Pregnant footballers have long been neglected and subjected to abuse, discrimination, contract termination, and career setbacks without meaningful recourse until the introduction of Article 18quater of FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) in 2021, which, for the first time, established the minimum standards for the protection of pregnant footballers and coaches in women’s football.

At its core, Article 18quater of FIFA RSTP provides for minimum standards that all member associations must incorporate and apply whenever a female footballer or coach is pregnant or exercising maternity-related rights. These safeguards include:

• No employment contract may be made conditional on a pregnancy test or on a footballer not being pregnant.
• Unilateral termination by a club on pregnancy-related grounds is presumed to be without just cause, entitling the player to compensation.
• Players have rights to full remuneration until they choose to commence maternity leave.
• A minimum of 14 weeks of paid absence is guaranteed, with at least 8 weeks post-birth, paid at no less than two-thirds of salary, unless more favourable conditions exist under national law or collective bargaining agreements.
• Clubs must facilitate a safe return, provide medical support, a postpartum plan, and facilities for breastfeeding the child.

Together, these safeguards aim to make elite women’s football compatible with motherhood by addressing the long-standing reality in which pregnant footballers were forced to choose between their careers and their pregnancies, or face financial penalties for being unable to provide sporting services.

Gunnarsdóttir v. Olympique Lyonnais: The First Test of Maternity Rights of Pregnant Footballers

 Icelandic international Sara Björk Gunnarsdóttir became the first female footballer to test the provision of Article 18quater in a formal dispute. In 2021, while contracted to Olympique Lyonnais, she became pregnant and was unable to play in the club’s fixture against Paris Saint-Germain due to acute morning sickness. The parties agreed that she would cease playing, and she was permitted to return to Iceland for the remainder of her pregnancy to be close to her partner and family.

However, during her absence, Gunnarsdóttir received only a fraction of her monthly salary on the basis that she could not provide sporting services. The club applied French sick leave provisions rather than the minimum standards prescribed by FIFA.Supported by FIFPRO, Gunnarsdóttir brought her claim before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber.

In May 2022, in a decision published in 2023, the DRC ruled in her favour, finding that, as the French maternity provisions were less favourable than the FIFA standard, the FIFA Regulations would apply. Lyon was ordered to pay over €82,000 in outstanding salary plus interest.The full DRC decision is available here.

Maja Gothberg: Extending the frontiers of Article 18quater.

The Göthberg case gave full expression to Article 18quater paragraph 2(a), which provides that the validity of an employment contract cannot be made conditional on a pregnancy test or on footballers not being pregnant.

After helping Lazio Women secure promotion to Serie A, Maja Göthberg entered advanced contract negotiations for the following season. Upon disclosing her pregnancy in the summer of 2024, the club withdrew from the agreement, despite the fact that both parties had exchanged extensive communications and reached consensus on all material terms of the new contract. Since no formal document had been signed, the club claimed that no contract existed and that it was the player who had decided not to continue.

Gothberg initially lost her claim at the FIFA DRC, which ruled that the Player had failed to establish that the Parties had concluded an employment contract. The majority of the DRC based this conclusion on the lack of any evidence, including evidence that the Club had indeed sent the player the first and second draft of the contract and evidence that the  player had accepted it.

On appeal, however, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) overturned that decision on the following grounds:

(i) Establishment of the Relationship: Relying on the  Italian law, FIGC rules, and the Italian collective bargaining agreement, the Club  argued that the contract was invalid because it had not been signed or registered. However, the Panel held that those rules were superseded by FIFA regulations and Swiss law.

While written records of the essential terms of the employment relationship are required to satisfy the prerequisites of the FIFA RSTP, the Courts, have maintained, in several cases that having an unsigned contract of employment does not automatically mean there is no employment relationship between the parties as it’s not mandatory for the conclusion of an employment contract. Rather, attention will be given to the entirety of the facts of the case to determine the intention of the parties. Since all the terms were agreed upon via digital communications (WhatsApp), CAS concluded that an employment relationship existed in substance, notwithstanding the absence of a formalised signature.

