Career or Family? Maternity Protections in FIFA Football and WTA Tennis

Timeline

1. Nov 2020FIFA's Football Stakeholders Committee backs minimum maternity standards for female players.
2. Jan 2021FIFA's maternity rules take effect: at least 14 weeks of leave at two-thirds of salary.
3. 2021Olympique Lyonnais pays Sara Björk Gunnarsdóttir under French sick-leave rules during her pregnancy; she files a claim.
4. 19 May 2022FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber orders Lyon to pay her €82,094.82 in outstanding pay.
5. Jan 2023FIFPRO publicizes the decision as the first won under the maternity rules.
6. 15 May 2024FIFA Council approves adoption, family and menstrual-health protections, and extends benefits to coaches.
7. 6 Mar 2025The WTA and PIF launch the PIF WTA Maternity Fund Program, retroactive to 1 January 2025.

The ethical issues

• Whether employers and governing bodies owe athletes support to become parents.
• Pregnancy discrimination and contract protection.
• Coverage gaps for self-employed athletes.
• Who funds welfare programs and what that funding may buy.
• Equality between biological, adoptive and non-biological parents.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Women athletes	Starting families without losing careers or income.
Clubs	Squad planning and costs of leave.
FIFA and the WTA	Growth, credibility and athlete welfare.
Player unions such as FIFPRO	Enforceable minimum standards.
Public Investment Fund	Partnership benefits and image.
Coaches and future players	Equal protection and role models.

The case

Until recently, many professional women athletes faced a stark choice: start a family or keep their careers. Some retired; others returned to find contracts gone or rankings lost. Since 2020, two very different systems have tried to change that. FIFA wrote minimum maternity rules into global football regulations, and a high-profile case tested them. The WTA, whose players are self-employed, created a paid maternity program funded by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF). The case asks what sport owes athletes who become parents, and who should pay for it.

Background

In November 2020, FIFA’s Football Stakeholders Committee backed “new global minimum standards for female players, particularly in relation to maternity.” The rules included “mandatory maternity leave of at least 14 weeks, at a minimum of two thirds of the player’s contracted salary,” a duty on clubs to reintegrate players and provide medical support, and a principle that “no female player should ever suffer a disadvantage as a result of becoming pregnant.” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said women’s football needed “a regulatory framework that is appropriate and suitable to the needs of the women’s game.”^[1] The rules took effect in January 2021 after pressure from the global players’ union FIFPRO.^[3]

What happened

The Lyon case. Sara Björk Gunnarsdóttir, an Iceland international, was playing for Olympique Lyonnais, a high-profile club in women’s football, when she became pregnant.^[3] Her contract paid a monthly salary of €17,000 in 2020–21 and €18,000 in 2021–22.^[2] “I had been nervous to tell them I was pregnant initially, but they were reassuring,” she later said. Then payments were missed. When she asked why, “the replies were evasive, until finally I was informed that they were following French law on sick leave instead of FIFA’s maternity regulations.”^[3]

With FIFPRO’s support, she brought a claim before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber. On 19 May 2022, it partially accepted her claim and ordered Lyon to pay €82,094.82 in outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest. If the club did not pay within 45 days, it faced a ban on registering new players.^[2] FIFPRO said she became “the first player to win a claim against a club through the FIFA Maternity Regulations.” Its lawyer said the provisions “are a minimum and are mandatory,” and that the decision explained “the duty of care that clubs, as employers, have towards players.”^[3]

“I am proud of what I have achieved, not just for me, but for all women who are to follow,” Gunnarsdóttir said.^[3]

FIFA expands the rules. On 15 May 2024, the FIFA Council approved further changes.^[4] Non-biological mothers gained eight weeks of family leave. Adoptive parents gained leave of eight, four or two weeks, depending on the child’s age. In both cases, the minimum pay is two-thirds of salary. A new provision allowed players with a medical certificate to miss training or matches for menstrual health “without suffering any financial consequences.” Maternity and adoption benefits were also extended to female coaches.^[4]

The WTA program. Tennis players are independent contractors, so employer-based rules do not fit. On 6 March 2025, the WTA and PIF announced the PIF WTA Maternity Fund Program, providing eligible players “for the first time” with paid maternity leave of up to 12 months and grants for fertility treatments. More than 320 players were eligible at launch.^[5] The WTA said players could also receive up to two months of paid parental leave, and grants for egg and embryo freezing and IVF.^[6]

Victoria Azarenka, a two-time Grand Slam singles champion who returned to tennis after becoming a mother and chaired the WTA Players’ Council, said that when she stepped away while pregnant in 2016, “there was no real structure.” She called the program “driven by players.”^[6] WTA chief executive Portia Archer said the partnership with PIF “allows us to realize a key ambition.” PIF called it “the only maternity program in women’s sports to be fully funded and supported by an external partner.”^[5]

