The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), in its ruling No. 22/2020, relating to the case of Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC vs. Vladimir Martínez Rodríguez, dated July 15, 2020, established criteria on the legal nature of the Uniform Minor League Player Contract (UPC), which it classified as an employment contract. On the other hand, it determined that, given its nature as an employment contract, the parties can only agree to arbitrate their disputes once the conflict between them has begun. Two prominent Dominican jurists have referred to this decision: on the one hand, Dr. Rafael Alburquerque, who agrees with the SCJ that the UPC is an employment contract, and therefore the arbitration clause is null and void In turn, Judge Édynson Alarcón also considers the UPC to be an employment contract, although he differs on the nullity of the arbitration clause. This article presents a position different from that held by the SCJ. The author argues that the UPC, as it is implemented in the Dominican context and in view of its special clauses specific to the field of sports, goes beyond labor law and is rather classified in the civil sphere as an unnamed or atypical contract. This classification of the UPC within the framework of civil law leads the author to defend the validity of the arbitration clause in this contract, while questioning a series of fundamental premises and arguments of the SCJ in said ruling.
