Disputes are inevitable.  When something is inevitable there needs to be a plan to deal with it.  When a dispute occurs there is a risk that it will escalate.  If such a risk can reasonably be anticipated then a plan can be put in place to minimise it.

...In the context of sports disputes the reference to the third party to decide who wins can be through the civil courts.  Alternatively, it can be by way of an internal process, effectively arbitration, where the parties agree to submit the dispute to an internal decision maker such as the Football League’s Football Disciplinary Commission.  Although the internal processes usually have the advantage of being confidential and less expensive than court proceedings, the disadvantages of a complex procedure and being subject to the decision of a third party still apply.

An alternative plan for dealing with disputes would be to obtain the assistance of a third party who would not decide right and wrong but who can host a dialogue between the parties to find a solution that is in their own best interests.  This method is usually quicker, cheaper, more effective and less stressful than the alternative whilst still being confidential.  So why is mediation not used more? This is particularly puzzling in sport where the benefits of speed, cost and confidentiality of mediation would be generally welcome?   

Read the full article from LawInSport.com [HERE].