However, because the intervention of the state in sports (as in all social activities) needs to be appropriately regulated, it is a common practice for governments around the world to follow specific strategies when having to interact with sports organizations. The above assumption has been also supported by Johnson who found that when the government plans to intervene in the area of sports, there are three common types of policies that it tends to apply: integrative, symbolic and instrumental (1982, 22). Moreover, the evaluation of the whole governmental effort led to the conclusion that the significance of domestic sports policy is found in the modification and reinforcement of citizen values and beliefs. however oppositions will continue to offer opportunities to exploit sport due to governments failure to acknowledge the dysfunctional aspects of sports policies (Johnson, 1982, 22). In other words, the role of the government in the development of sports activities globally is significant but the relevant intervention is not appropriately ‘organized’ and as a result, there are many chances (and phenomena) of exploitation of the particular activity in favor of personal interests. On the other hand, it should be noticed that because sports law refers to a series of issues, it is difficult for the Courts to retrieve an ‘accurate’ solution for the disputes brought before of them. Indeed, a report published by the Cornell Law School (2007) noticed that sports Law encompasses a multitude of areas of law brought together in unique ways. issues such as antitrust.