CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11527 — Maja Göthberg v. Lazio Women 2015 A R.L.

"Göthberg" · CAS held that an unsigned, unregistered football employment contract is valid under Swiss law and triggers FIFA's pregnancy-protection regime.

What happened in Göthberg

Swedish professional footballer Maja Göthberg played for Lazio Women in the 2023-24 Serie B season, featuring in 29 of 30 matches as the club won promotion to Serie A Femminile. The club sought to re-sign her for 2024-25 at a gross salary of EUR 64,000. Draft contracts were exchanged in July 2024, but neither party had physically signed them when, on 18 July 2024, Göthberg's agent disclosed her pregnancy to the club's sporting director and secretary. The club subsequently denied any contract existed, removed the player from the team WhatsApp group, and signed a replacement. The club also disclosed the pregnancy to the assistant coach, who told teammates — despite the player's express confidentiality request. Göthberg filed a claim before the FIFA DRC, which dismissed it on 24 March 2025, finding no valid contract and no discrimination. On appeal, CAS unanimously reversed. The panel held that under Swiss law (Arts. 1, 2, 319 SCO) an employment contract requires only mutual expression of intent on essential terms — not signatures or federation registration. The parties had reached such agreement before the pregnancy disclosure. The club's subsequent denial of the contract's existence constituted a deemed termination under Art. 18quater FIFA RSTP, causally linked to the pregnancy. CAS awarded EUR 64,000 (residual contract value) plus EUR 5,333 for unlawful disclosure of the pregnancy, with 5% interest. The additional six-month penalty under Art. 18quater para. 3(a)(iii) was declined on the extraordinary facts.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11527

Göthberg lodged a damages claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on 30 August 2024. The club did not participate in those proceedings. On 24 March 2025, the DRC majority dismissed all claims, finding no valid employment contract had been concluded, that Art. 18quater FIFA RSTP was inapplicable, that no sex discrimination was proven, and that culpa in contrahendo liability was not established. The grounds were notified on 27 May 2025. Göthberg filed her Statement of Appeal with CAS on 16 June 2025, within the 21-day limit under Art. 50(1) FIFA Statutes. She sought EUR 96,000 as primary compensation under Art. 18quater FIFA RSTP plus EUR 32,000 for personality-rights infringement, with alternative claims in discrimination and culpa in contrahendo. A hearing was held on 24 November 2025 in Lausanne, with the player participating by videoconference. The panel heard witnesses Raffaele Pinzani (sporting director) and Maria Antonietta Pia Foti (club secretary).

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11527

• Under Swiss law (Arts. 1, 2 and 319 SCO), a football employment contract is validly concluded upon mutual expression of intent on essential terms; neither the parties' signatures nor federation registration is required for validity.
• Italian law, FIGC rules, and the collective bargaining agreement (Accordo Collettivo) do not govern contract formation in this dispute; they are superseded by FIFA regulations and Swiss law under Art. R58 CAS Code and Art. 49(2) FIFA Statutes, and could only apply subsidiarily to fill lacunae.
• A club's written denial of the existence of a binding contract must be treated as equivalent to a unilateral termination for the purposes of Art. 18quater para. 3 FIFA RSTP, whether directly or by analogy.
• Under Art. 18quater para. 2(a) FIFA RSTP, termination of a contract during pregnancy is presumed to have occurred on account of the pregnancy; the burden shifts to the club to rebut that presumption, and the club failed to do so here.
• The unlawful disclosure of a player's early pregnancy to teammates, without her consent, constitutes a serious infringement of personality rights under Art. 49(1) SCO, entitling the player to moral damages calculated by reference to one month's salary.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel first resolved the applicable-law question, holding that FIFA regulations and Swiss law govern exclusively, with the Accordo Collettivo only potentially relevant to fill lacunae — none of which existed. On contract formation, the panel applied Arts. 1 and 2 SCO: it found a firm club offer (EUR 64,000 gross, confirmed in both draft contracts), the player's implied acceptance evidenced by her instruction to 'sign tomorrow', the agent's feedback limited to a spelling-mistake correction, and the club's logistical arrangements for her arrival. Mr Pinzani's own testimony confirmed he considered terms final once commercially agreed. The panel rejected the club's argument that the player's messages to teammates about 'not having signed' showed non-acceptance, explaining those messages reflected her desire to keep the pregnancy confidential rather than any contractual uncertainty. The agent's repeated (erroneous) advice that only a signed and registered contract would protect her was held legally irrelevant. On termination, the panel found the club's 6 August 2024 letter denying any contract existed — combined with its silence after learning of the pregnancy and its false claim of ignorance — constituted a deemed termination causally linked to the pregnancy. The club failed to rebut the Art. 18quater presumption. On quantum, the panel declined the six-month additional penalty under Art. 18quater para. 3(a)(iii), citing the extraordinary circumstances: the novel and complex legal situation, the DRC itself having denied the contract's existence, the absence of bad faith, and the club having to pay a full year's salary for zero services rendered. On the personality-rights claim, the panel found the assistant coach's disclosure to teammates was attributable to the club and was serious given the early stage of pregnancy; it awarded one-twelfth of the contract value (EUR 5,333) as moral damages.

