Ethics CasesSport

Cases · Premier League / The FA · 2021–2024

Accused, Acquitted, Unpaid: Benjamin Mendy's Wages Claim Against Manchester City

Manchester City stopped paying defender Benjamin Mendy in September 2021, after he was charged with sexual offences and suspended by the Football Association as a safeguarding precaution. He was acquitted of all charges in January and July 2023, after his contract had expired. He then claimed about £11 million in unpaid wages. In November 2024, an employment tribunal ruled that City had unlawfully withheld pay while he was on bail and ready and willing to work, but could withhold it while he was in custody, partly because of his own bail breaches. The case asks what clubs owe players who are accused but not convicted.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. The FA suspends Mendy as a precaution; the club suspends him on full pay.
  2. City stops paying his wages; he is remanded in custody.
  3. He is released on bail.
  4. His first criminal trial begins.
  5. He is remanded again after admitting a bail breach.
  6. He is found not guilty of seven charges.
  7. His City contract expires.
  8. He is acquitted of the remaining two charges at retrial.
  9. The tribunal rules he is owed wages for the bail periods.

The ethical issues

  • Presumption of innocence and employment.
  • Safeguarding suspensions without findings.
  • Personal responsibility for bail breaches.
  • Contracts versus reputation.
  • Respect for complainants after acquittal.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Benjamin MendyPay and reputation.
ComplainantsDignity and being heard.
Manchester CityReputation, cost and squad.
The FASafeguarding.
Other playersPrecedent on pay and suspension.
FansTrust in the club.

The case

Background

Benjamin Mendy joined Manchester City in 2017. The Guardian reported that he was then the world’s most expensive defender [5]. His contract ran to 30 June 2023 and paid a basic wage of £6 million a year [1]. It allowed the club to terminate only for gross misconduct, for failing to heed a final written warning, or for a criminal conviction carrying an unsuspended prison sentence of three months or more. An investigatory suspension could last no more than 14 days and had to be paid [1]. As the employment judge later noted, “there are no other provisions within the contract to enable the club to either suspend the player, or to stop paying him, whilst the contract remains in force” [1].

What happened

In August 2021, Mendy was charged with sexual offences and remanded in custody [1][5]. On 27 August 2021, the Football Association suspended him from “any football-related activity.” It was a precautionary safeguarding measure, because one complainant had been 17. The FA made no findings about what he had done [1]. The club first suspended him on full pay. At the end of September 2021, it stopped paying his wages, which remained unpaid until his contract expired [1]. The tribunal recorded a dispute over whether a club executive had told Mendy’s adviser that back pay would follow if he was acquitted. The executive denied it, and despite repeated requests, no confirmation of any such assurance was “ever forthcoming” from the club [1].

Mendy was held in custody until 7 January 2022 and then bailed. His first trial ran from August 2022 to January 2023 [1]. On 30 December 2022 he was arrested again, admitted breaching his bail conditions on gatherings, and was remanded until 17 January 2023 [1]. On 13 January 2023, the jury found him not guilty of seven charges [1]. On 14 July 2023, after a retrial, he was found not guilty of the remaining two charges, of rape and attempted rape [1][2][3]. His contract had expired on 30 June. City did not offer an extension, and he signed for FC Lorient on 19 July 2023 [1].

Mendy then claimed about £11 million in unpaid wages [1][4]. The judgment, given on 5 November 2024 after a hearing on 14 and 15 October, split the period in two [1][6]:

  • Bail periods: he could recover the wages withheld from 8 January to 29 December 2022 and from 18 January to 30 June 2023. In these periods he was “ready and willing” to work, and was prevented by the FA suspension and bail conditions, “impediments… which were unavoidable or involuntary on his part.”
  • Custody periods: he could not recover wages for 1 September 2021 to 7 January 2022 or for 30 December 2022 to 17 January 2023. During these periods his inability to work was “in part, due to his own culpable actions in breaching his bail conditions.”

The judgment cited earlier authority that avoidability “cannot be determined by reference to ultimate guilt or innocence” [1]. This meant he recovered roughly 17 of the 22 months claimed [4][5]. Mendy said he hoped the club would “do the honourable thing and pay the outstanding amounts” [4].

