TY - JOUR
T1 - The resolution of professional tennis disputes
AU - Bantekas, Ilias
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press.
PY - 2023/12/1
Y1 - 2023/12/1
N2 - The regulatory landscape of professional tennis is scattered across several entities, each administering its own tournaments. This article focuses on disputes involving professional tennis players. In this context, it identifies two major areas of disputes, namely regulatory (encompassing disciplinary, doping and corruption offences) and contractual. The latter are chiefly resolved through litigation. Regulatory disputes are administered through distinct judicial and quasi-judicial institutions set up by the various tennis entities. The International Tennis Federation's (ITF) international adjudication panel and its independent tribunal are the key institutions in this respect, with the independent tribunal possessing all the attributes of arbitral tribunals. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been conferred a limited appellate jurisdiction over decisions of these two entities. Overall, the ITF's dispute resolution architecture has been effective and has created a significant body of precedent, further supplemented by that of the CAS.
AB - The regulatory landscape of professional tennis is scattered across several entities, each administering its own tournaments. This article focuses on disputes involving professional tennis players. In this context, it identifies two major areas of disputes, namely regulatory (encompassing disciplinary, doping and corruption offences) and contractual. The latter are chiefly resolved through litigation. Regulatory disputes are administered through distinct judicial and quasi-judicial institutions set up by the various tennis entities. The International Tennis Federation's (ITF) international adjudication panel and its independent tribunal are the key institutions in this respect, with the independent tribunal possessing all the attributes of arbitral tribunals. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been conferred a limited appellate jurisdiction over decisions of these two entities. Overall, the ITF's dispute resolution architecture has been effective and has created a significant body of precedent, further supplemented by that of the CAS.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85179490218&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/jnlids/idad010
DO - 10.1093/jnlids/idad010
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85179490218
SN - 2040-3585
VL - 14
SP - 488
EP - 503
JO - Journal of International Dispute Settlement
JF - Journal of International Dispute Settlement
IS - 4
ER -