Labor Dispute (Haifa) 14929-09-23 Aires Dos Santos Allyson – Kesher Sport Ltd.

09 August 2026

Judgment

1. The plaintiff is a Brazilian citizen, a foreign worker, who was employed by the defendant as a professional soccer player in the Maccabi Haifa soccer team. There was an employee-employer relationship between the parties from June 1, 2017 to September 18, 2019 (paragraphs 1-2 and 7 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 1-2 and 5 of the plaintiff's affidavit; paragraphs 1-2 of the affidavit of Dalit Zimmerman; the written employment contract - Appendix 1 to the affidavit of Dalit Zimmerman; a waiver - Appendix C to the plaintiff's affidavit).  The plaintiff petitions to compel the defendant to pay him money for various rights that he claims are entitled to from this period of employment and its termination.  The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims and the remedies to which he petitions.
2. The plaintiff testified for himself. On behalf of the defendant, Dalit Zimmerman, CFO of the defendant (hereinafter - Zimmerman), testified on behalf of the defendant.  After considering all the evidence presented to us and all the arguments of the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the claim should be accepted in part, as will be detailed below.

Rejection of the Motion to Delay the Judgment in the Proceeding Here

3. Counsel for the plaintiff noted that a petition was filed with the High Court of Justice (High Court of Justice 28215-02-26) against the judgment given in the Labor Appeal Proceeding (National) 51985-01-25 Football Club - Maccabi Netanya (2016) Ltd. (Publication) - Amos (January 7, 2026) (hereinafter - the Maccabi Netanya case) (pages 55 and 62 of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing of July 20, 2026 (hereinafter - the transcript of the evidence).)).  At the time of the judgment here, the petition did not annul the judgment given by the National Labor Court in the matter of Maccabi Netanya.  Therefore, the starting point is that the judgment of the National Court in the matter of Maccabi Netanya is valid and the precedent established therein binds us.  For this reason, and given that this is a claim that was filed with respect to social rights in respect of a period of employment in the years 2017-2019, we did not find that the judgment in the proceeding here should be delayed.

The waiver did not prevent the plaintiff from filing the lawsuit

4. The waiver did not include sufficient details of the amounts to be paid to the plaintiff and for which rights. This is sufficient to determine that the waiver does not constitute an obstacle to the filing of the claim here (Appendix 1 to the statement of defense; Appendix 24 to Zimmerman's affidavit; the defendant's summaries on page 59 of the transcript of the evidence; Labor Appeal (National) 53292-05-24 G.  Football Club Beitar Jerusalem (2001) Ltd.  - Yosef, para.  45 (December 25, 2025) (hereinafter - the Beitar Jerusalem case)).

The Written Employment Contract

5. The plaintiff speaks the English language adequately (paragraph 62 of his affidavit; his testimony on page 7 of the transcript of the evidence; paragraph 73 of Zimmerman's affidavit; paragraph 31 of the (interim) arbitration award - Appendix 2 to the statement of defense and Appendix 7 to Zimmerman's affidavit).
6. A written employment contract was entered into between the parties (Appendix A to the plaintiff's affidavit; Appendix 1 to Zimmerman's affidavit). The plaintiff confirmed that he had signed the contract and that the employment contract had been given to him (paragraph 34 of the statement of claim; paragraph 29 of his affidavit; his testimony on pages 9-10 of the transcript of the evidence).  This is a fixed-term employment contract that extends to the 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020 seasons, and its expiration is on May 31, 2020 (clause 1.5 of the employment contract).  The written employment contract is very detailed and spans several pages, all in English.  It includes, inter alia, a reference to the period of employment; the amount of the salary; Eligibility for signing grants and bonuses; Social Rights Deposits; Discipline and more.
7. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The plaintiff, as a person who is not fluent in the Hebrew language (paragraph 1 of the statement of claim; paragraph 1 of the plaintiff's affidavit; the defendant's reply of August 27, 2024), was represented by an Israeli players' agent prior to entering into a written employment contract with the defendant. Prior to the signing of the employment contract, the parties conducted negotiations prior to the signing of the contract, with the plaintiff represented in these negotiations by his players' agent (paragraphs 31 and 72 of the statement of defense; paragraphs 4 and 24 of Zimmerman's affidavit; the plaintiff's testimony on page 10 of the transcript of the evidence; the defendant's summaries on page 57 of the transcript of evidence; paragraph 9.2 of the employment contract).  In light of this, it must be determined that the plaintiff entered into the employment contract in writing while being aware of its contents.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

