A Goal for Football Maternity Rights: Lessons from Göthberg v. Lazio Women

Introduction

The recent decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) in CAS 2025/A/11527 Maja Göthberg v. Lazio Women represents a milestone for maternity rights in football.

FIFA’s maternity regulations, which came into force as part of the 2021 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (“FIFA RSTP”) and have progressively been supplemented since then, have successfully been relied upon before the CAS by a player for the first time.

The decision is also materially significant for players and clubs in a broader transfer context. The contract upon which Ms Göthberg relied for her compensation claim had not been signed by the parties and this decision thus provides further clarity on the circumstances in which CAS will consider an unsigned employment contract to be binding.

In considering the lessons that can be learned from this decision, the key questions are as follows:

• On what basis did the CAS panel (the “Panel”) determine that a contract existed, given that neither party had signed the final agreement?
• How did the Panel apply the maternity regulations to establish that the contract had been terminated unlawfully by Lazio Women (the “Club”)?
• And, can Lazio Women consider themselves fortunate not to have been ordered to pay further compensation to Ms Göthberg?

Background

The dispute between Ms Göthberg and Lazio Women relates to events which took place in the summer of 2024. Ms Göthberg had been an integral part of the Lazio Women team which won the 2023-24 Italian Serie B title and secured promotion to the Serie A league.

At the end of that season, Ms Göthberg’s contract was due to expire, and the parties entered into discussions about a new contract for 2024-25. Soon after the Club had sent Ms Göthberg a second draft of the contract, Ms Göthberg informed the Club, via her agent, that she was pregnant, and was unable to travel to Rome for pre-season training as she was suffering from nausea and fatigue.

After being notified of Ms Göthberg’s pregnancy and inability to travel, the Club decided that it no longer wished to renew Ms Göthberg’s contract. The Team Manager removed Ms Göthberg from the 2024-25 squad WhatsApp group, and Lazio Women signed a replacement player. News of Ms Göthberg’s pregnancy was also leaked to the Club’s other players, despite Ms Göthberg’s request that this information be kept confidential.

When challenged by Ms Göthberg’s legal representatives about its actions, Lazio Women denied any knowledge of the pregnancy prior to its decision to not re-sign Ms Göthberg and alleged that, as a consequence of Ms Göthberg’s failure to conclude the agreement, there was no valid contract between the parties.

The FIFA RSTP mandates numerous integral maternity protections for professional female players (which are explained by FIFPRO in further detail here). In particular, Article 18quater para. 2 provides that the unilateral termination of a football employment contract by a club on the basis of a player’s pregnancy will be deemed to be a termination without just cause.

Ms Göthberg thus brought a claim for breach of contract before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (“FIFA DRC”). The FIFA DRC dismissed her claim, finding that no employment contract had been concluded and that there was insufficient evidence that the Club had revoked its contract offer upon notification of Ms Göthberg’s pregnancy. Ms Göthberg subsequently appealed that decision to CAS.

The existence of a contract

The Panel held, pursuant to Swiss law (which applies subsidiarily to the FIFA RSTP), and in accordance with a long line of CAS jurisprudence, that it is not mandatory for the parties to have signed an employment contract for there to be a valid employment contract. The parties need only to have prepared written records of the essential terms of the employment contract, that being a requirement established by Art 2.2 FIFA RSTP. The Panel found that this requirement was fulfilled by the draft versions of the contract.

The Panel further held that there was a binding contract under Swiss law because the parties had, prior to Ms Göthberg’s disclosure of her pregnancy, demonstrated a mutual expression of intent with respect to the essentialia negotii of the contract – those being the mutual consent of the parties, a clearly defined object, and agreed-upon terms and conditions – evidenced by the second draft of the contract.

Notably, the only change made between the first and second drafts of the contract circulated by the Club was to correct a misspelling of Ms Göthberg’s name (at Ms Göthberg’s request). The Panel thus found that the second draft was mutually acceptable to the parties.

The Panel further relied on WhatsApp communications between Ms Göthberg and her agent which demonstrated her understanding that the contract had been agreed, and the parties’ conduct in arranging for Ms Göthberg to attend the Club’s pre-season training camp, which was consistent with the contract having been agreed.

Therefore, the Panel was satisfied that there was a binding employment contract between the parties as at the time Ms Göthberg informed the Club of her pregnancy.

Notably, in considering whether there was a valid contract, the Panel made clear that Article 18quater of the FIFA RSTP must be “interpreted widely”, given the purpose of these provisions is to protect pregnant players, who are “particularly vulnerable”.1

Unlawful termination of the contract

The Panel (unsurprisingly) found that the Club had unilaterally terminated Ms Göthberg’s contract by denying its validity.

