Resolving International Sports Disputes: An Exploration of Mediation and Conciliation

Abstract

The globalization of sports has led to an increase in cross-border disputes, necessitating effective and efficient dispute resolution mechanisms. Traditional litigation and arbitration methods often prove time-consuming, costly, and ineffective in preserving relationships. This research explores the role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, specifically mediation and conciliation, in resolving international sports disputes. Through a comparative analysis of international sports organizations and dispute resolution mechanisms, this study examines the benefits and limitations of mediation and conciliation in international sports. The study examines how successfully alternative dispute resolution (ADR) preserves relationships, reputations, and expertise while also upholding mutual respect and trust between the parties. The results highlight how mediation and conciliation may be used to settle international sports conflicts quickly, confidently, and flexibly while taking into account the particular sensitivities of sporting environments. In order to improve its implementation, this study also emphasizes the need for institutional support and knowledgeable facilitators with training in sports-related ADR. The suggestions are meant to assist athletes, teams, leagues, governing bodies, and sports organizations in successfully putting ADR procedures into practice. This will help to create standardized best practices that are cognizant of the ever-changing global sports environment.

References

1. Mironi M. The promise of mediation in sport-related disputes. The International Sports Law Journal. 2017 Apr; 16:131-54.
2. Godin PD. Sport Mediation: Mediating High‐Performance Sports Disputes. Negotiation Journal. 2017 Jan 9;33(1):25-51.
3. Arribas-Galarraga S, Luis-de Cos I, Luis-de Cos G, Urrutia-Gutierrez S. Mediation effect of perceived fitness on the relationship between self-efficacy and sport practice in Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 Dec;17(23):8800.
4. Duursma A. A current literature review of international mediation. International Journal of Conflict Management. 2014 Feb 4;25(1):81-98.
5. Ford N. Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: An individual differences approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 1995 Aug 1;43(2):241-59.
6. Field R. A Mediation Profession in Australia: An Improved Framework for Mediation Ethics. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal. 2007;18(3):178-85.
7. Durand J. The Institutionalizing of Mediation and Its Effect on Unrepresented Parties: Is Justice Really the Goal of Court-Mandated Mediation. Geo. J. Legal Ethics. 2016; 29:973.
8. Levin MS. The propriety of evaluative mediation: Concerns about the nature and quality of an evaluative opinion. Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol.. 2000;16:267.
9. Folger J, Bush RA. Transformative mediation. International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution. 2014 Jan 1;2(1):20-34.
10. Barsky A. “Med‐Arb”: Behind the Closed Doors of a Hybrid Process. Family Court Review. 2013 Oct;51(4):637-50.
11. Lumbantoruan P, Mawuntu R, Waha CJ, Tangkere C. E-Mediation in E-Litigation Stages in Court. JL Pol’y & Globalization. 2021; 108:66.
12. Usman A, Muhammadong M. Optimizing the Role of Mediation in Resolving Conflicts in Sports Organizations: A Study of Conflict Resolution from An Islamic Legal Perspective. The Journal of Academic Science. 2024 Oct 9;1(6):627-35.
13. Mironi M. The promise of mediation in sport-related disputes. The International Sports Law Journal. 2017 Apr; 16:131-54.
14. Blackshaw I. The Court of Arbitration for sport: an international forum for settling disputes effectively’within the family of sport’. Ent. L.. 2003; 2:61.