The standoff between Kylian Mbappé (26 years old) and Paris Saint-Germain has just taken a further turn in the club’s favor. On December 9, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected the striker’s appeal, upholding the lifting of the precautionary seizures on the Parisian club’s accounts. The decision, revealed by RMC Sport, is accompanied by a financial penalty for the player.
“The Paris Court of Appeal issued an order and rejected Kylian Mbappé’s appeal.”
“On December 9, the Paris Court of Appeal issued an order and rejected Kylian Mbappé’s appeal to suspend the judgment that ordered the lifting of the precautionary seizures he had imposed on the club’s accounts last April,” RMC Sport learned from sources close to the case. The court is also ordering him to cover legal costs and pay €3,000 to PSG for abuse of process.
” Semerdjian: “This dispute is simply a matter of good faith.”
“For the second time, the courts have confirmed the lack of merit in Mr. Mbappé’s claims regarding the seizures he had made on the Club’s accounts last April. Fundamentally, this entire dispute is simply a matter of good faith, upholding values, and respecting commitments made. Paris Saint-Germain will continue to vigorously defend its rights,” explains Renaud Semerdjian, the lawyer representing Paris Saint-Germain in this case.
This ruling by the Paris Court of Appeal is a serious wake-up call for Kylian Mbappé. Not only was the Frenchman’s appeal rejected, but the court confirmed, for the second time, that the precautionary seizures carried out in April on PSG’s accounts lacked sufficient grounds.
The fact that the striker was ordered to cover legal costs and pay €3,000 to the club for abuse of process gives this round of legal proceedings a very clear slant: Mbappé’s offensive strategy has backfired. Meanwhile, Paris Saint-Germain is capitalizing on this. Through its lawyer, Renaud Semerdjian, the club is shifting the debate to the issues of good faith, respect for commitments, and values. In other words, beyond the figures, Paris wants to make it clear that it is defending a principle as much as a purely financial matter.
