The third stage examines: what is the scope of hours devoted to training and integration into the team, when the training is held, and is it possible forthe athlete to work at the same time as being a member of the team?
In the fourth stage, the question was discussed: Doesthe soccer team generate financial profit, what is the athlete's participation in it?
This test is essentially a test of measure. According to what was stated in the judgment in the El Al case, it is clear that if the employer had not made any profit, he would not have carried out theactivity. In this sense, creating only a pool of potential employees does not constitute a significant gain.
The fifth stage deals with the intention of the parties. The intention of the parties is not sufficient to decide the question of the existence of an employee-employer relationship. However, it must be taken into account in all the considerations and given excessive weight in borderline situations. The importance of the intention of the parties is also in determining the burden of proof, which is imposed on the claimant against an explicit agreement, to the extent that it exists.
Thesixth is that which concerns the industrial context and the need to ensure that the case law is incorporated into it and takes into account its broad implications.
From the general to the individual
- Is the purpose of the engagement between the parties to create an employee-employer relationship?
The plaintiff came to train at Hapoel Katamon when he knew how to play soccer and had played for many years. However, and according to his own testimony , at least, in the two seasons preceding his joiningHapoel Katamon he did not play soccer in any team (p. 5, lines 13-14). In view of the fact that in the course of his cross-examination he was unable to provide accurate information regarding the times he played for other amateur teams (p. 8, line 26; p. 9), andhe did not even support his arguments in this regard with any objective evidence, it is not impossible that we are dealing with more than two seasons. I would like to say that the very fact that the plaintiff returned to training after a considerable period of time, at least, two seasons in which he did not train, strengthens Hapoel Katamon's claim that there was no intention to enter into an employment contract with him, and certainly does not move to the first game of Ha iMoon and the beginning of the season - the date on whichN.P. proposed. In other words, before he had time for the team's management to get a deep impression of his professional abilities. It should be recalled that according to the plaintiff himself, it is not uncommon for contracts to be signed after the start of the season. Therefore, even according to his opinion, it is possible that in the pre-season period there will not yet be a clear intention to create a working relationship, a fact that in our case is capable of tipping the scales towards the assumption that such an intention has indeed not yet been formulated between the parties.