Scope of Review, Standard of Review and Authority to Grant a Remedy: An Analysis of Three Policy-Based Rules in a Sport-Specific Arbitration Process
Entertainment and Sports Law Journal
With an increasing number of sport disputes being heard by way of arbitration, some have called it a 'growth industry'. Much has been written on the relative benefits of sport-specific arbitration processes as compared to the litigation process but few contributions have probed more deeply to address the function and design of such a process. The purpose of this paper is to examine how certain prescribed rules of an arbitration process can serve as instruments of sport policy. Three rules of
... . Three rules of the arbitration process, each of which goes beyond a basic rule of procedure operation and has important policy implications for the sport organisation and sport in general, are discussed. The three rules relate to the proper scope of review of the adjudicator, the standard of review to be used in defining an error and the scope of authority of the adjudicator in crafting a remedy. Each of the rules can affect not just the outcome of a decision, but also the role decision-makers play within the sport organisation. The underlying premise of this paper is the view that the arbitration process and, more specifically, the rules of arbitration should be designed to support and to facilitate the desired function of independent sport arbitration. What that function is must be considered in light of the sport organisation's own governance and policy-making role. Policy-based rules of procedure such as the three discussed here, can either support that role or make incursions into the independent functioning of the sport organisation.