The plaintiffs detailed that in 2021, allowances and subsidies from the state amounting to more than ILS 1,770,000 constituted about 72% of the defendant's total income that year, while in 2022, the Ministry of Sports' support for the defendant amounted to more than ILS 2,500,000. The plaintiffs are of the opinion that since the defendant is financed mainly by public funds, and when it fulfills a position of a public nature, it should be regarded as a "dual entity".
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The plaintiffs described that in the months preceding the filing of the lawsuit, they had approached the defendant many times with a request to be admitted as a member of the plaintiffs, in order to "... to be partners in its decision-making; to maintain transparency as required of any body entrusted with the public interest; and to demand equality in the defendant's resources, which are public funds for all intents and purposes."
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
According to the plaintiffs, the defendant ignored a significant portion of the claims, and in relation to the others, she replied to the applicants that: "... Their request will be forwarded to the general meeting, which will convene at an unknown date in the future...", and this, according to the plaintiffs, while misleading the applicants, that since the defendant adopted the existing bylaws in the appendix to the Associations Law, and in accordance with the provisions of the said bylaws, "The decision regarding whether or not to accept the applicant as a member of the association is in the hands of the committee...", and not in the hands of the General Assembly.
The plaintiffs further claimed that since 2015, when Mr. Erez Alroy was elected as the defendant's chairman, the defendant's leaders have had complete control of the industry, while acting in a conflict of interest that was expressed, inter alia, in the compartmentalization of members who are not close to the defendant's leaders, and the giving of "... Improper and severe favors to those close to the defendant's heads". Thus, the statement of claim described an alleged connection between the defendant's management members and a chain of clubs owned by someone who the plaintiffs claim is close to them, with preference for the coaches and trainees in the said dates network, and the appointment of family members of any of the management members to various management positions in the association.