Former Manchester City star Benjamin Mendy Three of his team-mates lent him money when the club stopped paying him as he fought rape and sexual assault allegations, an employment tribunal heard.
Current and former players Raheem Sterling, Bernardo Silva and Riyad Mahrez have backed the France international, who now claims he is owed £11.5 million in unpaid wages to the Premier League champions.
The tribunal said the club had withheld £300,000 of the 30-year-old's monthly wages following his 2021 charges.
The World Cup winner was subsequently cleared.
Mendy, who currently plays for French Ligue 2 club Lorient, has brought an Employment Tribunal claim against Manchester City claiming “unlawful deductions” from his wages.
Benjamin Mendy has filed a lawsuit seeking payment of £11m in back wages the club owes him for the period he was on trial for rape. In the photo, he cries after being found not guilty of rape during his trial in July 2023
Mendy (30) was cleared of all charges following two trials at Chester Crown Court until July 2023 and subsequently left City to join French club Lorient (pictured playing for City)
His contract stipulated that he would also receive a bonus of £900,000 for appearing in 60 per cent of matches, a bonus of £1 million if City qualified for the Champions League, and an annual payment of £1.2 million to his sports management company. rights to the image.
Court documents shared with an employment tribunal in Manchester show that Mr Mendy “ran out of money very quickly” and had to sell his Cheshire property to cover legal fees, bills and child support after his salary was stopped.
“I had difficulty paying alimony, I felt terrible,” the footballer said in a witness statement.
Mendy said his agent Meissa N'diaye had covered his legal costs, while teammates, including England international Sterling, had offered “financial support”.
“Raheem Sterling, Bernardo Silva and Riyad Mahrez lent me money to help me pay my legal fees and support my family,” he said in his testimony.
The left-back described his 2021 charge as the day “my life was turned upside down forever.”
City's legal team argues that Mendy was not “ready and capable of performing his contract” because he was available to train and play due to his period in custody, subsequent bail conditions pending trial and because of the interim injunction suspension imposed by the Association Football Association.
Current and former players Raheem Sterling (pictured), Bernardo Silva and Riyad Mahrez supported the France international
Mendy was also supported by Riyad Mahrez, who currently plays for Al Ahli in the Saudi Pro League
Man City player Bernardo Silva (pictured) became the third team member to help
The Manchester employment tribunal heard that Mendy had a six-year contract worth £6 million a year running from August 2017 to July 2023.
City stopped paying his salary in September 2021 and has not paid him again. His contract was terminated on June 30, 2023.
Mendy gave evidence to the tribunal via video link from his lawyer's office and agreed with City's lawyer, Sean Jones, that he had been paid £25 million to appear in 123 of 240 matches.
He admitted that he is “extremely well paid” and that the club has the 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 property, The Spinney, in Prestbury, Cheshire.
Jones said: “There was a consistent pattern in the way you met women and had sex with them, even though you barely knew them. Did you know there were risks involved?
Mendy said: “I didn't think so at the time.”
He also admitted continuing to organize parties during Covid-19 and after being released on police bail over sexual assault allegations.
But he insisted he was behaving no differently from other members of City's first team, many of whom attended parties at his house.
Jones said: “But they were ready and able to perform their duties. They were not suspended.
The tribunal heard that in September 2021, Mendy received a letter from City through his agent advising him that he would not receive any further remuneration until he was ready to perform the duties of his employment contract.
The French World Cup winner says the city should pay him wages it withheld following his arrest for rape and sexual assault against girls invited to parties at his luxury Cheshire home between 2018 and 2021 (pictured in July 2023)
Mendy said he was on remand at the time and admitted the Football Association had suspended him “from all football activities”.
Jones said: “Even if City wanted to play you they wouldn't be allowed to.”
City, in a written outline of defence, alleged that Mendy had breached the terms of his contract due to his conduct.
The statement said: “It was an express provision of the contract that the plaintiff would not knowingly or recklessly do anything or omit to do anything that would bring into disrepute the Club or the game of football.”
“This obligation included conduct in the Plaintiff's private life that was likely to cause scandal and therefore defamation.
“Despite plaintiff's contractual obligations, he has conducted himself in a manner that is reckless and in disregard of his obligations, which can reasonably be described as only extreme.”
Mendy's lawyer, Nick de Marco, KC, said in the claim that Mendy was entitled to £11,009,548 in unpaid wages.
He said that under labor law, the city does not have the 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 coercion, any deduction from wages may be unlawful.
He stated: “Incapacity caused by a lawful suspension imposed by an employer by way of a sanction will allow a lawful deduction of wages. However, incapacity due to an “unavoidable impediment” or which was “involuntary” may render wage deduction unlawful.
“Where an employee is charged with an offense, the question cannot be decided simply on the basis of the employee's ultimate guilt or innocence, nor on the basis of whether he has been released on bail or not.
“The approach used in some cases that if an employee's actions led to suspension or criminal charges they were 'avoidable' or 'voluntary' is too close to an assumption of fault and therefore fundamentally wrong “.
The Court continues.
