Petros C. Mavroidis has taught trade and antitrust law at Columbia Law School since 2003 and periodically teaches courses on the law and economics of sports regulation in Europe and the United States. He also served as chief reporter for an American Law Institute (ALI) study on international trade and has authored or co-authored numerous books and articles on trade, antitrust, and sports regulation. Mavroidis shares his experience and thoughts about joining the AAA Sports Dispute panel.
Tell us about your background in sports-related disputes.
Mavroidis: I was appointed as an arbitrator to the Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS)/Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, more than two decades ago. Since then, I have served as an arbitrator in more than 300 sports-related disputes, giving me extensive experience with the unique legal, procedural, and practical considerations that arise in this highly specialized area of dispute resolution.
What kinds of matters do you most often see as an arbitrator or mediator in the sports industry?
Mavroidis: My experience spans a wide range of sports-related disputes, including contractual matters, challenges to the legality of decisions and actions taken by sports governing bodies (SGBs), and disciplinary proceedings. This breadth of work has provided me with substantial experience navigating the legal, regulatory, and governance issues that can arise across the sports sector.
What drew you to ADR work in this space, and what do you find most rewarding about serving on the AAA’s Sports Conflicts Panel?
Mavroidis: In my view, ADR provides a highly professional and well-suited forum for resolving complex sports-related disputes. I was particularly drawn to the quality and professionalism of the AAA staff, as well as the institution’s strong reputation for administering disputes with fairness, efficiency, and integrity.
What advice would you give parties preparing for arbitration or mediation in complex sports disputes?
Mavroidis: The appropriate approach will always depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the dispute. In general, however, parties should carefully consider whether formal adjudication is necessary before filing a claim. In some cases, direct bilateral negotiation may provide an equally effective and efficient path to resolution, particularly when the parties can identify common ground and address issues constructively.