Regarding his approach to reprimands (as described in the club's response, not in the appeal), we will recall): There are all kinds of coaches in the world, he explained, some who don't give a steering wheel, some who dominate the entire game. "What's the right way? You can never know that." As for training, indeed, when the coach shares his thoughts with a player, the other players will also listen, but this is not intended to humiliate the player, but rather to teach others.
In conclusion, the coach added that he loves Ran and hopes that he will continue in the team.
- The club's CEO, Mr. Kfir Edri, also testified that he was a former footballer in Bnei Yehuda and other teams. He explained how when there are problems, the club knows how to find solutions. As for coaches who speak "not nicely", they will not be at the club, he explained. The phrase "cocoon" is apparently not one of the words that he does not like it, and he saw fit to mention the well-known coach Dror Kashtan, who also uses the phrase often. He further explained: "There are coaches who shout, there are nice coaches, there are many. Mr. Edri "likes coaches who shout more, who live the game and not coaches who sleep." Education is important for the youth, but shouting is part of education.
- In the course of the hearing, the parties presented various documents, and at the end they briefly completed their arguments. Once they have done so, and I have examined all their arguments and documents, it is possible to appeal to a decision.
Decision
The framework of the discussion
- We are not dealing with a regular proceeding conducted in court. Sports Law, which empowers the sports associations to establish bylaws that govern a wide range of aspects of the relationship between the parties connected to the associations (namely players, coaches, clubs, etc.), explicitly excludes one issue, which is the issue of the ability of players, and in particular minors, to be released from clubs, as detailed In Section 11A to the Sports Law. When a request to be released comes, it is up to the club to decide whether to accept it. If he refuses, an appeal can be filed before a judge (as opposed to a court) appointed by the Minister of Culture and Sports. And in the case before us - the undersigned, as an appointed tribunal, not within the framework of the Magistrate's Court tribunal. The significance of the above is that while the hearing itself is an appeal against the club's decision, there is no On the decision in the appeal Right to appeal to a higher court (see: Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv Department) 12133-04-11 Anonymous v. Beitar Sports Association Ness Tobruk Netanya [Published in Nevo] (6.9.2011)).
- As stated, we are dealing with an appeal according to Sports Law. It revolves around one of the few matters supervised by an external judicial tribunal: the release of a minor player from his club in the event that his continued stay at the club is a matter "Unreasonable or impossible for reasons that are not dependent on him, or his continued activity as aforesaid may cause him real damage", לשון Section 11A(A4) to the law. When the club refuses, it is possible to appeal the decision before a judge, who will review the decision.
- Players may be prevented from moving to a club because of an agreement they entered into (if they were minors, then through their parents as guardians), or by virtue of the provisions of the law. Instructions Section 11A Law Sports In particular, there are possibilities for minors to be released from the club even without consent, but only at the end of periods that are lengthened according to the age of the minor athlete (up to the age of 15, between the ages of 15 and 17, and over the age of 17, where, for example, without consent, the minor is required to enter a prolonged period of "quarantine" if he wishes to leave the club without consent, before moving to another club). It should be noted, as the appellant emphasized, that the current arrangement, which limits the minor's ability to be released from a club, is such that a public committee appointed by the Minister of Culture and Sport in 2012, the Adler Committee, found in a comprehensive report that it should be changed in a far-reaching manner, and to make it easier for the Flexibility The Minors In the transition between associations. Legislative processes in the spirit of the committee's conclusions have been taking place for some time, and are currently in the stage of a memorandum to amend the Sports Law. However, it is clear that as long as the conclusions are not adopted, the law is still in place, and in light of it we will decide.
- Section 11A(A4) The Sports Law, which we are dealing with here, constitutes a restriction to the general principles regarding the release of players from their clubs, allowing the immediate transfer of a minor player to another club, in the exceptional circumstances of the unreasonableness, lack of possibility, or the actual damage that the continuation of the engagement may cause to the minor. And there is no dispute, by the way: within the definition of "transfer" also "release" first, as the appellant seeks in our case, since in the absence of release, there is no transfer. See: Interim Decision 2Opening Stimulus 177116/01 Oved v. Maccabi Tel Aviv, [Published in Nevo] of January 9, 2002, in paragraph 2). This is the balance that the legislature found between the desire of the clubs to ensure that their investment in nurturing underage players does not go down the drain when they move freely to other clubs, perhaps wealthier, and the recognition that minors need the possibility of mobility, for professional, social and other reasons (and see: (Opening Stimulus (Tel Aviv) 105460/01 Levy v. Beitar Be'er Sheva Sports Association [Published in Nevo] (18.12.2001)).
- Since the provision of the law is cogent and overrides other limitations in the contract or in the law in connection with the transfer and the length of time that the minor will be required to wait until he is able to transfer to the Association, it is of course attractive to the minor athlete who wishes to leave the Association without delay, and on the other hand greatly disturbs the rest of the sports associations.
