CAS Holds Lazio Women Liable for Pregnancy-Based Contract Termination

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in Maja Göthberg v. Lazio Women 2015 A.R.L. (CAS 2025/A/11527), allowed an appeal filed by Swedish professional footballer Maja Göthberg, set aside the decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), and held that Lazio Women unlawfully terminated the employment after learning of the player’s pregnancy. The Panel further held that the club wrongfully disclosed the player’s confidential pregnancy information and awarded her compensation of EUR 69,333, together with interest and costs.

The appeal was filed by Maja Gothberg before the CAS against a decision dated 24 March 2025 of the FIFA DRC, which dismissed her compensation claim. The DRC held that no valid employment contract had been concluded between the parties. It further stated that Article 18, quarter para 3 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RTSP)  did not apply as there was insufficient evidence of pregnancy-based discrimination or unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information.

The dispute arose when the club sought to renew the Player’s employment contract for the 2024-2025 season. Thereafter, the club communicated its intention to retain the Player, negotiated the terms of her employment through her agent, circulated draft contracts, arranged her medical examination, accommodation, airport transfer and pre-season integration, and added her to the team’s official WhatsApp group. Although the parties did not execute the final written contract, they had reached consensus on all essential terms of employment.

However, on 17 July 2024, the Player informed the Agent that she was pregnant, who further informed the club. Thereafter, the club informed the player that it would not proceed with the employment relationship and unilaterally terminated the employment contract. It also removed her from the team’s official WhatsApp group and later signed another player to replace her. Moreover, despite her repeated requests for confidentiality, the club disclosed her pregnancy to teammates without her consent, causing emotional distress and violating her rights to confidentiality and protection of sensitive medical information. She accordingly sought compensation for wrongful termination and the unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information.

The club submitted that no binding employment contract had come into existence because the draft contracts had neither been signed nor registered in accordance with the applicable Italian football regulations. It further contended that the player had not accepted the club’s contractual offer and, consequently, no employment relationship existed that could have been terminated. The club also denied that its decision was motivated by the player’s pregnancy and disputed having disclosed her confidential pregnancy information to third parties.

Examining the validity of the employment contract, the panel reiterated that according to Articles 1 and 2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO), a contract is concluded if the parties have mutually expressed their assent on its essential terms and that agreement on such terms gives rise to a binding contractual relationship even in the absence of a formal written instrument, unless a particular form has been prescribed as a condition of validity.

Rejecting the club’s contention that registration with the Italian Football Federation was a prerequisite to contract formation, it held that the validity of the employment contract did not depend on the parties’ signatures. It further observed that registration under the applicable football regulations concerns a player’s eligibility to participate in official competitions rather than the existence of a binding contractual relationship.

Reversing the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s findings, on the existence of a binding employment contract, the applicability of Article 18 quarter para 3 of the FIFA RSTP, the allegation of pregnancy discrimination, and the disclosure of confidential pregnancy information, the panel remarked that where a female professional becomes pregnant, the burden of proof shall be on the club to prove that the action taken was not based on the pregnancy. However, the club failed to discharge its burden of proving that its decision was based on any legitimate sporting or contractual reason unrelated to the pregnancy.

The Panel further observed that the maternity protection regime under the FIFA RSTP must be interpreted in a manner that effectively safeguards female footballers against pregnancy-related discrimination. Accordingly, it held that Lazio Women had unlawfully terminated the employment relationship in violation of Article 18 quarter para 3 of the FIFA RSTP. It then noted that the Club breached the Player’s personality rights under Swiss law by disclosing confidential information concerning her pregnancy without consent.

Thus, CAS set aside the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s decision and ordered Lazio Women to pay EUR 64,000 as compensation for the unlawful termination of the employment contract, together with interest at 5% per annum from 21 July 2024. It further directed the club to pay EUR 5,333 as compensation for the unlawful disclosure of the player’s confidential pregnancy information.