NFL players and owners have been in a dispute over protests occurring during the national anthem at games, which recently led to league representatives and players meeting face-to-face. After the owners conferred, they announced that the NFL would not require players to stand for the anthem. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said the owners hoped that support for the players' activism would lead to standing for the national anthem voluntarily. 

Recently, San Francisco 49ers player Eric Reid invited the league to participate in a mediation to resolve the issue. The response from the NFL was that it was not interested in having a mediator participate in their meetings.

Joe Lockhart, NFL executive vice president of communications and public affairs said, "The real strength of the dialogue going on is that it is direct." Lockhart also said that there are no future face-to-face meetings scheduled.

What would mediators say to this response? Of course, we have no "inside" information from the owners. However, given that limitation, mediators say that mediation cannot work unless both parties want to resolve the issue. And, oftentimes, the party who does not want to mediate perceives themselves as having greater power.

As mediation becomes more and more known, disputants are becoming aware that they may request it as a method towards resolution. But in my opinion, the owners won't mediate until they perceive that it is in their best interest to do so. 

The dispute does not appear to be at that point yet.

As a mediation advocate, I was pleased to see an article in the newest issue of "Conflict Resolution Quarterly". Lorig Charkoudian, Deborah Thompson Eisenberg and Jamie L. Walter reported a very complete study comparing mediation and litigation in civil cases in Baltimore City and Montgomery County, MD. Participants in the study were a diverse group of 387 people ranging in age from 17 to 90 years-old and consisted of approximately equal number of women and men. Cases included disagreements over contracts, landlord-tenant issues and tort disputes.

In the short term, those individuals who agreed to mediate rather than have their cases heard by a judge were more likely to report having an improved attitude toward the other party in the dispute, a greater sense of empowerment in the process, greater responsibility for the dispute, and greater satisfaction with the judicial system in general.  

In the long term, those individuals who agreed to mediate reported an improved relationship with and attitude to the other party, greater satisfaction with the outcome and with the judicial system in general. And more importantly, cases that settled in mediation were less likely to return to court for any enforcement action within a year.

I and many others for years have advocated the advantages of mediation. This study supports those claims. Court and community-based mediation services serve our society well.  And those individuals who are trained in mediation use those skills in family and social settings also contribute in positive ways to society.

In 2011, the American Bar Association declared the third week of October as “ABA Mediation Week” in recognition that there are multiple paths to dispute resolution. Adversarial litigation is not appropriate for all disputes, nor is mediation.  Particularly in cases where there is an existing relationship between parties who desire to maintain a connection. In my opinion, mediation is the more appropriate dispute resolution process.