At this point, I prefer the respondent's position, and I will explain.
I am unable to accept the Applicant's argument, because it is not possible to suffice with the article that was attached to the application as aforesaid to prove the date of termination of the Respondent's position as a trustee. On the other hand, the respondent relied on a judicial decision issued by the Nazareth District Court on February 13, 2012 (attached toapplication No. 10), according to which the court ordered the release of the respondent from his position as trustee in the stay of proceedings. It was further determined that the termination of the respondent's position would take effect within 21 days from the date of the decision, i.e., on 07.03.12. Therefore, on the day of the broadcast of the radio program B5, defamatory statements were published, as the respondent claimed, on May 19, 2012, the latter no longer served as a trustee in the stay of proceedings.
As to the status of defendants 1-3, there can be no dispute, even according to the applicant's approach, that these defendants do not fall within the scope of the law, since they do not fulfill one of the functions set out in section 2 for the purpose of applying the law to them. Defendant 1 is the owner of the 'A-Shams' radio station, defendant 2 is the owner of the station and defendant 3 is a broadcaster at the station, and all of them are not connected to the Football Association and are not considered to be directly connected to the sports world. Therefore, the Sports Law and the Arbitration Institute's Regulations do not apply to defendants 1-3 who are not "a team, player, coach or official".
As to the status of defendants 4 and 5, it is not clear from the pleadings what their role was when the cause of action was created, since defendant 4 joined the applicant's request (defendant 5) without giving reasons for his request, and according to the statement of claim, defendant 4 was previously in a managerial position in the "Maccabi Achai Nazareth" team. However, it is not clear when he served in this position and whether he was in that position at the time of the alleged publications. With regard to the applicant, it was claimed in his application that he was the owner of the "Hapoel Bat Yam" group, but did not give details of the nature of his status as an owner. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the provisions of the Sports Law and the Arbitration Institute's regulations apply to them.