8. The plaintiff does not specify - neither in the statement of claim nor in his affidavit - why this written employment contract should not be regarded as fulfilling the defendant's duty to provide him with written notice of the terms of employment under the Notice to Employee and Job Candidate Law (Conditions of Work and Selection and Acceptance Procedures), 5762-2002 (hereinafter - the Notice to Employee Law) (sections 28-29 of the statement of defense; the defendant's summaries on page 58 of the transcript of the evidence). He did not show what was not detailed in terms of rights and details under the Notice to Employee Law (the words of the plaintiff's counsel and the plaintiff's testimonies on pages 9-10 of the transcript of the evidence; the plaintiff's summaries on page 54 of the transcript of the evidence).  The employment contract includes, among other things, vacation, convalescence pay, and pension deposits.  Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that this is an improper written employment contract that does not meet the requirements of the Notice to Employee Law should be rejected.  In light of this, the claim for monetary compensation for this purpose should also be dismissed (paragraphs 34-35 of the statement of claim; paragraph 29 of the plaintiff's affidavit).

Work Format

9. The defendant did not keep a workbook for the plaintiff, but it did present us with a game board detailing a list of the games in which the plaintiff participated (paragraph 9 of the statement of claim; Appendix 6 to Zimmerman's affidavit). The plaintiff did not contradict the data appearing in this game board.  The defendant also presented us with schedules that include days on which the team's training and games were held, as well as days that do not include any activity of the team (Appendix 7 to the statement of defense; Appendix 21 to Zimmerman's affidavit).  These timetables are not relevant to the plaintiff.  This is because these are schedules for the months 1-5/17 (and not 2018 as claimed) that preceded the date of the plaintiff's actual start of employment with the defendant.  In addition, the last page of this appendix is a schedule of a training camp held abroad in which the plaintiff did not participate, since during this period, the end of June 19 and the beginning of July 2019, the plaintiff was on leave (certificate of absence - Appendix 8 to the statement of defense and Appendix 23 to Zimmerman's affidavit).
10. Copied from NevoFootball seasons do not extend over the entire calendar year, but are determined by the Football Leagues Administration. There is a break between every game season.  Thus, the 2017/2018 season began on July 29, 2017 and ended on May 20, 2018.  The 2018/2019 season began on July 28, 2018 and ended on May 25, 2019 (paragraphs 25-36 of Zimmerman's affidavit).  Training for the 2019/2020 season began on June 16, 2019, and the last game in which the plaintiff was present in that season was September 14, 2019 (the plaintiff's schedule of games - Appendix 6 to Zimmerman's affidavit).
11. During the recess, there are no soccer matches, and even during the season there are various breaks (Maccabi Netanya, para. 106; paragraph 30 of Zimmerman's affidavit).  As is customary in the football industry, soccer matches take place on the weekly rest days.  In the plaintiff's individual case, the plaintiff played soccer games on Saturdays and Sundays, although not every Saturday and not on all Sundays that fell during the seasons.  This is evident from the plaintiff's game schedule (Appendix 6 to Zimmerman's affidavit).  He also played games on other days during the week.  In addition, training was held on different days during the week (paragraph 10 of the statement of claim; paragraph 7 of the plaintiff's affidavit; Appendix 7 to the statement of defense; the employment contract; the matter of Maccabi Netanya, paragraph 96(a)).