The rules and governance

The case was a narrow statutory claim for unlawful deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 [1]. Mendy’s lawyer argued that the contract gave City “a binary choice”: follow the dismissal procedure, or keep him under contract and keep paying him [1][4]. City argued that his custody, bail and suspension were “a full impediment” that resulted from his “culpable behaviour” [4]. The hearing was told that on 15 occasions he had held or attended parties in breach of Covid-19 rules, his bail conditions or both [4].

Judge Joanne Dunlop described both narratives. In Mendy’s, he was “an innocent man whose career has been ruined” and “effectively abandoned”; in City’s, he “largely brought his troubles upon himself.” She concluded: “Both these narratives have validity… The question of whether Mr Mendy deserves to be paid, however, is one for the commentators and comments sections. The only question for me is whether Manchester City was legally entitled to withhold that pay” [4]. The FA’s suspension remained in place until his contract ended. It was discontinued by the FA’s Safeguarding Review Panel on 2 November 2023 [1].

Aftermath

The judgment set out entitlement in principle and left the parties to agree the figures [1][4]. Other claims Mendy had raised, including for a post-termination payment and interest, were withdrawn from this tribunal, “without prejudice” to pursuing them elsewhere [1].

The core dilemma

When a player is accused of serious crimes but not convicted, may a club stop paying him to protect its reputation and safeguarding duties, or does a contract require pay until lawful termination?

Competing values

  • Presumption of innocence: he was acquitted of all charges.
  • Safeguarding: the FA acted because one complainant was 17.
  • Contractual integrity: contracts set the rules for both parties.
  • Personal responsibility: his bail breaches led to custody.
  • Respect for complainants: an acquittal is not a finding against them.

Strongest arguments

For Mendy: the contract gave the club no right to stop pay. A precautionary suspension, with no findings, should not cost a player his livelihood. Withholding pay effectively punished him before any verdict, and he was ultimately acquitted.

For City: the club faced serious allegations involving a minor and could not use him. Much of his predicament followed from his own conduct, including bail breaches [1][4]. Paying a player in those circumstances could appear to condone misconduct.

Applying the frameworks

Kantian

A Kantian lens stresses keeping promises and treating the accused as innocent until proven guilty. A contract is a promise that cannot be suspended because it has become inconvenient.

Justice

A justice lens asks for fair process and proportion. The judgment’s split attaches the consequences to the conduct Mendy was actually responsible for, not to the allegations.

Virtue

A virtue lens asks what a responsible club and a responsible player would do, weighing loyalty, prudence and care for everyone affected.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Identify the problem: whether to pay a charged but unconvicted player.
  2. Gather the facts: the contract terms, the FA suspension, bail and custody, and the verdicts.
  3. Identify the stakeholders: the player, the complainants, the club, the FA, fans and other players.
  4. Consider the options: keep paying; follow the dismissal procedure; reach an agreed settlement; or withhold pay.
  5. Apply values and frameworks: the presumption of innocence, safeguarding and keeping promises.
  6. Decide and review: follow the contract, and set clear rules for future cases.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: Mendy was acquitted. The tribunal found that City unlawfully withheld wages during the bail periods but not during custody [1][2].

Contested: whether clubs should be allowed contractual rights to suspend pay in such cases.

Why this case matters

Clubs, leagues and players must find ways to deal with serious allegations. Compare No Charges, Record Ban: Trevor Bauer and MLB’s Domestic Violence Policy and Live on Instagram: Ja Morant’s Gun Videos and the NBA’s Reach Off the Court.

Key terms

Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Principal–agent problem
When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.
Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.
Integrity
A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should clubs be allowed to stop paying accused players?
  2. Was the tribunal's split between bail and custody fair?
  3. Should player contracts include unpaid suspension clauses?
  4. How should a club speak about an acquitted player?
  5. What do complainants deserve after an acquittal?

Sources

  1. Mr B Mendy v Manchester City Football Club Ltd: 2411709/2023 – Judgment — Employment Tribunals (GOV.UK)
  2. Ex-Man City footballer Benjamin Mendy found not guilty of rape — BBC News
  3. Footballer Benjamin Mendy cleared of rape and attempted rape — The Guardian
  4. Man City: Benjamin Mendy entitled to receive majority of unpaid salary - judge — BBC Sport
  5. Benjamin Mendy entitled to most of unpaid Manchester City wages, judge rules — The Guardian
  6. Mendy v Manchester City FC judgment — Courts and Tribunals Judiciary