(ii) The Burden of Proof: As a general principle, the party asserting a fact bears the burden of proving it. However, the Panel recalled that Article 18quater paragraph 2(a) of the FIFA RSTP establishes a presumption of causal connection between a contract termination and a player’s pregnancy. Once the player had established that a contractual relationship existed and that it had been unilaterally terminated, the burden shifted to the club to prove that the termination was unrelated to the pregnancy. Lazio Women failed to discharge that burden.

“If a club unilaterally terminates a contract on the grounds of a footballer refusing to take a pregnancy test, being or becoming pregnant shall be presumed, unless proven to the contrary, that the unilateral termination of a contract by a club during a pregnancy occurred as a result of a player being or becoming pregnant”—Paragraph 2(a) of Article 18quater of FIFA RSTP. 

(iii) Personality Rights: In a novel expansion of players’ maternity protection, CAS also ruled that Lazio breached medical confidentiality by disclosing her pregnancy to teammates without her consent. The panel recognised that pregnancy information constitutes sensitive medical data and that players have a right to keep such information private, as such, clubs have a responsibility to protect this information regardless of whether a player expressly asks for confidentiality.

The panel noted:

“ It is common knowledge that pregnancies in their early weeks and months face an increased danger of miscarriage, which is why it is important to many women to keep a pregnancy confidential until the pregnancy is considered to be safe, usually after the first 12 weeks. This was also the case with the Player, who had not even told her close family about the pregnancy at the time.”

On compensation, CAS awarded the residual value of the contract being EUR 64,000 gross, plus 5% interest from August 7, 2024 together with €5,333 gross, plus 5% interest  from 21 July 2024 for the infringement of her personality rights.

CAS, however, declined to award the additional six months’ salary under Article 18quater(3)(a)(iii) FIFA RSTP on the grounds that: The pregnancy was disclosed before the start of the season and before the Player’s arrival in Rome; the contract had not been signed or registered; the legal situation was complex, as shown by the FIFA DRC’s own finding that no contract existed; the FIFA pregnancy rules were still relatively new; and the agent’s erroneous advice contributed to the situation. The Panel found that the Club’s legal error (relying on the provision of Italian law) was excusable and that imposing an additional penalty would be unfair.

The full CAS award is available here.

What the Two Cases Tell Us About Pregnant Footballers

From the pioneering ruling in Gunnarsdóttir to the CAS success in Göthberg, these two landmark decisions have materially reshaped the rights of pregnant footballers under Article 18quater. They confirm that the provision has evolved from a written provisions into enforceable rights.

For footballers, pregnancy is no longer a career-ending risk that forces a player to choose between starting a family and sustaining a career on the pitch, it’s now a protected phase of a player’s life. While Gunnarsdóttir established that clubs must honour maternity rights once a player is pregnant and under contract, Göthberg confirms that clubs cannot evade those obligations by withdrawing from an employment relationship upon learning of a pregnancy.

For clubs, this is a wake up call. A player’s contract cannot be terminated on the basis of pregnancy, and such a player retains rights, both express and implied, under applicable law.

Commentary 

While Gunnarsdóttir and Göthberg affirm the protection of maternity rights under Article 18quater of the FIFA RSTP, the cases also expose a procedural gap in the application of the provision. That is, what happens during the pre-contract period.

As the Panel in Göthberg acknowledged, “the situation at hand was rather extraordinary, and does not represent the typical kind of case Article 18quater para. 2 RSTP has in mind.” Where a club withdraws from negotiations upon learning of a pregnancy, the player’s protection depends entirely on establishing that a contract was already formed. This is a question of fact, which will not always result in the same answer. The gap remains, and it warrants further regulatory attention. We therefore urge FIFA to address this loophole, ensuring that female players are protected at such a pivotal moment in their lives, not only as professional footballers, but as individuals.

The BallBusiness Legal team offers expert consultation on players’ rights, regulatory compliance, contract negotiations, dispute resolution before the FIFA DRC and CAS, and intellectual property matters. Reach out to us today at Legal@theballbusiness.com to speak with our experts and protect your rights and interest.