Why Göthberg matters in CAS jurisprudence

Göthberg is the first CAS award to apply Art. 18quater FIFA RSTP (June 2024 version) to an unsigned, unregistered contract, confirming that Swiss-law freedom of form overrides national collective-bargaining signature requirements. It establishes that a club's written denial of a contract's existence is equivalent to a unilateral termination for pregnancy-protection purposes, and that the Art. 18quater presumption of pregnancy-linked termination can be rebutted only by solid evidence. The award also clarifies that the six-month additional penalty under Art. 18quater para. 3(a)(iii) may be declined in extraordinary circumstances despite mandatory statutory language.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/5955 & 5981 CAS 2016/A/4709 CAS 2014/A/3690 CAS 2023/A/10069 CAS 2020/A/6914 CAS 2024/A/10885 CAS 2025/A/11496 CAS 2020/A/7443 & 7446 CAS 2013/A/3102 CAS 2013/A/3221 CAS 2015/A/3871 & 3882

Frequently asked questions about Göthberg

Did Göthberg v Lazio Women establish that an unsigned football contract can still be valid?

Yes. The CAS panel held that under Swiss law (Arts. 1, 2 and 319 SCO), a football employment contract is validly concluded upon mutual expression of intent on essential terms — salary, duration, and parties — without requiring signatures or federation registration. The panel found that Göthberg and Lazio Women had reached such agreement before the pregnancy was disclosed, at the latest when the club sent the Second Draft Contract on 18 July 2024 confirming identical commercial terms.

How did CAS treat the club's denial that any contract existed — was that a 'termination' under Art. 18quater FIFA RSTP?

The panel held that a club's written denial of a binding contract must be treated as equivalent to a unilateral termination for the purposes of Art. 18quater para. 3 FIFA RSTP, whether directly or by analogy. Lazio Women's letter of 6 August 2024 stating 'No contract was therefore concluded' was the operative act, and interest on the EUR 64,000 award runs from 7 August 2024.

Why did CAS decline the six-month additional penalty under Art. 18quater para. 3(a)(iii) even though the provision says it 'shall' be paid?

The panel cited four extraordinary circumstances: the legal situation was genuinely complex (even the DRC denied the contract's existence); the FIFA pregnancy-protection provisions were still new with almost no case law; the club acted on a wrong but excusable legal assessment rather than in bad faith; and the club was already required to pay a full year's gross salary of EUR 64,000 for zero services rendered. The panel found it would be 'utterly unfair' to add a further penalty in these specific facts.

What compensation did Göthberg receive for the club disclosing her pregnancy to teammates without consent?

The panel awarded EUR 5,333 (gross) as moral damages under Art. 49(1) SCO, calculated as one-twelfth of the EUR 64,000 contract value (one month's salary). It found the disclosure serious given the early stage of pregnancy and the player's express confidentiality request, but reduced the amount from the EUR 32,000 claimed because the information remained within the team rather than reaching the public. Interest runs at 5% per annum from 21 July 2024.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.