The agreed salary

12. As indicated from the written employment contract, the plaintiff was entitled, inter alia, to a gross monthly salary of ILS 53, 747, to be paid 12 times a year, in each game season between June and May (inclusive) (clause 2.1.1 of the employment contract). The contract also stipulates that the plaintiff will be entitled to signing bonuses for each season of games as well as bonuses for league points (clauses 2.1.1-2.1.14 of the employment contract).  The employment contract did not stipulate that any consideration paid to the plaintiff would be paid in net terms, and the plaintiff's claim in this regard should be rejected (clause 3.6 of the employment contract; paragraphs 11-12 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 8-9 of the plaintiff's affidavit; paragraph 7 of the statement of defense; paragraph 10 of the Zimmerman affidavit; the defendant's summaries on page 58 of the transcript of the evidence).
13. The wage components other than salary, which were paid in the pay slips under payment breakdowns, are per diem foreign residents; convalescence; league points; and a signing bonus. The plaintiff claims that these were part of his regular wages, so that they were artificially distributed, and according to him, the defendant should have taken into account the signing bonuses and bonuses for accumulating points for the purpose of paying his rights (paragraphs 27 and 36-37 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 24 and 30 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
14. The plaintiff did not meet the burden of showing that the pay slips produced by the defendant were fictitious (paragraph 13 of the statement of claim; paragraph 10 of the plaintiff's affidavit). As stated, the employment contract does not stipulate that the plaintiff's salary will be paid in net terms.  Subsequently, an examination of the pay slips shows that the net salary stated in it - which the plaintiff confirmed was paid to him as it appears on the slip (the words of the plaintiff's counsel on page 3 of the transcript of the evidence) - was at or above ILS 53, 747.  In other words, there is no claim by the plaintiff that wages were paid that were not reflected in the pay slips.  There is also no claim for payment of wage differences.  It should be noted that the defendant explained that the higher or lower the gross wages were paid than that agreed upon in the agreement, the differences were due to exchange rate differences (Zimmerman's testimony on pages 34-35 of the transcript of the evidence; the plaintiff's summaries on page 54 of the transcript of the evidence).  This explanation is acceptable to us given that it finds expression in the employment contract (clause 2.8).  In addition, the fact that the pay slips include various deductions, which the plaintiff claims were made illegally, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the pay slips are fictitious (paragraph 28 of the statement of claim; paragraph 25 of the plaintiff's affidavit).    The fact that the per diem component was split from the plaintiff's salary did not harm the plaintiff in any way: this was done in order to benefit the plaintiff in terms of taxation (the plaintiff's summaries on page 54 of the transcript of the evidence).
15. We also did not find that the convalescence pay component and reimbursement of per diem expenses are not authentic payments. In the employment contract, there was an explicit agreement that the agreed wage included convalescence pay.  These were paid each month in a distinct way in the pay slips.  There is no defect in this agreement, which the parties reached when the plaintiff was represented by an Israeli players' agent (Maccabi Netanya, para.  152).  Although the employment contract does not include an explicit reference to the reimbursement of per diem expenses, it is a salary component that was paid in a beneficial manner to the plaintiff for tax considerations, and this does not lead to the conclusion that it is not authentic, it was also paid separately from the plaintiff's salary in the pay slips (the plaintiff's summaries on page 54 of the transcript of the evidence).
16. The signing bonuses and bonuses for league points paid to the plaintiff in the pay slips are not part of the plaintiff's regular salary for the purpose of calculating social rights (Beitar Jerusalem, paras. 69 and 70(b); Zimmerman's testimony on page 29 of the transcript of the evidence; the defendant's summaries on page 60 of the transcript of the evidence).  The plaintiff's description that the bonus is paid for each point accumulated by the team, so that a draw entitles one point and a victory three points (paragraph 14 of the statement of claim; paragraph 11 of the plaintiff's affidavit) shows that the payment of league points is a payment that is conditional on the conditions of its payment, i.e., a victory or a draw.  Reinforcement for this can be found in the fact that this component was paid every month (except for the month of 7/17, the first month in which a slip was issued to the plaintiff) at varying rates, in a manner that strengthens the conclusion that it was paid depending on the number of points accumulated by the team in which the plaintiff played.  In this connection, we note that the plaintiff's version with regard to the team's score was not proven, so it was not proven that the amount paid to the plaintiff for accumulating points was underpaid or overpaid (paragraph 15 of the statement of claim; paragraph 12 of the plaintiff's affidavit).  With regard to the signature grants, we note that the fact that the signature grants were paid in several installments at different rates does not change the conclusion that they did not constitute wages (the plaintiff's summaries on pages 54-55 of the transcript of the evidence).  This is a fee intended to incentivize the employee to continue playing under the same team.
17. Beyond what is required, we note that the determination of whether the components of the salary paid are part of the plaintiff's regular salary, does not affect the amount of rights that will be clarified in the framework of the judgment here. This is because, as will be detailed below, the defendant was not obligated to deposit in respect of these pension payments, since in any case she deposited funds for him from a salary that was higher than the average wage in the economy.  In addition, the plaintiff is not entitled to severance pay.  In addition, the defendant did not remain liable to the plaintiff for redemption of annual vacation days.
18. In light of all this, we reject the claim that the pay slips produced by the defendant were fictitious (paragraphs 36-38 of the statement of claim; paragraph 30 of the plaintiff's affidavit), and determine that the plaintiff did not contradict the data in the pay slips. Therefore, we attribute weight to the data that appears in them.

