Reports in Italy suggest Paulo Dybala wants to sue Juventus for €50m, which is the difference between the contract he had agreed with the Old Lady and his current deal at Roma.
The story between La Joya and the Bianconeri risks ending in a legal battle with the Serie A giants who still owe their former start circa €3m from the second salary manoeuvre that the FIGC and the Turin Prosecutor are investigating.
According to Il Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica, the Argentinean wants Juventus to pay the pending fee by April, or he will sue his former club.
However, this is not all, as the player’s lawyer seems determined to sue Juventus because they didn’t extend the striker’s expiring contract in 2021-22.
Dybala’s lawyer Luca Ferrari reportedly told Assistant Prosecutor Marco Gianoglio and Prosecutor Mario Bendoni on February 28 that the club and his client had agreed to a new contract ‘in every essential element’: a five-year contract worth €9.2m net, circa €17.4m before taxes.
According to the report, Dybala had allowed his representative – who is not his agent – to bypass the professional secrecy and reveal the details of his agreement to the Turin Prosecutors.
“I think I will pursue two paths,” Dybala’s lawyer Ferrari reportedly told Prosecutors Gianoglio and Bendoni.
“Act both based on the failed renewal and based on the protective writings signed with the second manoeuvre.”
Dybala had signed an undisclosed agreement with Juventus which were supposed to grant La Joya €3m whether he had stayed or left Turin.
Dybala’s contract at the Allianz Stadium expired in June 2022, but Juventus had initially agreed to extend his stay at the end of 2021, changing their mind a few months later, after the €80m purchase of Dusan Vlahovic for Fiorentina.
Therefore, Dybala will not only sue Juventus for €3m if they don’t pay by April but will demand €50m more, which is the difference between the agreement he had reached with Juventus and the three-year contract he signed with Roma last summer.
Insane. So now players are eligible for compensation on contracts they DID NOT sign? On a ‘gentleman’s agreement’?