An Examination of the Challenges to Achieving “Procedural Justice” in Negotiation and Mediation Processes in International Sports Disputes

Abstract

Within the international sports law system, there has been a growing tendency toward the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, particularly negotiation and mediation, with the aim of reducing protracted proceedings and excessive litigation costs. Nevertheless, reliance on these processes in the presence of institutional gaps has created fundamental challenges to the realization of “procedural justice.” The present study aims to examine the tension between “operational efficiency” and “legal legitimacy” in these processes and to propose structural mechanisms for safeguarding the fundamental rights of the parties. The research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach. The findings demonstrate that the inherent confidentiality of negotiations, in the absence of adequate oversight mechanisms, may become an instrument for undermining key elements such as the “right to be heard,” “informational balance,” and the “right of defense,” thereby unfairly shifting the balance of power in favor of sports governing bodies. This situation renders the resulting agreements highly vulnerable to challenge before higher adjudicatory bodies, such as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The study ultimately concludes that procedural justice is not merely an ethical choice but rather a “fundamental condition of validity” for legal outcomes in sport. The article proposes that, in order to achieve accountable governance, a “balanced model of procedural justice”—comprising the mandatory involvement of independent legal counsel, judicial confirmation of agreements by impartial bodies, and documentation of the negotiation process—should be institutionalized as formal procedural requirements within the disciplinary and arbitration regulations of international sports federations. Such a strategic transformation would elevate negotiations from a merely expediency-driven mechanism dependent on bargaining power to a disciplined and equitable legal process, thereby ensuring the durability, enforceability, and comprehensive legitimacy of sports-related agreements at the international level.