The Administration's counsel argued that it is not possible to split the discussion into disputes on cogent issues and those that are not, since most of the disputes involve cogent rights and contractual questions. Therefore, it is appropriate that all disputes be clarified before the Arbitration Institute, for economic considerations and for considerations of efficiency and expertise, while the Administration should be open to adopting rules in accordance with the substantive law in order to provide legal certainty to the players and the teams.
The Histadrut's counsel reiterated the arguments she raised in her position and in the hearing on June 23, 2021. She also added that she reads the Knesset's statements differently from the Association's counsel, and that she emphasizes that the Histadrut's voice in the arbitration institution is unequal. According to her, the Association has the authority to amend the regulations as it sees fit and has the ability to interpret the protective laws in a manner that is inconsistent with the substantive law, including the issue of the statute of limitations. She also added, Because the grounds for annulment of an arbitrator's award, which are set forth in the Arbitration Law, are very limited.
The Attorney General's counsel reiterated what was stated in her position.
- At the end of the hearing, and after hearing the arguments of the parties at length, the court recommended to the necessary parties that they come to an agreement regarding the mechanisms for clarifying the claims, in light of the special nature of the football industry and the difficulty in distinguishing between the contractual terms that are different from the terms of a regular employment agreement and the cogent terms and their integration into the contractual terms. On January 3, 2023, the Association informed the Tribunal that the parties had not reached an agreement and therefore there was no choice but to issue a ruling. As part of its announcement, the Association detailed the main amendments proposed in relation to the Articles of Association in the framework of the dialogue between the parties. In accordance with the Tribunal's decision, the parties to the proceeding responded to the Association's announcement. As a result, additional hearings were held on May 16, 2023, and December 5, 2023, in which the parties reiterated their arguments and the necessary parties updated the Tribunal regarding the progress of the negotiations to amend the Regulations.
- At the conclusion of a hearing held on December 5, 2023, it was determined that the necessary parties would notify the tribunal within 45 days whether they had reached an agreement. After several extensions, the required parties submitted a notice on their behalf regarding their agreement to establish an arbitration mechanism.
Notice of the Necessary Parties of their Consent to the Establishment of an Arbitration Mechanism and the Parties' Responses to the Notice
- On November 8, 2024, the Association, the Administration, and the Histadrut announced that they had reached agreements regarding the mechanism and nature of the clarification of claims with cogent aspects within the framework of the Arbitration Institute. As part of the notice, the necessary parties' agreements were detailed and the Tribunal was asked to give them the force of a judgment. It should be noted that from the positions of the parties that were subsequently submitted (on behalf of the Histadrut on November 21, 2024; on behalf of the Association on December 4, 2024), it appears that the necessary parties disagree regarding the continuation of the pending proceedings and stand as follows: While the Association and the Administration believe that proceedings in which an evidentiary proceeding has not yet taken place before the Arbitration Institute, the Histadrut is of the opinion that these proceedings should continue to be clarified in the labor courts, and that the arrangement reached by the necessary parties will apply only to future claims. In the Association's announcement of December 4, 2024, it was clarified that even if the position of the Association and the Administration on this issue is not accepted, the agreements must be applied from now on and the arrangement should be given the force of a judgment.
- In accordance with the decisions of the Tribunal of November 11, 2024 and December 4, 2024, the direct parties to the proceeding notified the proceeding as follows:
Mr. Babiev and Mr. Ben Shushan, who were not parties to the negotiations, announced that they were strongly opposed to the arrangement. According to them, according to the precedent established in the matter of the soccer players' association, the provisions of the association's bylaws do not have a normative status that can override the Labor Court Law, and are even lower than that of the sub-regulation. They also added that this was determined by lack of authority by non-representative bodies, and that according to the law, the Labor Court Law and the Arbitration Law prevail over the Sports Law. It should be noted that as part of their response, the two requested to submit a reasoned response on their behalf within 30 days. Although such permission was not granted, an additional response was submitted on their behalf on February 17, 2025. In the court's decisions of February 18, 2025 and February 23, 2025, it was decided that under the circumstances of the case, their late response would not be accepted into the case. On March 2, 2025, a motion was filed on their behalf to extract the agreement reached by the parties from the material of the case, or alternatively, to schedule an additional hearing for the parties. In the decision of March 11, 2025, it was determined that the application would be addressed in the framework of the judgment.