The Supreme Court referred to the ruling in the Mordechowitz case and ruled that a distinction should be made between it and the case of the petitioners, all of whom play in the 'high' leagues, i.e., in the national league and the national league (as they were at the time), and all of them signed an employment contract in accordance with the association's bylaws. The Supreme Court accepted the petition, ruling that the ruling would apply only to players from the top leagues who signed employment contracts.
- In a later ruling, the Supreme Court examined once again the question of the existence of an employee-employer relationship between a soccer player and his team with respect to the obligation of the employing team to pay employers' tax. The Supreme Court examined the relationship between the parties and found that this is a professional soccer team, and as such all of its relations with the players are anchored in employment contracts in accordance with the association's bylaws. The Supreme Court ruled that both according to the accepted tests in labor law regarding the existence of an employee-employer relationship, and according to the tests customary in tax law for the classification of income, the relationship between the actor and the team is an employment relationship and therefore the group is obligated to pay employers' tax (Civil Appeal 5378/90 Association for Physical Culture, Hapoel Tiberias v. Tax Assessor, Tiberias IsrSC 48(2) 416 (1994)). Here, too, the Supreme Court ruled, by the Honorable President (ret.) Shamgar, that it is appropriate to distinguish between sports that are done as a hobby and professional sports (p. 427).
- In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, the National Insurance Order (Classification of Insured Persons and Determination of Employers) (Amendment) 5756-1995 amended the National Insurance Order (Classification of Insured Persons and Determination of Employers), 5732-1972 (hereinafter: the Order) in such a way that the attachment of Section 1 of the Order and Item 14 thereof indicates that an athlete with whom an employment agreement has been entered into in advance and in writing will be considered a salaried employee. On the other hand, section 4 of the order states that an athlete with whom a written employment agreement was not entered into in advance is not an employee and is not a self-employed worker. The term athlete was defined in the order as follows:
"An athlete who engages in sporting activity, within the framework of or on behalf of a sports association. For this purpose, a 'sports association' is a group of people that engages in a particular sport or sports, whether it operates independently or is affiliated with another sports body."