Authored By: Agbeyo John
Obafemi Awolowo University
Abstract:
This article shall undertake the analysis of disputes within the Sports industry, and how they have been remedied by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. The underlying aim, being to highlight the blossoming intersection between both areas, and discuss the possible consolidation between both areas in the future. To achieve this, the article shall take the liberty of mentioning and analysing specific case studies to illustrate key points, tying them back to the central topic, the blossoming intersection between the two concerned areas.
Introduction:
Hours before a football match, the Roland Garros final, or a Wanda Diamond League final round for both track and field events, are some examples of nail biting tension and high pressure sporting moments. This height of emotion is not just for the athletes, but for the spectators, and officials too. History could be made or marred, records could be broken and some could be set, and while all this is going on, primary attention might not be paid to the governing laws and legal principles guiding the relationships in sports, and athletics. More often than not attention could be paid to them too late, with conflict arising from contractual issues, remuneration and ethical dilemmas, spilling into the public domain. It is core to human society, that there is no human relationship without conflict, and in the world of sports conflict, not properly managed could get easily ugly. History has been a witness to this, be it with legal cases and arbitral awards such as Mokgadi Caster Semenya v. International Association of Athletics (CAS 2018/O/5794), or Manchester City’s ongoing infamous one hundred and fifteen (115) charges at the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), as public sagas and drama that spill to the public eye.
Disputes are a recurring feature in the sports world. As professional sports are growing more complex and global, adopting traditional litigation practice to resolve disputes might become more and more impracticable. This has led to the development and adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in other industries, such as international commerce and investment, to settle conflicts. Going further, this article shall undertake the analysis of disputes within the Sports industry, and how they have been remedied by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. The underlying aim, being to highlight the blossoming intersection between both areas, and discuss the possible consolidation between both areas in the future. To achieve this, the article shall take the liberty of mentioning and analysing specific case studies to illustrate key points, tying them back to the central topic, the blossoming intersection between the two concerned areas.
The What and Why:
Foundationally, what is ADR? ADR, acronym Alternative Dispute Resolution, is the umbrella term for mechanisms that aim to resolve conflicts arising from human interaction, without recourse to litigation, i.e a case or action in court. ADR comprises mechanisms such as negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration, with the latter being the most globally recognised mechanism. Its history is entrenched in cultural and indigenous communities such as the usage of mediation within the Umunna by the Ibo, (the dominant tribe in eastern Nigeria). Prehistoric societies, such as the Bushmen in the Kalahari, as well, had developed sophisticated dispute resolution practices tailored to their needs without legal systems. However, its movement has grown with the formalization of arbitration statutes since the early 20th century, in not only international jurisdictions but as well as national jurisdictions around the world.
Flowing from the above, i.e. a foundational knowledge of what ADR entails, it is essential to provide a rejoinder for the inquiry of why.
Why are ADR mechanisms a good fit for sports disputes? Court proceedings have proven to be an effective medium to sports disputes in the past, with cases such as Smoldon v Whitworth and Nolan (1) where a referee in a rugby game was found to be liable for breach of duty of care, when a player was injured. Also, the case of Collett v Smith and anor (2) provides another instance, where Collett successfully sued Middlesborough who were liable vicariously for a high tackle during a game, resulting in his loss of earnings as a footballer.
In spite of the foregoing however, it can be argued that ADR mechanisms are nowadays more desirable due to the complex nature of sports phenomena. Sports and Athletics are no longer annual or seasonal events, they demand the availability of athletes and sports stars, on the national, regional and international stage nearly all year long. Player contracts, transfer windows, and competition schedules communicate the simple message, that time is of the essence in the sporting world. Thus conflicts in line with sports often demand swift resolution, guaranteed to be placed within a framework that could be extradited yet, fair and binding on both parties. ADR mechanisms most often fit this job description, as for example, the International Chamber of Commerce, in its Rules for Arbitration (3) ,provides in its Article 30, that “the time limit within which the arbitral tribunal must render its final award is six months”, from the date of the case commencement. To summarily compare, the lengthy and unpredictable nature of traditional court proceedings, do little to assuage the concerns of swift dispensation in justice, in line with sports calendars, across various jurisdictions, could be unpredictable and technical in its aim to dispense justice. This approach is not the most compatible medium for sports disputes.
Furthermore, the sui generis nature of sports disputes lie not just in the unique nature of the sport itself, but also in the custom made rules. Expertise and specialisation are often mandatory to navigate sporting disputes, arising from specific regulations and industry practices. Concepts such as FInancial Fair Play rules adopted by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), are ensamples, as disputes regarding footballer’s salaries and contractual clauses would require in-depth knowledge on these concepts. Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) adopted by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the codifications in the World Anti Doping Code (WADA) are also more examples to mention a few. A plethora of disputes that arise from these issues, are often niched down and unadvisable to be distilled by generalist judges. ADR mechanisms such as mediation and Arbitration, often adopt the appointment of industry-specific experts, either adopted by the parties themselves or by the tribunal for them. Above all else, it ensures the parties and the umpires in sports disputes understand each other and the applicable rules, conduct and customs that guide the conflict between them.
