Zubas Claims
- The amount of the determining salary – The Regional Court erred when it ruled that the economy fees and the points bonus should not be taken into account as part of the calculation of Zubas' determining salary. These increments were paid unconditionally, and therefore the split of wages into these components should be viewed as a fictitious split intended to evade payment of social benefits for them.
- Wage reduction – The wage reduction due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was coerced, and therefore the signed agreement should be considered null and void. The signing of the wage reduction appendix was retroactive to the reduction itself, and therefore there is no escaping the conclusion that this was a fictitious agreement intended to legitimize what was done.
- Work pay during the weekly rest and holidays – the regional court erred in calculating the entitlement to these components. It is claimed that Zubas is entitled to a payment of 150% and not only an additional 50%.
- Pension Deposits - The Regional Court should have awarded compensation for failure to make pension deposits in accordance with the amount of Zubas' salary.
- Expenses – Taking into account the amounts awarded, the length of the proceeding, and Bnei Yehuda's denial of its obligation to pay Zuvas his rights, the court should have awarded him legal expenses for conducting the proceeding. Insofar as there was a defect in good faith in the manner in which Zubas signed his affidavit in the proceeding, this does not lead to the result of not awarding expenses that should have been of a significant amount in light of the aforesaid.
- Interest and linkage – In light of the long period of time that had elapsed from the date on which Zubas's rights should have been paid until the date of the judgment, the court should have ruled that the amounts awarded would bear additional interest and linkage in accordance with the law.
- Helena compensation - The regional court erred in not awarding Helena compensation despite Bnei Yehuda's conduct.
Bnei Yehuda's Claims
- The amount of the determining salary – the appeal in this matter should be dismissed since Zubas did not meet the burden of proof placed on him to show that the components in respect of which he claimed were artificially split. It was also proven in the course of the proceedings in the Regional Court with respect to the points bonus that this is an uncertain grant and is contingent on the success of Bnei Yehuda, and therefore does not constitute part of the base salary for the purpose of calculating his social rights.
- Salary reduction - Bnei Yehuda supported the regional court's reasoning on this matter, while claiming that in his appeal Zubas did not deal with these reasons.
- Remuneration for work during weekly rest and holidays - acceptance of Zubas's claim in this matter will result in him receiving double payment for his days of work, weekly rest and holidays, since he received base wages for these days.
- Pension Deposits – In this regard, Bnei Yehuda supported the Regional Court's arguments.
- Expenses - There is no dispute that Zubas's affidavit was verified in violation of the law and that he chose not to inform the court about it. Against this background, the Regional Court was correct in its determination that despite the outcome of the judgment, each party will bear its own costs. In addition, it is a rule that an appellate court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion of the trial court in awarding costs.
- Interest and linkage – this component is subject to the discretion of the trial court. Zubas did not present a substantive argument as to why this discretion should be interfered with, and therefore this argument should be rejected.
- Helena Compensation - Zubas did not explain his claim in respect of this component, and therefore the claim should be rejected.
Positions Submitted in Appeals
- In a decision dated February 17, 2025 in Zubas's appeal, in light of the fundamental issues that arise in the proceeding and the broad implications that may be implications for the judgments in the appeals, the Israel Football Association (hereinafter – the Association) and the New General Workers' Union (hereinafter – the Histadrut) were allowed to submit their positions. Subsequently, in accordance with the decision of the Registrar of the Tribunal, Judge Hani Tal-Primor, in Maccabi Netanya's appeal, the manager of professional soccer leagues in Israel in a tax appeal (hereinafter – the administration) was also allowed to submit its position in the appeals.
The Principal's Position
- In general, the administration argued that weight should be given to the level of the players' salaries and that they should be represented in the negotiation of their employment contract, since they cannot claim that they were not aware of the terms of their employment. Alternatively, it was argued that any determination made in the framework of the judgment must have prospective applicability. The economic consequences of the outcome of the judgment may be far-reaching, since until now there have been conflicting rulings with respect to the questions that arise in the proceeding, and since the parties acted in good faith, relying on the existing legal situation as they understood it in the periods relevant to the proceeding.
- Weekly rest pay – According to the Director, the implementation of the provisions of the Hours of Work and Rest Law in relation to this component should be examined in accordance with the industrial context. The provisions of the law are not suitable for implementation in the football industry, and as evidence of this, it can be seen that additional provisions of the law, including the length of the work day, overtime employment, breaks, etc., are not compatible with the way the sport operates.
In addition, the Director argued that in the case of soccer players, the existing exception in section 30(a)(5) of the Hours of Work and Rest Law should be applied, since the players' position is a position of "personal trust". This claim is based on the uniqueness of each player in the fabric of a small group of players (about 20 players per team). Among other things, it can be seen that a player does not function as a "regular" employee, since his employment with the team affects his entire lifestyle even after training and game hours.