The player’s childhood sweetheart is said to be only handing her £1,280- a-month maintenance.
1
But that works out just half of what the ace, who played in the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, is pocketing a day on his contract.
A friend claimed the star, who earns nearly £1million a year from his club, initially denied he was the father of his child.
He only started paying maintenance after DNA tests confirmed the baby was in fact his, they said.
The pal said that until then his ex was struggling to make ends meet – while he enjoyed luxurious holidays and partying with other women.
They said the star and his ex had started dating as teens but things took a turn for the worst when she found out she was pregnant.
The ex is said to have now been forced to take out a non-molestation court order against him which states the player must “not use or threaten violence” against her or encourage anyone else to do so.
A pal of the footballer’s ex told the Mirror: “It’s been terrible for her. At first he denied the baby was his and then he ditched her while she was pregnant.
“He tried to get her to have an abortion and then, when she wouldn’t, he left her. She was skint for months. At the same time he was seeing at least one other woman.”
They claimed the star only started paying maintenance when his baby was eight months old – after a DNA test proved he was the dad.
The friend also said the ace had only met his child once during an arranged visit.
He also appeared to deliberately frustrate efforts by the Department for Work and Pensions to prove he was the dad, they claimed.
This saw the ex get her local MP involved, who wrote a letter detailing how the player had “initially denied paternity” and then “delayed DNA testing”.
They also said he had given “confusing name information” to the DNA testers and had not been “co-operative in supplying his true income figure”.
The ace’s salary was revealed when the matter went before the courts – when it was also found that he’d splashed out on a house and was giving his parents £10,000 a month.
The court then ordered him to pay the £1,280 a month – which the woman’s pal slammed.
They dubbed it a “paltry sum” and claimed it doesn’t cover childcare.
The pal added: “She now relies on friends and family to help her out so she can return to her job. All while he’s living it up.”