As for the obligation to obtain the coach's permission to be absent from training, it was clarified that there was indeed an expectation from the players to participate in training and games, since without them the team would not be able to exist and there is no chance of significant achievements. However, their absence did not result in any sanction on the part of the group (p. 36, line 30; p. 37, line 14). Needless to say, Mr. Sharetsky believed that the need to obtain the coach's permission to be absent from training was ultimately more of a matter of 'derech eretz' than an obligation. The plaintiff himself also admitted that he was absent from the group's activities at a frequency of about once a week (p. 29, lines 29-32). In contrast to a situation in which an employment relationship exists, a person who is absent from training is not required to provide, as an example, a certificate of illness, and as noted, his absence was not accompanied by a financial or other sanction.
We will add, in general, that the factual picture that was presented to us with regard to the discipline required of the plaintiff and his friends, in other words, the degree of control and supervision over them, was completely different from that which is customary in football at the professional level, in which employment agreements are concluded with players , and this is an employment relationship for all intents and purposes. Professional players are obligated to maintain a sporting lifestyle, and in this context they are subject to various restrictions and even in marital life, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Mennes case. The plaintiff did not claim or prove that Hapoel Katamon imposed authority on him that extends beyond the team's operating hours.
Finally, the plaintiff did not claim and did not prove that he was prohibited from moving a team during the training period or during the season or playing for another team at the same time. Characteristics that are appropriate for a working relationship. In fact, Mr. Zada clarified that this is not the case at all, and that it is certainly possible that players who did not take part in the training phase but played for other teams and did not acclimatize to them will join the team (p. 21, lines 13-15). Thus, it is quite possible that players who took part in the training phase will not belong to the final squad or will not finish the season on their own behalf, and as stated, this will not entail any sanction (p. 22, line 6), and it is also acceptable. These facts are also less suitable for the employee-employer relationship.