Acceptance of the application will lead to an absurd result, since there is no dispute that defendants 1-4 are not office holders and therefore the Sports Law and the Arbitration Institute's regulations do not apply to them, nor does the arbitration clause apply to them. Therefore, there is no room to transfer the hearing of the Applicant's case to the Arbitration Institute, while a hearing is being held in court between the Respondent and Defendants 1-4 on the same grounds and factual grounds. Splitting the hearing may lead to double litigation and may result in the granting of dual remedies.
The Applicant's Response to the Respondent's Response
The Applicant argues in his reply that the Respondent, who served as a trustee in the stay of proceedings, is a "functionary" in the team, according to the Association's bylaws (hereinafter: the "Definitions File"), according to which an office holder is an administrative manager, a team manager and any salary recipient of any kind whatsoever, except for a player and a coach. In light of this, the trustee who was appointed to the group will step into the shoes of the group manager and will be responsible for the group, in accordance with section 4b. A2 of the Basic Regulations - Constitution of the Association.
The Applicant argues that even if the Respondent did not serve as a trustee in the stay of proceedings during the period relevant to the claim, he was still considered to be a functionary during the period in which all the events that arose in the publications that are the subject of the claim took place. With regard to the respondent's claim that he is the court's long hand, the applicant argues that this argument is irrelevant, because the applicant was the manager of the group himself and would not have returned to receive the court's approval in every decision regarding the group. It was further argued that the Applicant falls within the definition of "functionary" according to the definitions file, since he is the owner of the group and receives a salary.