Under Art. 18quater para. 2 of the FIFA RSTP, there is a presumption of a causal link between a player’s pregnancy and any termination of their employment contract during this period. The burden thus falls upon the relevant club to prove the contrary.

Here, the Panel found that the Club had failed to discharge that burden.

Accordingly, the Panel concluded that Ms Göthberg’s contract was terminated by the Club without just cause.

Compensation 

As a result of the Club’s termination of her employment contract without just cause, and in accordance with Article 18quater para. 3 of the FIFA RSTP, Ms Göthberg was awarded compensation equal to the residual value of her contract for the 2024-25 season.

The Panel also awarded Ms Göthberg additional compensation equal to one-twelfth of the value of the contract as moral damages for the unlawful disclosure of her pregnancy to her teammates.

Where a contract is terminated by a club because of a player’s pregnancy, Article 18quater para. 3 of the FIFA RSTP further provides that the player “shall be entitled to additional compensation corresponding to six monthly salaries of the prematurely terminated contract”. However, the Panel declined to award this additional compensation to Ms Göthberg, on the basis that:

1. The legal situation was complex, as evidenced (inter alia) by the incorrect legal assessment of the FIFA DRC, in respect of the new FIFA RSTP provisions on maternity rights;
2. The Club did not, in the Panel’s view, act in bad faith and had simply misunderstood the legal situation;
3. The Club did not receive any services from Ms Göthberg under the contract (which it was obliged to pay to Ms Göthberg for in full); and
4. There was no direct contact between Ms Göthberg and the Club throughout the re-contracting process, and she did not enquire with the Club as to whether it would be willing to perform the contract before seeking compensation.

The Panel therefore held that the obligation to pay additional compensation “must yield [in] the particular and quite extraordinary circumstances of the present case”.2

This aspect of the decision is somewhat surprising. Although the Club was ultimately required to pay for services it did not receive, this is inherent in the maternity provisions of the FIFA RSTP and reflect widely accepted anti-discrimination policies, in and outside football, which are designed to protect pregnant women (at the expense of their employers), as the Panel itself recognised elsewhere in the Award.3

Further, whilst the legal position under the FIFA RSTP may have been somewhat unclear, it is in any event discriminatory (and unlawful) to withdraw an offer of employment (even if such an offer does not give rise to a binding contract) on the basis of pregnancy. Article 3 of the Swiss Federal Act on Gender Equality specifically prohibits discrimination against female employees on the basis of pregnancy, including during the hiring process, and similar protections exist in Italian law.4 In the United Kingdom, discrimination on the basis of maternity is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.  

Moreover, the Panel found that the Club’s initial denial that the reason for its decision to not renew the contract was the result of Ms Göthberg’s pregnancy was false. It therefore seems generous for the Panel to have found that the Club acted in good faith and to have deviated from the express provisions of the FIFA RSTP on the basis that the Club may have ‘misunderstood’ its obligations.

It is also unclear why Ms Göthberg should have been denied compensation for not insisting that the Club perform the contract in circumstances where it had made clear that it did not wish to employ her and had breached her privacy by disclosing her pregnancy to its players.

Players and their representatives will therefore hope that this aspect of the decision is not followed in future cases.

Conclusion

As the first instance in which the maternity protections within the FIFA RSTP have successfully been relied upon before the CAS, the decision in favour of Ms Göthberg is a momentous one for women’s rights in sport, which confirms that Article 18quater of the FIFA RSTP must be “interpreted widely”.

Once the Panel had determined that a valid employment contract had been agreed between Ms Göthberg and Lazio Women, it was straightforward for the Panel to conclude that the Club had breached Article 18quater 2 of the FIFA RSTP and thus award compensation to Ms Göthberg (albeit not to the extent that it arguably ought to have done).

However, even if it had not been concluded that there was a valid employment contract between Ms Göthberg and Lazio Women, it would presumably have been concluded, in any event, that the Club had unlawfully discriminated against her, given that withdrawing an offer of employment on the basis of a woman’s pregnancy is, itself, discriminatory.

This case thus serves as an important reminder for clubs of their non-discrimination obligations towards contracted players (or even players to whom contract offers are made), and underlines the important rights of pregnant players.

Authored by 

Ben Cisneros 
Associate 

Jonathon Huggett
Trainee Solicitor

We would be happy to discuss your options if you require advice regarding a maternity rights issue in football. Please reach out to Ben Cisneros, Associate (ben.cisneros@morgansl.com).