Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 10105-10-20 Eli Babayev – Hapoel Ra’anana Football Club

Judgment

The plaintiff, a professional soccer player at the defendant's club, petitions for rights deriving from the period of his employment, including its termination[1].

Background Required and the Proceedings in the National Labor Court

1. The plaintiff is a professional soccer player who played for the defendant, the "Hapoel Ra'anana" football club, between the years 2010-2018. During part of this period, the plaintiff was "loaned" to another group.
2. The terms of his employment were anchored in fixed-term agreements that were renewed every season. In 2017, the parties signed an employment agreement for three seasons: 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20.  Clause 2.4 of this Agreement provides as follows:

2.4" Option

The team has the right to cancel the agreement for any reason whatsoever at the end of each season, without paying any compensation to the player, including the team will not be obligated to pay the player any consideration for the season that will begin after the cancellation notice.  Notice of the cancellation of the agreement will be given until June 1 after the end of each season to the player or his performance."

3. There is no dispute that at the end of the 2017/18 season, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the exercise of the above option regarding the termination of the engagement between them.
4. Following the aforesaid, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant in which he petitioned for various rights that he claimed derives from the period of his employment, including severance pay, pension deposits, convalescence pay, vacation redemption, and remuneration for working on Saturdays.
5. On December 13, 2020, the defendant filed a statement of defense and at the same time filed a motion to stay proceedings, dismiss in limine and transfer the hearing for clarification before the Israel Football Association's Arbitration and Mediation Institute (hereinafter: the "Association").
6. On January 10, 2021, the court rejected the request to transfer the dispute to arbitration on the grounds that "according to the case law, this is a claim for rights from the protective labor law, which, as stated, the current rule is that these are not arbitratable, and therefore we are unable to accept the Applicant's request to delay the proceedings here while referring the parties to an arbitration institution." With this in mind, it was determined that there was also no reason to dismiss the claim in limine.
7. On this decision, the defendant filed an application for leave to appeal to the National Labor Court (Request for Leave to Appeal 44937-01-21) [Nevo] , which was consolidated with another proceeding in which similar questions arose regarding the authority of the Labor Court vis-à-vis the authority of the Arbitration Institute in all matters relating to claims filed by sports players for various rights deriving from the period of their employment, including cogent rights. In a decision dated February 1, 2021, the National Court ordered that they be added to the proceeding of the Football Association, The Administration of the Football Leagues in Israel and the Histadrut as Required Parties.  On May 31, 2022, the Attorney General announced that she had appeared in the proceedings and submitted a position on her behalf.
8. In the case, several hearings were held before the National Court, while at the same time the parties were conducting the necessary negotiations in order to reach comprehensive agreements, and therefore several lengths were requested to submit updates to the proceeding.
9. On November 8, 2024, the required parties submitted a notice that they had been able to reach agreements regarding the mechanism and manner of clarifying claims of a cogent nature at the Arbitration and Mediation Institute, which operates under the Association. The National Court was asked to give effect to a judgment on these agreements, and in the process was asked to give its decision on the matter of continuing to investigate claims containing cogent components that are still pending.  Therefore, the National Court instructed the parties to the request for leave to appeal to respond to the question of how to proceed with the proceedings in the matter of the players.
10. On December 5, 2024, the defendant announced that it was leaving the decision regarding the manner of proceeding to the discretion of the National Court. On February 17, 2025, the plaintiff submitted his position, but since it was submitted with considerable delay, it was not accepted into the case (see the decision of the National Court of February 18, 2025).  An extension request dated February 19, 2025 was also rejected in a decision of February 23, 2025.
11. On March 2, 2025, the plaintiff (and the other player whose case was heard in the ICLA) filed a motion in the National Court file to remove the settlement agreement from the court file, or alternatively, to set the case for a hearing in the presence of the parties.
12. On March 18, 2025, the judgment was rendered in the BRAA proceeding, in which it was held, inter alia, as follows:

"46.  Although the necessary parties have achieved the most respectable achievements, which the Tribunal welcomes, we are of the opinion that the existing legal situation applies to the disputes at hand, as detailed above, for the following reasons: