![\"\"](\"https:\/\/valloni.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/CAS-Award-Lazio-Women-VALLONI-2026.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The G\u00f6thberg v. Lazio Women case (CAS 2025\/A\/11527) is set to become an important precedent in the field of women\u2019s sports employment law.<\/p>\n
The decision clarifies that, within the FIFA\/CAS framework, the absence of a signature and registration does not necessarily prevent the formation of an employment contract, provided that the parties have reached an agreement on the essential elements of the employment relationship and have acted consistently with the existence of such relationship.<\/p>\n
For clubs, the practical lesson is clear: an advanced pre-contractual stage is not devoid of legal consequences. Once a substantive agreement has been reached, a football club cannot rely upon subsequent formalities to avoid its contractual obligations, particularly where the withdrawal from the relationship occurs after the player has disclosed her pregnancy.<\/p>\n
For female footballers and their legal advisers, the decision confirms the importance of preserving evidence of negotiations, including messages; draft agreements; logistical arrangements; confirmations; and other conduct demonstrating the parties\u2019 intention to be legally bound. In the present case, it was precisely these elements that enabled the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to establish the existence of a valid employment contract prior to its formal signature.<\/p>\n
The case concerned a professional football player who, after negotiating the renewal of her contract with the club for the 2024\/25 season, informed the club of her pregnancy before the formal execution and registration of the contract. The club subsequently denied the existence of any contractual relationship.<\/p>\n
Overturning the decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC), the CAS held that the contract had already been validly concluded and that the subsequent refusal of the club to recognise the relationship had to be treated as an unlawful termination connected to the player\u2019s pregnancy.<\/p>\n
The central issue: did an employment contract exist?<\/strong><\/p>\n The central issue in the dispute was not whether the parties had signed a written document, but whether they had already reached a legally binding agreement on the essential terms of the employment relationship. The CAS answered this question in the affirmative.<\/p>\n According to the CAS, the club had submitted an offer for the 2024\/25 season, as reflected in the draft contractual documents provided to the player. The player had accepted the essential terms, had not requested any substantial amendments, and the parties had begun to behave as though the employment relationship had already been finalised: arrangements had been made for her arrival in Rome, her integration into the team, the provision of accommodation and her airport transfer.<\/p>\n The CAS, therefore, concluded that the parties had entered into a legally binding employment contract before the player communicated her pregnancy.<\/p>\n Applicable law: why Italian law was not decisive<\/strong><\/p>\n The aspect of greatest relevance for Italian practitioners concerns the determination of the applicable law. Lazio Women argued that, under Italian law and the collective bargaining agreement applicable to women\u2019s Serie A, an unsigned contract had to be considered invalid. The CAS rejected this argument.<\/p>\n The CAS applied Article R58 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration and Article 49(2) of the FIFA Statutes, pursuant to which the arbitral tribunal must primarily apply FIFA regulations and, subsidiarily, Swiss law.<\/p>\n This establishes a clear hierarchy of legal sources: first, FIFA regulations; second, Swiss law. Any national legislation or collective bargaining agreements invoked by the parties may only become relevant on a subsidiary basis and where a regulatory gap exists.<\/p>\n The CAS found that no such gap existed. The formation of the employment contract was governed by Swiss contract law. Consequently, neither Italian law, nor the regulations of the Italian Football Federation, nor the applicable collective bargaining agreement could impose an additional constitutive formal requirement beyond those required under the FIFA and Swiss legal framework.<\/p>\n This is one of the most significant aspects of the decision. The reference in the draft agreements to the Italian collective bargaining agreement was not sufficient to make the Italian rule requiring a signature applicable. The CAS also noted that such contractual reference was itself expressly conditional upon the execution of the contract, which never occurred.<\/p>\n Written form, signature and registration: three distinct concepts<\/strong><\/p>\n The decision clearly distinguishes between three elements that are often confused in sporting practice:<\/p>\n According to the CAS, FIFA regulations require an employment contract to be in writing, but do not independently define the meaning of \u201cwritten form\u201d. In the absence of a specific FIFA provision, the Panel referred to Swiss law.<\/p>\n Under Swiss law, individual employment contracts are generally not subject to specific formal requirements. The CAS, therefore, confirmed that the signature of the parties is not a necessary condition for the conclusion of an employment contract.<\/p>\n Likewise, registration with the relevant federation may be relevant for sporting eligibility purposes, but it does not necessarily determine the civil-law or contractual existence of the relationship between a club and a player. The CAS held that making the protection afforded to pregnant players dependent upon the signature or registration of a contract would deprive Article 18quater FIFA RSTP of its intended effect.<\/p>\n Article 18quater FIFA RSTP and pregnancy protection<\/strong><\/p>\n The case falls within the framework of the FIFA provisions concerning pregnancy, maternity, adoption and family-related leave. Article 18quater FIFA RSTP provides that the validity of an employment contract cannot be made conditional upon the performance or outcome of a pregnancy test, nor upon the fact that a female player is pregnant or becomes pregnant during the contractual relationship.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the provision establishes that, where a club unilaterally terminates a contract for reasons connected with pregnancy, such termination shall be deemed to have occurred without just cause.<\/p>\n In G\u00f6thberg, Lazio Women had not formally \u201cdismissed\u201d the player. Instead, it denied the very existence of the contract. However, the CAS held that such denial had to be treated as equivalent to unilateral termination, as it produced the same substantive effect: the club refused to recognise the continuation of the contractual relationship.<\/p>\n The timing of the events was also decisive. The club began denying the validity of the contract only after becoming aware of the player\u2019s pregnancy. Under the presumption established by Article 18quater FIFA RSTP, it was, therefore, for the club to demonstrate that its conduct was unrelated to the pregnancy. According to the CAS, the club failed to provide such evidence.<\/p>\n The CAS also upheld a separate claim concerning the internal disclosure of the player\u2019s pregnancy. The Panel held that information relating to an employee\u2019s pregnancy falls within the sphere of private life and personality rights.<\/p>\n Since the information had been disclosed within the team without the player\u2019s consent, the CAS found a violation of her personality rights and awarded her moral damages.<\/p>\n The CAS, therefore, set aside the FIFA DRC decision and ordered Lazio Women to pay the player \u20ac64,000 (around Sw. Frs. 59,000) gross as compensation for outstanding salary, plus 5% interest from 7 August 2024. The club was further ordered to pay \u20ac5,333 (around Sw. Frs. 4,910) gross for the violation of the player\u2019s personality rights, plus 5% interest from 21 July 2024.<\/p>\n We act in sports employment cases in Italy and other countries covered by our Law Firm and further information is available from Avv. Sara Botti, the Head of our Italian Law Practice, and Dr Lucien Valloni by emailing them at botti@valloni.ch<\/a> and valloni@valloni.ch<\/a> respectively.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The G\u00f6thberg v. Lazio Women case (CAS 2025\/A\/11527) is set to become an important precedent in the field of women\u2019s sports employment law. The decision clarifies that, within the FIFA\/CAS framework, the absence of a signature and registration does not necessarily prevent the formation of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[757,303,776,777,671],"class_list":["post-25584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-de","tag-sportslaw-employmentlaw-italy-legalupdate-valloni","tag-football-de","tag-lazio","tag-pregnancy","tag-women"],"yoast_head":"\n\n