Second, there is indeed no dispute that there has been a practice in the last five years whereby every team that wished to register in the National League did so and even received registration, however, the court was of the opinion that despite this, the Association is entitled to deviate from this practice out of its own considerations, and that the practice does not constitute a governmental promise and that this is merely a customary policy. The court ruled that the association had indeed changed the policy that had guided it so far in the matter of whether this was not an unreasonable, unfair or unacceptably discriminatory change. The court further notes that although in an opening call at the Association's offices, the Association indicated that there is a common interest in the Applicant's placement in the National League, and that there is a high chance of approval if an application for registration is submitted, but, as stated, in this matter as well, this is not a promise, but only an assessment of chances.
Thirdly, the claim of reliance cannot be sustained by the appellant since it was not given a promise, and on the other hand, the change in policy is within the authority of the Association.
- As stated, the judgment of the Tribunal was given on November 3, 2019 and issued to the Applicant on November 4, 2019, and against this background, the Applicant filed the present application on November 11, 2019.
- According to the Applicant, this is not a disciplinary decision, but rather a decision that constitutes a deviation from authority, while violating the rules of natural justice in a manner that requires the intervention of the court, and that this intervention is within the jurisdiction of this court.
- According to the Applicant, she acted on the basis of the practice and regulations that have not been changed so far; submitted the application for registration on the basis of its compliance with the criteria that enable its registration in the National League; She did so on time, and after relying on her ability to join the National League through a simple act of registration.
According to the association, the association did not deny at any stage that the regulations and practice allow a team to be admitted to the National League only through registration, and it was not even claimed that the regulations were changed.
- According to the Applicant, the Association prevented her admission to the National League for extraneous considerations. This is because the association is currently working to amend the bylaws in such a way that in the future the status of the national league will be regulated and budgeted against the background of the High Court of Justice for women's soccer allowances. Against this background, the Association wishes to prevent the applicant from joining the National League and in this way to force her to remain in the National League in order for the number of teams in the National League to be 10, despite the fact that the minimum set out in the bylaws is 8 teams, all with the aim of enabling the budgeting of the National League. According to the Applicant, these are therefore extraneous considerations that are irrelevant, which may even force the Applicant to participate in a league that is not professional or competitive.
- It was further argued that even if the rules of the Women's League were to be regulated in a flash, it would be appropriate to give the Applicant a notice in such a manner as to notify of a change in the Association's policy, while providing a reasonable time during which the changes will take effect and while granting the right to a hearing to anyone who may find himself injured.
According to the Applicant, the change in policy, even if it is not a governmental promise, is a unilateral change in the policy in a manner that does not meet the conditions of reasonableness and proportionality, and is capable of depriving the Applicant, without the Association giving its consideration to the questions of whether it is appropriate to apply the decision immediately or whether a reasonable transition period should be determined.
- With regard to the granting of the order, it was argued by the Applicant that in light of the severe harm to her, the granting of the temporary relief was necessary, that the Applicant had proved her prima facie right to grant the order, that the balance of convenience was tilted in her favor and that her application to the Court was made in good faith.
With regard to the balance of comfort, the Applicant noted that she had acquired a lot of experience, played in the National League, invested resources with the understanding that this year she would be able to play in the National League, and in fact the Association obligates her to continue playing in the National League in order to serve the internal interests of the Association, so that she can receive a budget from the Ministry of Culture and Sports.
- In its response, the Association petitioned to reject the application, and even the main claim, in view of the identity between the application for temporary relief and the main incentive to open.
- In addition, the Applicant petitioned to dismiss the application due to the delay in filing it, since the Applicant's judgment was issued to the Applicant on November 4, 2019, and the Applicant filed the application on November 11, 2019, at a time when all the National and National League teams are at the peak of their preparations for the season of games, and that she could have applied to the Court much earlier than the date of her application.
- In addition, the Association argued that the application should be rejected out of hand also because there was no reason to intervene in the judgment given by the Tribunal, especially since some of the Applicant's arguments were not raised before the Tribunal.
- On the merits of the matter, the Association argued that its decision not to include the Applicant in the National League in the upcoming season is a responsible, reasonable and informed decision, which stems from a change in reality in light of the High Court for Women's Football Allotment Justice, and that it does not contain the slightest hint of arbitrariness, and that the Applicant "is definitely invited to compete in the 2019/20 season for qualification from the National League... And it would do well if it earned its right with honesty and sportsmanship 'on the grass'" (paragraph 12 of the response).
- According to the Association, before the start of the current season, 6 new teams were registered in the National League, some of which requested to register in the National League and their application was rejected. If the applicant's request to register in the National League is accepted, the Association will also have to allow each of the new teams to register in the National League due to the principle of equality.
- The association also expressed concern (in a hearing before me today that it admitted that this was only a theoretical concern), according to which due to the number of border teams in the national league, it is enough for one of the new teams to request to register in the national league, and then the number of teams in the national league will fall below the required minimum (of 8 teams). Hence, there is room to order the addition of the six new teams and give them the opportunity to argue why they should be added to the National League.
- According to the Association, it has the authority to enact its own bylaws and to discuss and decide matters related to its activity within the framework of its internal judicial institutions, and that when the court comes to intervene in the determinations of the internal judicial institutions, it must examine whether there was a deviation from its authority and whether the principles of natural justice were violated, and only then will it be entitled to intervene. According to the Association, there was no deviation from authority and no violation of the rules of natural justice, and that the Applicant received her day in court and heard her arguments at length and was even represented by two lawyers.
- It was also claimed that the sport of women's soccer is a developing sport, and that there is no orderly transition between the national league and the national league similar to the men's soccer league, and that in the previous season, the national league consisted of 10 teams, while for the current season there is no change in the structure of the league. It was also noted that one of the groups, M.S. Hapoel Benot Lod ceased its activity, and hence the need arose to complete the league structure for ten teams.
It was also claimed that at least from the 2015-2016 season, there is another league, which is the national league, which is not considered competitive, meaning that there are no promotions or relegations from it.