Re: the legal firm defending us

Jim

It’s based on arbritration though.

How so?

When you go to arbitration over something, there is a single arbitrator, and each opposing party has their case presented by their own 'champion'. The arbitrator then tries to negotiate between the parties to reach a mutually acceptable compromise solution.

No. That's mediation. A mediator doesn't make rulings, just a settlement. Even if he thinks Party A is 100% wrong, if Party B basically gives up everything, he will go with it.

Arbitration is basically a privatized trial. It is a contractual thing - basically when signing up to the League, clubs agree to this sort of way of resolving disputes, to avoid having to go to court. Parties choose the judge and the rules that apply. You can have as many arbitrators as you want; usually 1, but sometimes 3, with each side picking one and those two picking a third.

Arbitration is also in private. Court hearings are public.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that it is so difficult to appeal arbitrations. There is a reason for that. Arbitration is to get to a result. Not necessarily the right result, but something that allows everyone to move on with their lives. So if there are flaws, but not fatal ones, tough. Get on with it. It's why it is used in sport because of the ongoing nature of competition. Whereas in a normal contract it's a side-issue to the parties involved. Can take the time to get it dead on through appeal if necessary.