HOME NEWS & VIEWS MEETINGS COMMITTEE LAW REPORTS CONTACT LONDON INSTITUTE
Letters to the Editor
Dear Sir,
May I be excused if I feel a trifle confused about the promotion of arbitration for sport. I have listened to two outstanding speakers who delivered their messages with the skills of the storyteller who is entertaining his or her listeners around the glowing fire on a winter's evening. It is magic stuff when one hears about the details of the darker side of the conflicts arising out of sports activities.
Those readers of this newsletter who now only have the benefit of reading about the two particular talks which I have in mind would have missed out on the even more captivating oral versions. One of these talks is recorded in (2005) 71 ARBITRATION 2, p. 148, under the heading 'Sport: Private Grief or Public Prurience', the other is recorded in News & Views, Issue No. 57, p. 10, under the heading of 'Sports Arbitrations'. The respective speakers were Sir Philip Otton and Graham Perry.
The word 'arbitration' is one of those useful words where I guess that the user knows what he or she is talking about. However, the listener who takes the trouble to think about the word often has some difficulty in focusing upon a clear definition in the context of that which is being spoken about.
For most of us, a few words from the Arbitration Act 1996 will provide some help, namely: '?the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay of expense.' From the same source, it states: 'the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest.' When one strays away from the simplicity of these principles the edges get a little blurred.
Based upon what I have heard up till now, it seems to me that the promoters of arbitration for sport are straying away into a territory where the use of the word '?arbitration' is simply a convenience of expression. Furthermore, it seems that the promoters have identified a procedure, which they call 'arbitration', as being the answer to a new phenomenon in the world of sport. It has been suggested that arbitration will deal effectively with human attitudes which did not exit in the past. Perhaps one could be excused if one reflects upon the concept of the older person who says, 'When I was a boy, potatoes tasted like potatoes, but these days they have lost their taste and texture'. Of course, one cannot deny that the human nature of sportsmen and sportswomen will manifest itself in various forms which are relevant to the present time, but careful reading of the articles will reveal the underlying truth of my reason for making these comments.
It is not my intention to expand the arguments in this letter, however, I hope that it will serve to set up a platform to encourage a wider debate about the means of resolving disputes in the important area of sports activities. In anticipation of such a debate, I suggest that one good area to start the discussion would be the privacy angle so I will draw upon a few brief comparisons from the above articles to encourage you to reflect upon the matter. Sir Philip Otton, having pinpointed the benefits of arbitration and mediation, suggested that 'it might well minimise the humiliation of intrusion into private grief and the indulgence of voracious public prurience.' That, of course, suggests a private procedure. However, previously in the talk, Sir Philip had given much detail of the Dennis Wise [footballer] saga. The appeal by Dennis Wise was heard by the board of the Football League (the tribunal), of which Sir Philip is a convenor. Sir Philip noted that the press were highly critical of the decision of the tribunal and he added a special point, namely: 'In accordance with the rules these proceedings had to be conducted in private behind closed doors.' He added, 'If ever there was a case for a hearing in public with the press present this was it'. Of course, I can understand the reasons for such a comment, but have I missed the point? Please disabuse me on the matter so that I can move forward with a clearer mind.
Also on the privacy angle, Graham Perry, who had also given an amazing range of details about the plight of some athletes, including the Dennis Wise saga, states that 'arbitration is well suited to sporting disputes. It is quick and flexible - it can be held on the pitch or in the Olympic Village. It can use the specialists knowledge of experts in the game, rather than a judge.... Finally it is private.'
I wondered about how the concept of privacy works in a dispute which evolves out of an event which takes place in the mass public arena. Also, with the concept of privacy in mind, I wondered about the promotion of arbitration for sports when the bulk of the time in promotion is spent on pandering to the anticipated prurience of the listeners by giving much intimate detail about individual athletes and their disputes.
In general, I also wondered about whether sportsmen and sportswomen would have the individual right to choose arbitration and be free to agree how their disputes are resolved. I wondered about whether a high powered tribunal with an intent to act speedily could really deliver justice. I wondered about why everyone else seems to have made the mess which arbitration would remove from sports activities. Yours sincerely, Francis Miller
Yours sincerely,
Francis Miller