Caselaw

Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 55362-01-26 Hapoel Tel Aviv Football Club vs. Israel Football Association - part 2

April 19, 2026
Print

for calling racist chants - a fine of ILS 10,000;

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916 for a fan riot in aggravated circumstances - a reduction of one point in practice and a fine in the amount of ILS 184,000;

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)For throwing pyrotechnic measures that caused the game to be stopped, a penalty was imposed on the condition of deduction of a point, so that the total was deducted from the balance sheet by two league points.

In addition, the suspended sentence was applied, which prohibits the sale of tickets to a foreign audience.

In addition to the penalties detailed above, it was determined that in light of the aforementioned conviction, the result of the game would be 3:0 in favor of Maccabi, i.e., a technical loss to Hapoel.

  1. Hapoel filed an appeal with the Supreme Court next to the Football Association (hereinafter: "the Supreme Court") and on November 23, 2025, a hearing was held on the appeal.

On November 30, 2025, the judgment of the Association's Supreme Court was given.

In its ruling, the court dismissed the appeal in all its parts.

  1. On January 19, 2026, 49 days after the Supreme Court's ruling, and about three months after the game, the lawsuit before me was filed.

On January 25, 2026, a decision was given that in light of the date of filing the claim, which was filed a significant time after the date of publication of the Supreme Court's judgment, and when no request for temporary relief or an urgent hearing was filed, it is appropriate for the worker to consider the benefit of conducting the proceeding.

  1. On January 27, 2026, and apparently in light of the court's decision, Hapoel filed a motion to hold an urgent hearing. The court set dates for submitting a response to the request and also set a hearing in the presence of the parties for February 8, 2026.

At the end of the hearing on February 8, 2026, in a reasoned decision, the court ruled that in light of a number of reasons, and in particular the delay in filing the claim, there was no reason to hold an urgent hearing.

Previous part12
3...18Next part