The opposite was proven: the witness Mr. Yona testified that there were players who did not want to rely on the Aliyah grant and preferred to increase the current salary, and that the matter changed from player to player, both in the matter of the bonus and in the matter of the premiums (p. 51, Sifa, p. 52 Risha), and he categorically rejected all oral promises, both in his affidavit and in his cross-examination.
In these circumstances, and even if there were verbal promises, they are invalid. In any event, their version was contradicted and the claim of an oral promise of an aliyah grant to the plaintiffs Mr. Amir Gola, Avrahami Eyal and Dado Dahan is rejected. The lawsuit is also dismissed in light of the lack of validity of such a promise.
The case law states that in the interpretation of a contract, importance must be given to its purpose. The Association's bylaws and the fixed text of the agreements are intended to ensure true and correct reporting and compliance with budgets, and for this purpose the interpretation is given in writing and not deviated from it, by any of the parties to such a contract.
- Another layer in this matter is the plaintiffs' investigation, which shows that the players were familiar with the regulations and were aware of their application to their contracts. Prosecutor Eyal Avrahami was asked:
"Q. I asked you whether you, as a soccer player, know that a contract that is not approved by budgetary control has no value, so all the conditions that a soccer player earns a living are reflected in the contract.
- I know that." (pp. 26, paras. 9-17, pro. of July 6, 2010). The same is true of Amir Gola (Prov. 8.7.10, p. 39, paras. 5-7). and Dadu Dahan (p. 6, paras. 21-23 of 14 October 2009).
The plaintiffs also confirmed that they signed the agreements of their own free will, for example, the plaintiff Amir Gola "S." You can say that all the agreements that my lawyer sent you were signed of my own free will and reflect the agreements between me and the group." (p. 38, questions 4-7, of July 8, 2010) (Emphasis mine, S.S.). Therefore, there was no defect in the agreements signed with them voluntarily and out of awareness of the Association's bylaws and the control regulations and the obligations therein. For this reason, too, factually speaking, the claim of oral promises is liable to be dismissed once the plaintiff players knew the content of the written contract with them and agreed.