Mbappé and the most extreme option to leave Paris

The tightness between PSG Y Mbappe it is growing. The president of the Parisians, Nasser To the Khelaïfi was the first to state categorically that Mbappé would not leave Princes Park. He did it with resounding words. “I will be clear. Kylian Mbappé will continue in Paris, we will never sell him and he will never go free“, he stated. The forward, concentrated with France for the dispute of the Eurocup, has remained relatively on the sidelines, but without giving in the pulse. An attitude of firmness backed by sporting arguments that only tighten the rope and invite a conflict in which the FIFA regulations could side with the striker. A panic button that would free you from Paris, but that can only be pressed in very specific cases.

Article 14.2 of the FIFA regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2021) establishes that one of the two parties bound by a contract (not only the player, but also the clubs) can unilaterally terminate that agreement without paying any compensation to the other party. “Any abusive conduct by a party that aims to force its counterpart to terminate a contract or modify its terms (how to renew, which would be the case of Mbappé), will constitute a justified cause of termination for the counterpart (player or club) “says the FIFA text.

A “complicated” letter

This translated into the reality of the Mbappé case, would imply that the striker could denounce PSG to request his unilateral release and force his departure due to pressure from the board to renew. Would it be feasible?

“On paper, of course it is possible, but in practice it is very difficult to carry it out Because, for a player to be able to activate this route, he should have been subjected by his club to harsh restrictions, such as not letting him train with his teammates, not allowing him to access their facilities or systematically leaving him out of the life of the team as a form of pressure, almost bullying “, analyze Toni rock, lawyer specialized in Sports Law and director of the Sports Law Institute.

“It is not foreseeable that PSG will do something similar with their star to get him to renew and even in the extreme case that they keep him in the stands permanently, something like this would not be a reason for Mbappé to claim his freedom. that Mbappé is very determined to go to such a frontal open war. It is a scenario, for now, implausible “, continues Roca.

The precedents of Albelda and Dani García

“At the international level there are no known high-profile cases that have clung to this article to demand freedom. None, obviously, of the enormous dimension that Mbappé would have, “adds Roca, who, of course, remembers two similar situations in Spain with David Albelda Y Dani Garcia. “The difference is that the two were based on Spanish labor law, not on the FIFA regulations on the Statute and Transfer of Players,” the lawyer clarifies. “In addition, neither of them came to fruition in court “, Add.

“Albelda sued Valencia in 2008 because Koeman it took him away from training. The footballer relied on the Workers' Statute, but the Courts estimated that there were no reasons to terminate the employment relationship without having to pay Valencia the compensation established in the contract, “says Roca. That case was judged by the Social Court number 13 of Valencia.

“In the case of Dani García Lara, The player also denounced FC Barcelona for removing him from the group's dynamics, but the club and the player reached an agreement before the case was judged and the case did not advance in the courts, “continues Roca.

Both situations would be unfeasible in today's football. Spanish law prohibits a footballer from training alone without the assistance of a coach or member of the coaching staff to assist him. “Otherwise, exercising without any supervision, is a violation of the right of effective occupation and a reason to terminate“Roca adds to the story. It is not, in any case, what happens with Mbappé. The negotiation, for now, will continue to move in the terms of the normality of the market.