As to salary, the parties agree that until the startof the season, the plaintiff was not supposed to receive any compensation for his activity in the team (p. 7, lines 8-12), and that in real time he did not receive actual compensation. It is difficult not to attribute special significance to the matter, as the plaintiff claims, since by definition labor is the provision of one's labor force in exchange for another's payment. It is only puzzling that the plaintiff agreed to a different arrangement, when he himself is an employee elsewhere, i.e., receiving a salary on a pay slip is not alien to him. In other words, the fact that the plaintiff did not receive a lower salary also tipped the scales towards the assumption that we are not dealing with an employment relationship.
As for the letter from Hapoel Katamon, according to which it intended to pay the plaintiff ILS 700, and that, according to the plaintiff, in theory and in practice, it must also testify to the period in question. It was first said that the plaintiff, who bears the burden, did not provide any satisfactory reason for the question of why the letter should not be read in its own words and in its plain sense. In other words, a payment that is intended to cover expenses at a reasonable amount. An arrangement that is not suitable for employment relations. Moreover. It turned out that the letter was written about 6 months after the incident. According to the direct testimony of Mr. Sharetsky, who signed the letter, it was given to a large extent out of a desire to assist the plaintiff in the aspect of torts vis-à-vis the insurance company in which the players were insured, and without taking legal advice, and this is regrettable (p. 37, lines 16-21). Netanyahu argues that reimbursement of expenses at a reasonable level, as opposed to paying salaries, fits more into the general industrial context of a game in the third division.
- The number 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 timeas being a member of the team?
As we determined in the factual chapter, in view of the team being a team in the making, the training and training period for the season lasted a little longer than usual. Thus, there is no denying that 6 hours of training per week and at least, 4.5 hours is a considerable amount of hours. Moreover. The training was also conducted during the week and not only on weekends, when it can be assumed that it is more about engaging in a hobby than work. However, it should be remembered that the plaintiff worked simultaneously in a full-time format at Bezeq during the usual full-time hours, from morning to afternoon, while the training was conducted after the usual working hours. The fact is that the scales are tipped towards the assumption that we are indeed dealing with a hobby. Moreover, the very fact that the plaintiff did not engage in sports in the morning but in another profession can also teach that the after-hours occupation of sports is a hobby.