Arbitration is widely regarded as a more favourable alternative to litigation due to its efficiency, privacy, and reliance on subject-matter expertise. It serves as a time-efficient and economically viable means of resolving disputes. Accordingly, this study seeks to examine the various challenges encountered by entities providing third-party funding (TPF) within arbitral proceedings. To fulfil this objective, an analytical research design was adopted, facilitating the collection of qualitative data from both primary and secondary materials, including legal frameworks, statutory provisions, academic articles, scholarly texts, and existing literature. The analysis employed a content-based approach to derive the findings. The outcomes of the investigation revealed that while arbitration offers notable advantages in terms of cost and duration, these efficiencies may at times compromise the quality of legal services delivered. The study further identified a reciprocal relationship among quality, time, and cost within arbitral processes, emphasising the necessity for all participants to prioritise the intended procedural and substantive outcomes. The introduction of the contemporary practice of TPF has contributed to enhancing the overall quality and accessibility of arbitration by safeguarding the rights of all involved parties. In light of these insights, the research advocates for the inclusion of a specific legislative provision addressing TPF within Jordanian law.