Hapoel Ra'anana argued that the Attorney General's position is not exhaustive and does not reveal the problems and complexities for which the opinion was requested in the first place. According to her, the Attorney General did not take into account the specific circumstances and unique characteristics of the industry, which justify deviating from the principle regarding protective laws (in this context, counsel referred in the hearing to the Civil Appeals Authority 4710/00 Herzl Goshen v. Givat Haviva Seminar, IsrSC 55(2), 426 (15.1.2001)). Her counsel also argued that the Sports Law is a specific and time-delayed law that provides for statutory arbitration rather than a contractual one. According to him, FIFA is a regulator that must be governed, which gives athletes protection that is no less extensive than protective legislation, including sanctions on teams, and the enactment of the regulations is done in cooperation with the players' representatives. This is a very specific population with specific rules that protect it. This includes international provisions, a broad range of protections, and a budgetary control authority that enforces judgments and ensures the preservation of cogent rights. Therefore, according to him, these are not disadvantaged workers in any way.
Beitar Jerusalem argued that the position submitted does not deal with the unique employment characteristics of the industry and the special industrial context for which cogent disputes should also be transferred to the arbitration mechanism; that the tribunal is not subject to the opinion; and that it is a special industry in the sense of the means that are available to the employees as opposed to the employers and the sanctions imposed on the employers.
The Association's counsel clarified that according to Section 3 of the Appendix to the Regulations, all arbitrators are jurists who can be appointed as magistrate's court judges. Regarding the statute of limitations, he reiterated his position that the substantive law applies and therefore labor laws and case law will also apply, subject to judicial review by the Labor Court. According to him, the Sports Law is late and specific and specifies the words "wages and payments" and it cannot be assumed that the legislature corrupted its words in vain. According to him, Not all disputes are about issues of wages. Many issues are not related to labor law and are regulated in the association's bylaws in accordance with international mechanisms. In his view, the most effective alternative is the arbitration mechanism - both in terms of the duration of the hearing in the proceeding and in terms of costs. He also reiterated the arguments raised in the Association's response, according to which the players have representation in the Association and that they have an equal voice in the mechanism for appointing arbitrators. According to him, the Attorney General's opinion did not rule out that cogent rights would also be discussed before the Arbitration Institute.