- It is clear that the very filing of an appeal that is based on a provision Section 11A(A4) The Sports Law, and accordingly heard before a judge authorized to do so, does not necessarily mean that there is a reason to make use of the same powerful tool in the section, and to order the immediate release of the minor athlete from his club, without consent and without condition. It is certainly possible, as sometimes happens in practice, that the existence of the authority will not in itself lead to the annulment of the Society's decision to refuse to release (see, for example: Miscellaneous Applications Civil (Tel Aviv) 170510/06 Zizov v. Beitar Ness Tobruk Football Club [Published in Nevo] 23.10.2006)); עניין Works; Opening Stimulus (Tel Aviv) 175832/02 Djani v. Gadna Football Club, Civil Case [Published in Nevo] (19.09.2002); Miscellaneous Appeal - Civil 28031-02-11 Shmilovich v. Beitar Sports Association Nes Tobruk Netanya [Published in Nevo] (February 28, 2011)). It is certainly possible that there will be a long distance between general allegations of the athlete's dissatisfaction with the club or his coach, and a determination that his continued activity at the club is "unreasonable," or "may cause him real damage." Thus For example, an appeal that focuses on a minor's desire to improve his financial situation, after his upbringing at the club has become a focus of attraction to another and richer group, does not make his continued stay at the club "unreasonable" ( Dajani); The same is true of the disappointment of the team or his parents in the team's failure to arouse the interest of a team from abroad in the player ( Zizov). In the absence of a "critical mass" that would establish the existence of the elements of the exceptional cause, the appeal will be dismissed.
On the other hand, they have already been recognized as grounds for release, Among other things, a severe crisis of trust in the relationship between the minor and the professional staff (Miscellaneous Appeal - Civil (Tel Aviv) 35641-06-10 Buzaglo v. Hapoel Petah Tikva Youth Association [Published in Nevo] (15.07.2010); Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 49730/06 Kaha v. Beitar Sports Association Ness Tobruk Netanya [Published in Nevo] (29.11.2006); or relocation of the minor's center of life and place of study (Miscellaneous Requests Citizens (Tel Aviv) 178727/08 Melsa v. Hapoel Haifa Millennium in a Tax Appeal [Published in Nevo] (4.12.08); Miscellaneous Requests Citizens (Tel Aviv) 168506/06 Weisberg v. Hapoel Be'er Sheva Football Club [Published in Nevo] (17.8.2006)).
- We have before us a situation that is examined from the cases that have been described, and which have not yet been clarified in case law. As far as the athlete is concerned, there is no impediment in principle to continuing at the club where he has been playing for the past three years. He would have done so, he clarified, if it weren't for the coach. However, the coach puts him in unreasonable and impossible training conditions, he claims. Factually, the claim is that the coach humiliates him and sows fear in him, and that this humiliation affects him. Legally, the argument is that the coach should not do so, and if he did, then this establishes the right of the athlete who was affected by this to be released from the club. On the other hand, the club's approach: there is nothing wrong with the coach's behavior. The coach's scolding and harsh words at the players is a "day-to-day" thing, a fundamental part of his job. Hence, even if a player is harmed by this, there is no reason to establish grounds for his release as instructed Section 11A(A4) to the Sports Law, since it cannot be said that his continued activity at the club is unreasonable or impossible. This dispute must now be decided. First, of course, we must address the limited factual questions in dispute. Once the findings have been determined, their significance must be examined.
The Factual Basis
- Actually,, most of Ran's arguments were not in dispute. The coach confirmed that he was yelling at his players, and the manager explained that the club prefers "shouting coaches." The coach did not deny Ren's description of how the coach used to stand a very short distance from him and other players and yell at them, and only explained that in this way others could also learn. It should be noted that no claim has been made that Bern's rebukes are the result of his poor discipline; On the contrary, it appears that he does everything that is required of him with complete faith. The coach actually confirmed that he calls Ran and other players nicknames such as "Golem", but in his opinion this is not a derogatory nickname at all. He weakly denied the events in the game against Nir Ramash.
- To resolve the narrow factual dispute, therefore: first, with regard to the term "golem". The coach explained: The intention is not a derogatory nickname. After all, a cocoon is a creature that turns into a butterfly, he explained, and the desire is for his players to become butterflies. This is how his pupils can understand this as well. This is a particularly weak claim. This is literally a derogatory term, and any attempt to make the expression positive is artificial and ignores the usual context in its use. Indeed, sometimes a golem becomes a wonderful butterfly, although there is also a cocoon that turns into a flea or a fly. In any case, the coach's young pupils are highly doubtful whether they can relate the shouts of the "Golem" that are often shouted on their heads to the same natural phenomenon of insects with full incarnation. Of course, Ran and his friends could not see his shouting in the wake of their failure to control the ball as his promise of a bright future. This is, quite simply, an insult to the players. Therefore, the claim of coach Ran that he constantly insults his trainees should be accepted, as his professional "education" method, a method accepted by the club's CEO (the one who noted that this was also the case with the former national coach) and the director of the youth department (the one who explained to the appellant's father that he, as a coach, used to shout at his players).
Second, regarding the events of the game in Ramat Hasharon: Although the games of the boys' team are filmed in principle, thus allowing their professional analysis in retrospect, in the coach's opinion this away game may not have been filmed. We won't know how it wasn't checked, and how the club didn't check it, and how it happened that the exact game and the coach's behavior during it was the one that wasn't documented. However, even without that astonishingly lacking evidence, the coach denied only in particularly weak language Ran's claims that he had shouted "son of a bitch" at him from a distance in view of the missed goal, which continued to descend on him for many more minutes when Ran was playing along the longitude closest to the coach, and consumed his anger on the bench. The coach's vague denials, and his suggestion that it was someone in the crowd who shouted, are rejected. Ran's words fit in well with the coach's description of how he was disappointed by that miss (although he immediately added that he was disappointed "mainly for the child", with empathy and recognition that his pupil was in fact a child, who was not mentioned in any other context by the coach or the club).