Michaël Olise Ordered to Pay €836 Monthly Child Support as Baby Mama’s €60,000 Demand Is Rejecte
A child-support dispute involving Bayern Munich star Michaël Olise and his former partner has reportedly attracted attention after a court allegedly ordered the footballer to pay €836 per month in child support, far below the €60,000 monthly amount reportedly requested by the child’s mother.
According to the social-media post shared in the screenshot, Olise’s former partner, identified as Fatima Zaunbrecher, had demanded a significantly higher monthly payment, arguing that the financial needs of the child justified the amount. However, the court reportedly settled on €836 per month.
The dispute is said to have its roots in a relationship that began in 2022, when Olise was reportedly 20 years old. The post claims that the pair met in London and subsequently began a relationship that lasted approximately two years before ending in 2024.
According to the account, Fatima later discovered that she was pregnant shortly after their separation. The post further alleges that Olise initially questioned the paternity of the child. A subsequent paternity test reportedly confirmed that he was the father, after which he legally acknowledged the child.
The social-media post claims that Olise had been paying approximately €1,500 per month before the latest court decision. Fatima reportedly wanted the amount increased dramatically to €60,000 per month, but the court allegedly rejected the demand and instead ordered the €836 monthly payment.
The reported ruling has sparked reactions online, with many people debating whether the amount is appropriate given the footballer’s professional status and financial circumstances. Some commenters have questioned why the court would award an amount substantially lower than what was requested, while others argue that child support should be determined according to the child’s actual needs and the applicable legal guidelines rather than the parent’s wealth alone.
The story has also generated discussion about the responsibilities of professional footballers when it comes to supporting their children and handling private family disputes.
However, the claims circulating online should be treated with caution. The screenshot does not provide a court document, case number, date of judgment, or an independent source confirming the alleged ruling. Therefore, the details—including the identities involved, the amounts mentioned and the circumstances surrounding the dispute—should not be treated as independently verified facts.
If the reported €836 order is accurate, the case highlights how courts can determine child-support payments based on legal and financial considerations rather than simply accepting the amount requested by either parent.
