GUNNARSDÓTTIR v OLYMPIC LYONNAIS: An AFFIRMATION BY FIFA ON THE MATERNITY RIGHTS OF FEMALE FOOTBALLERS

GUNNARSDÓTTIR v OLYMPIC LYONNAIS: An AFFIRMATION BY FIFA ON THE MATERNITY RIGHTS OF FEMALE FOOTBALLERS.~Uyi Olubor Esq.

The new edition of the FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP)came with numerous innovations. One of those innovations is the enthronement of Maternity rights for Female Footballers. To the extent that, football clubs are forbidden from making the validity of a player's contract subject to a player being or becoming pregnant during its term. These new provisions were recently tested in the dispute between Sarah Bjork Gunnarsdóttir v Olympique Lyonnais at the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chambers (DRC). The dispute arose after a Player who just became pregnant agreed with her club, to leave her base in France and return to her home country in Iceland for the duration of her pregnancy.

The club immediately, filed for the social security allowance on behalf of the player amounting to EUR 45.99 per day. The player then inquired as to the reasons why her salary has not been paid in its entirety, the club replied the Player that since she did not provide sporting services 

nor any other alternate employment during her pregnancy as foreseen in the FIFA Regulations. She was subject to 'the rules regarding sick leave compensation in accordance with the club's agreement on work time and the French legislation'. The player in another correspondence then replied to the club, stating that the club had never mentioned the possibility of continuing to work in an alternative way. Shortly after that, the player then brought her dispute before FIFA, requesting the outstanding salaries during the months of her pregnancy. 

In considering this dispute, the FIFA DRC analyzed the provisions of Article 18 quarter 4 of the FIFA Regulation on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) which provides that a player who becomes pregnant during the pendency of her contract is entitled to continue providing sporting services to her employer subject to the approval of her treating and independent medical practitioner. Or in the alternative, if her medical practitioner deems that it is not safe to continue providing sporting activities or should she chose not to exercise that right. The club has a duty to respect that decision and work with the player to formalize a plan for her alternate employment. The DRC in examining the actions of both the parties. It observed that from the correspondence of both the parties that the club was never opposed to the Claimant returning to her home country to tend to her maternal health. And it was also apparent that she was not aware that she could provide alternate services for her employers.  And that when she became aware, she made herself available to her employer. Which her employer failed to take any positive step in that direction. The DRC, in reaching its decision, it stated that it is the duty of the club to collaborate with the player to find alternate employment within the club. As a result of the above, the DRC then concluded that the respondent (her club) shall renumerate her fully until the commencement of her maternity leave, whereas during her maternity leave the player would only be entitled to two-thirds of her contractual salary in line with article 18 (7) of the Regulations.

Note: Maternity leave is a maximum period of 14 weeks paid absence granted to a player due to her pregnancy, of which a minimum of eight weeks must occur after the birth of the child. The player would only be entitled to two-third of her salary.

 Also in considering the issue of jurisdiction as raised by the respondent (the employer/club) the DRC first considered article 2 (1) of the procedural rules in combination with article 22 of the RSTP. It stated that it is competent to deal with the above matter as it relates to an employment dispute with international colouration involving a French club and an Icelandic player. It went further to state that the fact that parties agreed to the application of a particular law does not translate to them excluding a particular forum from hearing the dispute. And that if it was the intention of the Club to empower solely the French Labour Court to adjudicate on disputes between the parties, it ought to have made it abundantly clear in the Contract.

In Conclusion, there are significant lessons to be drawn by representatives of female footballers and even representative of football clubs. And chief amongst such is ensuring that provisions for alternate employment her ironed out between the parties immediately the player becomes pregnant, and it's apparent that she cannot continue to provide sporting services.