The sports dispute itself is defined in the following from the perspective of legal sociology and sports sociology as a kind of tense social relation arising from the disputes of distribution of benefit as well as right and duty between the subjects in the sports. The sports dispute has some similarities as other kinds of disputes (e.g. political dispute, racial dispute, civil dispute, criminal dispute, etc) which are the particularity of the subject; the opposability of the subject’s benefit as well as the dynamic characteristic of the process of the dispute, besides, the sports dispute has its own particularities as technical, professional, culture-dependent and public.
　
　The sports dispute and sports order can be found to have some relativity and mixture considering the influence of the sports dispute from their relation .The basic elements of the sports dispute include the parties, the behavior and the subject-matter of the dispute and its relevant elements include the social sports institution, the direct reason of the sports dispute and the grades of its remedy mechanism. There are different sorts of sports disputes according to various standards and the most typical kinds are the disputes from the fans’ riot and the use of drugs. Because of the complexity of its kinds and nature as well as the advantage and disadvantage of its different resolution mechanisms, every country adopts the way of combining the internal remedy of the sports associations with the external remedy of the sports organizations (mediation, arbitration, action) to resolve the sports dispute and there is a tendency of pluralization of the development of the remedy mechanism of it.
　
　In the comparative part an examination is made of the practice of the sports dispute remedy in Britain, the United States, Germany, Italy, Greece, Netherlands, Japan, Belgium and Sweden. The British law has a very strict requirement of the substance and procedure of the internal remedy mechanism of the sports associations. Though the British courts are cautious to hear the cases out of the sports dispute, especially on the judicial review of the association’s decision, it is an unarguable fact that there are more and more sports disputes litigations, in which the injunction is one of the most effective weapons for the parties. The advantage and successful practice of sports arbitration in Britain maybe make it the most principal and effective remedy for British sports disputes; In the United States the internal remedy of the sports associations is usually through internal arbitration which to some extent safeguards the justice of the dispute-relieving process, and the external remedy of the sports trade is usually by the way of sports arbitration (external arbitration ) almost all of which are in the charge of the American Arbitration Association (AAA).The American courts are also cautious to hear the sports cases, especially those about the judicial review of the sports associations’ decision, however, the sports litigations are still on the rising in the courts; The situation in Germany is that there is generally an arrangement of three instances in the internal remedy mechanism of the sports associations and the only remedy for the parties in most of the stipulations is to resort to the internal remedy of the sports association, ousting the court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, when adjudicating the sports disputes the German courts often regard them as “justiciable controversy”, not subject to the principle of maintaining the autonomy of the sports organizations while exercising their jurisdiction, and there are many judicial interventions into the sports disputes. In the case of Italy the Italian National Olympic Committee plays a fairly great role in the remedy mechanism of sports dispute. In addition, the Italian law makes a strict distinction whether the internal remedy of sports associations (most are internal arbitrations) is a formal or informal arbitration, the court can take a full judicial review of the decision of the latter and it is unnecessary to exhaust the internal remedy of the sports organizations before the parties bring an action in the court. The greatest particularity of the sports dispute remedy mechanism in Greece lies in the establishment of the Supreme Council for the Resolution of Sport Disputes, an administrative institution to adjudicate all the sports disputes. In Netherlands the internal remedy of the sports associations must be exhausted before the resort to the judicial remedy, and also the arbitration committee in Dutch Football Association has its particular practice in dealing with the disputes out of the players’ transition; Most of the sports disputes in Japan are resolved by the sports associations and only a few are adjudicated in the courts. Separate sports arbitration system is being set up in Japan at present; In Belgium a special sports arbitration institution, namely the Belgian Sports Arbitration Committee has been set up to hear the sports disputes and every sports associations (e.g. the Belgian Football Association ) also has its own internal arbitration mechanism (e.g. the Arbitral College of the Belgian Football Association). The sports disputes in Sweden are almost resolved by means of the internal remedy of the sports associations with an exception of the sports disputes concerning the labor relationship over which the Swede courts have an exclusive jurisdiction.

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] 页 共[5]页