On a final note, it’s important to highlight that, sporting success often results into unwarranted social capital, and fame to a global audience. Both for sports organisations and the athletes themselves, disputes that are revealed to the public eye, leads to unpredictable reactions. While it might be triggering for, an hypothetical ultra fan of a football club, to come to the knowledge that a footballer from said club, wishes to leave due to pecuniary concerns, such concerns are paramount to the athlete. Disputes that are exposed to the public domain, are volatile and could lead to negative publicity and a ruined public image for either party in a dispute in the sporting world. For athletes who commercialise their image rights and public profile in exchange for paid sponsorships, the importance of privacy cannot be oversaid. Unlike litigation which is largely public, most ADR mechanisms are confidential, and strictly so by law. Uniform provisions, across the rules of seats of Arbitration, such as those of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, HKIAC Rules 2024 and London Court of International Arbitration 2020 Rules provide for confidentiality. The primary court of remedy for sport disputes viz The Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) does not provide for the confidentiality of awards, but does largely provide for private proceedings, to grant for the privacy of the parties involved.
Case Studies:
Case Study 1: Alexander Isak and the Newcastle Saga – An overview at Contractual Disputes and ADR Applicability:
At the end of the 2025/2025 Premier League season, Newcastle United Football Club, finished fifth on the league table, a position that bettered that of their previous season. This strong position was arguably largely due to the amazing performance of their star player, Alexander Isak. Newcastle’s main striker who provided over twenty five goals, and 6 assists, over the span of the season. As expected, the Swede was thought to be part of the team’s plans for the future, as the club made no intention to sell the player during the transfer window, pre season. It came as a surprise to the public to discover Isak’s dissatisfaction with staying at the club, as opposed to a transfer to another Premier League giant, Liverpool. Statements on Isak’s social media account, expressed his frustration with a purported breach of trust, and promise between the club, as his desire to leave had been clear. The club in turn responded by an official statement (4), stating that such agreement never existed, and their desire to retain the services of Isak were clear to both parties. The public statements, and back and forths, provide a front row seat to the complexities of disputes in the sporting world. Interpretation of the contract between player and club, as well as the feasibility of a transfer would require a detailed analysis of legal principles.
Realistically, the ongoing conflict between Alexander Isak and NUFC, is one that’s complicated and affects each party in its unique way. ADR as an hypothetical medium in this case study would apply to de-escalate the situation, with the public nature of the dispute already meaning that the stakes for both parties are quite high. Mechanisms such as mediation, where a neutral third party can be contracted to catalyse an mutually agreeable solution, through confidential discussions. A mediator, who would be a neutral third party, would listen to the demands of the both parties, and through mutual dialogue lead them to their formulation of an agreement that works for both parties. In this case, that would be whether or not a transfer for Isak would be possible, if so at what price? And how soon? The underline of the mediation session would be to craft a binding and a mutually agreeable solution between both parties. Also, the Court of Arbitration for Sports, through its Ordinary Arbitration Division, can receive applications for Arbitration proceedings, that are instituted by parties themselves and not as a result of appeals to the tribunal. This approach might be adopted, as well, by both parties.
Legally, there exists legal rules that could apply to this case. Article 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) adopted by FIFA, provides players with the right to unilaterally terminate their contracts with their clubs. Isak per its provisions, qualifies to the provisions of the Article, as he is a player signed to NUFC before 28, yet has spent the first three years of contract. However the provision provides for such right must be utilised, within 15 days of the last competitive match of the season, and for such right to be valid, he must pay his remaining salary, as well as a sizeable amount of his initial transfer fee. This reality all the more provides reason for the applicability of ADR in this ongoing conflict.
Case Study 2: Caster Semenya and the Court of Arbitration for Sport – An Examination of Arbitral Justice
Mokgadi Caster Semenya is a world class female athlete, born in South Africa and is a middle-distance runner, with two Olympic gold medals and three World Championships under her belt. Her career has spanned memorable moments, like her first gold at the World Championships in 2009, as well as brilliant wins at the 2016 Olympics at Rio, and a bronze medal at the 2017 World Championships.