The rules and governance

The two systems differ in structure. FIFA’s rules bind clubs as employers and are enforced through FIFA’s tribunal. The WTA program depends on a sponsor’s funding.^[4][5] A Linklaters analysis noted that eligibility requires a minimum number of WTA events, so only about 320 of roughly 1,600 members would benefit. Payments are the same regardless of ranking, but the amount was not disclosed. The analysis also noted that FIFA’s policy defers to national law when it is more generous, and that players do not have to repay WTA funds if they choose not to return.^[7]

Aftermath

Linklaters placed the program within a wider trend: in the UK alone, UK Sport, the Rugby Football Union and FIFA had introduced maternity policies in the previous five years.^[7] The WTA program sits alongside existing ranking protections that let mothers return at the same level for up to three years.^[7] Questions remain about the size of benefits, how they interact with national law and whether reliance on PIF money ties athlete welfare to a state fund’s reputational goals.^[7]

The core dilemma

Pregnancy should not end a career. Yet providing leave and pay costs money, and in sport those costs fall on clubs, governing bodies or sponsors with their own interests. FIFA chose mandatory rules on employers; the WTA chose a sponsor-funded program. What do sports organizations owe athletes who become parents, and does it matter who pays?

Competing values

• Care vs. cost: supporting athletes against clubs’ budgets and squad needs.
• Mandates vs. goodwill: binding rules against voluntary support.
• Inclusion vs. eligibility: reaching all athletes against limiting programs to some.
• Welfare vs. source of funds: accepting money that improves lives against concerns about the funder.

Strongest arguments

Mandatory standards are essential. Even at a club known for supporting women’s football, a player’s pay was cut until a tribunal intervened. Minimums must be enforceable.^[2][3]

Self-employed athletes need tailored solutions. Tennis players have no employer to bear costs, so a pooled, funded program is the only realistic option. That it exists at all is progress.^[6][7]

The funding source matters. A program financed by a state investment fund can improve lives while also burnishing that state’s image. Athletes and fans may reasonably ask whether welfare should depend on such partners.

Applying the frameworks

Care ethics

Care ethics centers relationships and vulnerability. Pregnancy and early parenthood are times of heightened need. Institutions that rely on women athletes have a responsibility to support them through these periods.

Justice

A justice lens asks whether burdens and benefits are fairly distributed. Should only those who meet eligibility thresholds benefit? Is two-thirds pay fair when it is set by a governing body, not negotiated?

Rights

A rights approach treats freedom from pregnancy discrimination and the ability to found a family as basic entitlements. It supports binding, enforceable protections rather than discretionary benefits.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You lead a women’s league’s welfare committee. Stakeholders include players, clubs, sponsors, unions and fans.
2. Gather facts. What protections exist under national law and governing-body rules? What do players need? Avoid status quo bias.
3. Test options. Mandatory employer-funded leave; a pooled fund; a sponsor-funded program; or no change.
4. Check codes and law. Review FIFA’s regulations, national employment law and sponsorship terms.
5. Decide and document. Choose a scheme that is enforceable and inclusive and explain who pays.
6. Communicate and follow up. Publish benefits clearly and monitor uptake and disputes.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled

• FIFA requires at least 14 weeks of maternity leave at two-thirds of salary.
• FIFA’s tribunal ordered Lyon to pay Gunnarsdóttir more than €82,000.
• The WTA and PIF launched paid maternity leave of up to 12 months in 2025.

Contested

• Whether two-thirds of salary and 14 weeks are adequate.
• Whether eligibility limits for the WTA program are fair.
• Whether a state fund should finance athlete welfare.

Why this case matters

Women’s sport is growing, and so are expectations about how athletes are treated. This case shows how rules, enforcement and funding shape whether athletes can be parents. Compare it with the USWNT’s equal pay lawsuit and LIV Golf’s Saudi backing.

Key terms

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Reasonable accommodation

Adjusting conditions so people can take part, without lowering the standard. Fairness isn’t sameness.

Sportswashing

Using sport, through events, teams or sponsorship, to improve the reputation of a state or company and distract from wrongdoing.

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Glass ceiling

Invisible, systemic barriers in hiring and promotion that keep women and minorities out of leadership roles.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Is two-thirds of salary enough maternity pay for a contracted player? Who should decide?
2. Why might a well-resourced club still have withheld pay from a pregnant player?
3. Should a tour, its sponsors or the players themselves fund maternity leave for self-employed athletes?
4. Does Saudi funding of the WTA program change how you evaluate it?
5. Should maternity protections extend equally to adoptive and non-biological parents?

Sources

1. FIFA steps up protection of female players and football coaches — FIFA
2. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Sara Björk Gunnarsdóttir v. Olympique Lyonnais (19 May 2022) — FIFA Football Tribunal
3. Sara Bjork Gunnarsdottir's maternity case shows all players need protection – even those at high-profile clubs — FIFPRO
4. Explanatory Note on New Provisions in the RSTP Regarding Female Players (2024) — FIFA (via Croatian Football Federation)
5. WTA and PIF create the PIF WTA Maternity Fund Program — WTA
6. Azarenka's fight for maternity rights pays off in historic WTA move — WTA
7. Game Set Match? Comparing the WTA's Maternity Fund Programme to existing maternity policies in the sports sector — Linklaters