In other words, the current wording of the order instructs the institution to recognize any footballer who presents an agreement, drawn up in advance and in writing, between him and the team, as a salaried employee.
- In the Kabha case, which was mentioned at the outset, the National Insurance Court discussed the question of whether the National Insurance Institute can recognize a soccer player as a salaried employee for the purpose of applying work injury insurance, even though he did not have a prior written employment contract with him. In other words, notwithstanding what is stated in section 4 of the order. It should be noted that in that case, the respondent-footballer played in the second division, which is considered an amateur league. The National Labor Court ruled that the National Insurance Order (Classification of Insured Persons and Determination of Employers), 5732-1972 (hereinafter: the Order), which was issued under Section 6 of the Law, was intended to expand the circle of insured persons and not to reduce it. In other words, a person who is classified as an employee according to the definition in section 1 of the law will be recognized as such even if he does not meet the specific conditions set out in the order. In that matter, the hearing was returned to the Regional Court in order to examine the factual question of whether there was an employment relationship between the respondent-footballer and his team in accordance with the accepted tests in labor law.
- Since the ruling of the National Court in the Kabha case, the regional courts have addressed the claims of soccer players, especially in the lower leagues, that there was an employee-employer relationship between them and the team. This is in the context of a discussion on the question of the applicability of the work injury insurance industry. In most cases, the claims were dismissed after it was found that there was no employment relationship between the footballer and his team in accordance with the accepted tests in labor law (see: National Insurance Institute (Beersheba) 3733/04 Abu Bilal - National Insurance Institute [published in Nevo] (May 21, 2006); National Insurance Institute (Tel Aviv) 2872/09 Bahaa - National Insurance Institute [published in Nevo] (February 13, 2012); National Insurance Institute (Tel Aviv) 6609-07-10 Levy - National Insurance Institute [published in Nevo] (August 7, 2012)). In some cases, the footballers' claims were accepted and the employment relationship between them and the teams was recognized (see: National Insurance Institute (Live) 230/04 Kabaha - National Insurance Institute [published in Nevo] (December 30, 2007); National Insurance Institute (Tel Aviv) 3417/05 Monday - National Insurance Institute [published in Nevo] (April 27, 2008)). It should be noted that in none of the cases that came before the regional courts was a team that was in the process of preparing for its first season.
In summary, it should be said that in accordance with the current precedent, the existence of an employee-employer relationship between a footballer and his team, which has not been proven that a prior written agreement was signed between them as required by the order, should not be ruled out. This question will be examined in accordance with the accepted tests in labor law. Let us therefore mention the first concepts on this matter.
- The test used in case law on the question of the existence of an employee-employer relationship is the 'mixed test', which consists of the 'integration test' and other auxiliary tests (Labor Appeal (National) 300021/98 Treinin-Harish [published in Nevo] PDA 37 433 (2002)).
The integration test has two facets: