The months-long contract wrangling between FC Bayern and Dayot Upamecano may be nearing its conclusion, but it leaves a stale aftertaste – not because the central defender hesitated, but because the Munich management has manoeuvred itself into a situation that it could have avoided if it had acted consistently
The Upamecano case is not so much a consultant scandal as a lesson in a lack of stringency, wrong priorities and repeated improvements that systematically weakened the club’s own negotiating position. kicker has revealed new details that show how the talks dragged on for almost a year in the first place
The first strategic mistake was made in the spring of 2025. While Dayot Upamecano’s contract could still be extended comparatively moderately, FC Bayern initially decided to extend the contracts of Alphonso Davies and Jamal Musiala on top terms. By the time these deals became known, it was clear that the salary structure had shifted. It was foreseeable that Upamecano and his management would use these contracts as a reference – yet Bayern only reacted when the player side was already renegotiating
Instead of creating clarity at an early stage, the talks were left to run their course. The time for an extension on more favourable terms was thus wasted, either consciously or unconsciously. A mistake that shaped the entire subsequent process
Repeated improvements instead of a clear line
The situation worsened between autumn and the end of the year. Instead of setting a clear deadline or declaring an offer as final, Bayern made several improvements. Higher salary, signing fee, exit clause – almost every wish of the player’s side was at least partially fulfilled. What was intended as a concession became a signal of weakness in practice
Because every improvement confirmed to Upamecano’s advisor that further hesitation would be rewarded. Nevertheless, no commitment was made. Bayern thus paid the price for a negotiating tactic that focused more on harmony than on commitment
It was only when their patience had almost run out that Munich withdrew their offer. However, this step also seemed less like a liberating blow and more like a last resort without any real consequences, as Upamecano had barely made himself known and signalled his desire to stay when the previously withdrawn offer was back on the table
In doing so, Bayern undermined their own message. A withdrawn offer loses its effect if it has no de facto consequences. This is a problematic signal for future negotiations – not only internally, but also to other players and advisors
A pattern, not an isolated case
The Upamecano case fits seamlessly into a series of contract negotiations in which FC Bayern has rarely acted as a tough, clearly structured negotiating partner. Whether with Sané, Davies or now Upamecano: time and again, improvements, extensions and adjustments have been made – often late and under public pressure
The fact that the record champions can hardly afford to lose another top player on a free transfer is part of the problem. It is precisely this knowledge that gives the player parties additional power. But instead of counteracting this mechanism at an early stage, Bayern have reinforced it themselves
In the end, it remains to be said that the contract poker surrounding Upamecano did not escalate because the player gambled. It escalated because FC Bayern watched too long, made too many amendments and acted too rarely consistently. The upcoming extension may make sense from a sporting perspective – but structurally, it is a further warning signal.