The decision establishes a precedent that contractual wage obligations persist unless an explicit clause states otherwise, even in complex scenarios involving suspension due to criminal accusations. It highlights that employees under investigation retain the right to pay unless convicted or held liable for violating their employment terms directly.
Ultimately, while public debate over Mendy’s actions and lifestyle may continue, Judge Dunlop’s decision serves as a reminder that employment law protects workers from unjust financial penalties during periods of forced absence due to external restrictions.
Read More: Real Madrid’s Aurélien Tchouaméni Sidelined for a Month in Latest Injury Blow
Why did Mendy dispute Manchester City’s wage stoppage?
He argued he deserved pay during his legal suspension since he was unable to play due to external restrictions.
What did the tribunal decide on Mendy’s wages?
It ruled he’s entitled to most of the unpaid wages, except for time spent in custody.
Why did Judge Dunlop support Mendy’s wage claim?
She ruled that Mendy was willing to work, and his restrictions weren’t grounds for withholding pay.
What precedent does this set for football wage policies?
Clubs must pay suspended players unless contracts explicitly state otherwise, even under legal scrutiny.