Her athletic career has however in recent times been the laser focus on sporting disputes arising from the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) regulations on athletes. The IAAF, being the global overseeing body for the sport of track and field athletics, develops the regulatory framework for track and field athletes. Thus its provision based (Disorder of Sex Development) DSD regulation, was at first, no cause for immediate surprise. A rule by the IAAF, in essence, restricted the level of testosterone, permitted in women competing in track events between 400m and a mile was issued to be lower than five nanomoles per litre of blood (nmol/l). In 2023, this threshold was reduced even further to 2.5 nmol/L, and must be maintained so per the IAAF, for at least 24 months before competing in any track event. This conflict arose due to dissatisfaction with the rules issued by the governing body over the athlete, and thus led to an appeal by Semenya. Her belief that such rules were discriminatory, and deprived her right to professionally compete in events of her choice, led her to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) in 2019. The nature of this conflict involved a mix of not only scientific standards in athletics, but also human right issues such as Human Rights, and discrimination. The unique requirement of technical and ethical considerations, to distill this conflict presents a certain kind of special challenge that the mechanism of Arbitration can remedy.
Historically, the Court of Arbitration for Sports was the brainchild of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to deal with disputes arising during the Olympics. Situated in Lausanne, Switzerland, its primary seat is in Switzerland, with appeals directed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal. However since its establishment in 1984, it has evolved, and taken shape as a more independent and impartial tribunal of Arbitration. Thus ensuring that its arbitral awards, as regards appeals based on regulatory provisions by sports bodies, or directly instituted disputes are binding, and enforceable legally.
Arbitration, which is by far the most acclaimed ADR mechanism, is utilised by the CAS in the pronouncements of awards, and the provision of arbitral justice. The jurisdiction of the CAS is far from just theorical, Its applicability which, is typically drafted into arbitration agreements between parties, serves as a prior condition for bringing a case before the CAS. Additionally, the status of CAS is recognised by respectable courts all over the world. This can be corroborated in the locus classicus, 1993 case of Gundel v. La Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). It was held here among other things, the legal status and recognition of CAS. The Swiss Federal Tribunal affirmed the validity and legality of CAS’s arbitration clauses and recognized CAS as a court of arbitration. In a manner of speaking the Court of Arbitration for Sports, serves as a “Supreme Court for sports”, as apart from Semenya’s case study, the Court has employed the mechanism of arbitration to develop lex sportiva (a specialized body of sports law). The CAS is however not all encompassing as where the CAS fails, the party concerned could appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and where appeal is not favourable, to other judicial bodies.
In Semenya’s case for instance, the CAS in a 2-1 award, failed to rule in favour of her case. In their judgment, the Arbitrators held said IAAF regulations in her case were indeed discriminatory, however they were ultimately necessary. Seeing as the aim of the IAAF was to legitimately protect female athletes in the events concerned, her appeal was dismissed. Her appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal in August 2020,was for a setting aside of the CAS award which was summarily dismissed. This led her to appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2023, which in a 2025 decision upheld her claim that the awards were inadequate to protect her rights. The ECtHR further criticised the Swiss Federal Tribunal for not thoroughly reviewing the CAS award in line with the European Charter of Human Rights in Article 6 and Article 1, meant to guarantee the fair trial of Semenya’s appeal. While the provisions as regards the application of lex sportiva by the CAS, were unchallenged, the lack of required attention being paid to human rights, and fair hearing, during the arbitral process were enough to grant Semenya justice.
The Broader Landscape of ADR and Sports:
Apart from the case studies analysed, which draw an overview on the applicability or application of ADR into sports disputes, there exists a bigger picture. Sporting events which are cut across different sports now possess their internal ADR remedy system in case it disputes. FIFA for example, with its FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) serves as a specialized tribunal providing arbitration and dispute resolution, for clubs and players. The NBA, and its provisions for the offices of the NBA Commissioner (5) ,Impartial Arbitrator and System Arbitrator, guide the application of ADR to settle sporting disputes within the NBA. Even more encouraging is how informal ADR mechanisms have become more prevalent, with many sporting contracts now incorporating mediation clauses prior to full blown conflict to settle disputes.
Conclusion:
In terminus, the future of sports, and its intersection with ADR is certain to be one that’ll continue to blossom. ADR mechanisms have become indispensable to the structural composition of sports activities. Leagues, tournaments and seasonal events rely on the speed, expertise and confidentiality that ADR mechanisms provide. While there is still work to be done, it is posited that these intersections of social and legal phenomena would continue to blossom and influence the framework for sports in the future.
Reference(S):
1: Smoldon v Whitworth and Nolan (CA 17 Dec 1996)
2: Collett v Smith and anor (2) [2008] EWHC 1962 (QB)
3: International Chamber of Commerce, Rules for Arbitration, Article 30
4: Newcastle United statement: Alexander Isak 2025 – (https://share.google/5829vJ2jtmW2NqYU1)
5: Jeffrey A. Mishkin, Dispute Resolution in the NBA: The Allocation of Decision Making Among the Commissioner, Impartial Arbitrator, System Arbitrator, and the Courts, 35 Val. U. L. Rev. 449 (2001).
