ILNews

IU McKinney dean named to Court of Arbitration for Sport

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana University Robert. H. McKinney School of Law Dean Gary R. Roberts has been appointed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, with branch offices in New York City and Sydney, Australia, CAS is independent of any sports organization and provides services to facilitate the settlement of sports-related disputes through arbitration or mediation by means of procedural rules adapted to specific sports.

Most CAS disputes are handled in much the same way a court case would be, under pre-hearing and hearing rules and procedures established by the court itself.

With the leadership of the International Olympic Committee, the CAS was allowed to become independent, which gave it international credibility. Over the following few years, all international sports federations agreed that disputes to which they or any teams, coaches or athletes under their jurisdiction were parties would be submitted for final binding arbitration to the CAS instead of national courts. Roughly 250 lawyers with extensive backgrounds in sports law have been appointed as judges or members of the CAS by the CAS governing board, the International Court of Arbitration for Sport.  

A recognized expert in sports law, Roberts has published several articles and book chapters on antitrust, labor and other issues in the sports industry, and has co-authored the leading casebook on sports law. He has served as president of the Sports Lawyers Association and as chairman of the Association of American Law Schools Sports Law Section. He is currently an officer and board member of The Sports Lawyers Association and is editor-in-chief of its monthly online newsletter, “The Sports Lawyer.” He is a certified commercial and sports arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association. He is also a founding member and member of the board of directors for the International Association of Sports Professionals and Executives. He has led the law school since 2007.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT