Global footballers' union FIFPRO hailed on Wednesday what it called a "landmark" decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to order Lazio women to pay compensation for unlawfully ending a player's time at the club for being pregnant.
Maja Gothberg has been awarded a total of €69 333 after it was found Lazio had withdrawn from a contract agreement in the summer of 2024 after she informed the club she was pregnant.
FIFPRO said Swedish defender Gothberg, who the previous season had helped Lazio get promoted to top-tier Serie A Women, brought a case which "could shape how pregnancy protections are applied across professional football in future".
"The significance of this ruling goes beyond Maja Gothberg and confirms clubs cannot simply walk away from an employment relationship, even if this is not fully formalised, once they learn a player is pregnant," said FIFPRO's legal director Alexandra Gomez Bruinewoud.
In its ruling from late last month, CAS said it "unanimously concludes that the Parties have entered into a binding employment contract before the disclosure of the Player's pregnancy", even though she never signed any contract.
"Neither the signing nor the registration of the contract is required for its legal validity," added CAS, which ruled that "it was the Club who unilaterally terminated the contract by its negation of the validity of the agreement".
CAS continued: "The Club started denying the validity of the contract precisely when it was informed of the Player's pregnancy."
Gothberg praised the CAS ruling, saying her appeal "was about being treated fairly and with respect".
"The ruling sends a message that pregnancy should never be treated as a problem or a reason to deny a player labour opportunities," she added.
Lazio released a statement on Wednesday acknowledging the ruling but defended the club's conduct, pointing out CAS "did not impose the additional sporting sanctions provided under FIFA regulations for cases involving discriminatory conduct".
"(CAS) acknowledges that S.S. Lazio Women 2015 A.R.L. did not act in bad faith and that the club proceeded on the basis of a legal interpretation which, although ultimately not upheld by the Panel, was considered to have been genuinely adopted."