Labor Appeal (National) 51985-01-25 Football Club – Maccabi Netanya (2016) Ltd. – Daniel Amos - part 25

Unlocked

160. In the case of Beitar Jerusalem,  we noted that there is a difficulty in accepting the argument for the special application of protective legislation to players in the soccer industry, in view of the uniqueness of the sport and the challenges it poses to the regular model that characterizes labor relations (for example, the implications of ownership of a player's card).  We also noted that "the soccer industry is not the only industry in the economy that is required to adapt its special conditions to the cogent legislation" and that "quite a few of the difficulties that arose in this process can be solved simply in the form of adapting the labor agreements to the requirements of the protective legislation."  We emphasized that "there are quite a few legal and simple solutions that will bring about the desired result for everyone: respecting the protective legislation on the one hand; and not exceeding the limits of the teams' budgets on the other hand."  The application of the provisions of  the Hours of Work and Rest Law to the circumstances of the case is not a deviation from the line that the football industry must adapt its arrangements to the provisions of the protective legislation.  At the same time, in the unique circumstances detailed above, we found that it would not be correct to require the strict and technical implementation of the provisions of the law in this matter.  As in the case of Beitar Jerusalem, in this case as well, we call on the association to act "to adapt the labor agreements to the requirements of that legislation."

Conclusion

161. In light of the compilation, we determine as follows:
     1. Maccabi Netanya's appeal is accepted as detailed in sections 99 (weekly rest pay), 108 (redemption of annual leave), 118 (severance pay), 124 (hearing) and 125 (expenses).
     2. The Bnei Yehuda appeal is accepted in essence as detailed in sections 99 (weekly rest pay), 1110 (redemption of annual leave), 149 (holiday pay) and 153 (convalescence pay). Her appeal regarding Zubas' entitlement to severance pay was rejected.

• Zubas's appeal was essentially rejected. His appeal is accepted with regard to compensation for non-deposit to the pension fund (section 134) and the issue of linkage and interest (section 156).

162. As for legal expenses – after taking into account the results of the appeals and the implications of the litigation in respect of the components discussed in both instances, we oblige Amos to pay Maccabi Netanya expenses and attorney's fees in the total amount of NIS 20,000; and Zubas to pay Bnei Yehuda, after taking into account the Registrar's decision regarding his procedural conduct, expenses and attorney's fees in the total amount of NIS 10,000.

It was given today, January 7, 2026, in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.