Pay slips

19. The defendant provided the plaintiff with pay slips in real time (paragraph 6 of the plaintiff's affidavit; paragraphs 7 and 55 of Zimmerman's affidavit; the pay slips - Appendix 2 to Zimmerman's affidavit).
20. Although the pay slips are written in Hebrew, the plaintiff did not point to a normative source that obligates the defendant to produce pay slips - which is not only a document that regulates the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, but rather a document that may and will be submitted to various authorities such as the Tax Authority - in a language other than Hebrew.
21. We determine that the plaintiff understood the contents of the pay slips in real time. It is unreasonable in our opinion that the plaintiff received the pay slips without examining them, even if with the assistance of another person.  An examination of the pay slips that the plaintiff attached to the statement of claim shows that comments in the Portuguese language were written on the pay slips for the months 7-8/17.  The plaintiff confirmed that it was his handwriting, that these were notes written by the plaintiff, and that he did so after translating the data using his mobile phone (his testimony on page 12 of the transcript of the evidence).  For example, in the 7/17 slip next to the deduction from the repayment of ILS 50, 000, the plaintiff recorded "Ok" and next to the deductions to the mutual fund, he registered a registration in Portuguese stating that it was a mutual fund (fundo de fidilidade).  To this, it should be added that the plaintiff confirmed that he contacted the defendant on a number of occasions in requests regarding his salary and payments, including a request to receive an explanation of the deductions (paragraphs 73 and 86 and Appendix 18 to Zimmerman's affidavit; his testimony on page 11 of the transcript of the evidence; the defendant's summaries on page 58 of the transcript of the evidence).  Therefore, we reject the plaintiff's claim that he did not understand the contents of the pay slips (paragraph 8 of the statement of claim; paragraph 6 of the plaintiff's affidavit; his testimony on page 11 of the transcript of the evidence).
22. The pay slips do not include data regarding the number of working days and hours of work of the plaintiff (paragraph 36 of the statement of claim; Zimmerman's testimony on page 38 of the transcript of the evidence; the plaintiff's summaries on page 54 of the transcript of the evidence; Item 4 of the addendum to the Wages Protection Law, 5718-1958 (hereinafter - the Wages Protection Law)). We did not find that the plaintiff should be awarded compensation for this.  This is because the pay slips reflected the plaintiff's real salary, and the failure to include data on the number of working days and hours worked is not of a high level of severity.  To this, it should be added that the failure to include data on the number of working hours in the slips can also be attributed to the fact that the question of the applicability of the Hours of Work and Rest Law, 5711-1951 (hereinafter - the Hours of Work and Rest Law) to professional soccer players - is not unequivocal (Labor Appeal (National) 56218-06-17 Anonymous - Zip Guard, Security, Services and Manpower Ltd., paras.  143-145 (April 22, 2020); Netanya Letters, paras.  81-85)).

Salary deductions

23. The pay slips included various deductions under liability deductions. These are expense deductions; electricity bill; Arnona account; tickets/subscriptions; House Committee; Water bill; Highway 6 + tunnels; Maccabi Haifa store; TV/cable TV; flight ticket; a traffic report; alternative fuel; a disciplinary committee fine; Deposit; And Pharaoh.  Another deduction that appeared was a deduction in respect of a mutual fund under additional mandatory deductions.  The plaintiff claims that these are deductions that were made unlawfully, and therefore he petitions for their restitution (paragraphs 28 and 39-41 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 25 and 31-33 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
24. The employment contract explicitly states that the defendant will assign funds for the plaintiff to a trust fund, in exchange for deposits to a pension fund, and that the plaintiff will also deposit his share there (clauses 7.1-7.3 of the employment contract). According to the defendant, all of the deposits - both part employee and employer - were transferred to the plaintiff upon termination of his employment (paragraphs 14 and 36.4 of the statement of defense; paragraphs 89-90 and Appendix 20 to Zimmerman's affidavit).  We will address this issue below, but it can now be determined that the purpose of the deduction was lawful (section 25(a)(5) of the Wages Protection Law).  Another deduction that was made lawfully is the deduction for a disciplinary committee fine (section 25(a)(4) of the Wages Protection Law).  In this regard, it was not claimed or proven that the disciplinary committee's fine was imposed on the plaintiff in accordance with the law.  Similarly, the deductions that appeared as repayments were deducted in accordance with the provisions of section 25(a)(7) of the Wages Protection Law.
25. As for the deductions for a house committee, water, electricity, municipal taxes and television/cable, the employment contract does indeed stipulate that the defendant will rent an apartment for the plaintiff in Haifa, but apart from the rent to be paid by it, the plaintiff will bear the rest of the residential expenses (clause 2.5 of the employment contract). The plaintiff did not prove that he paid these expenses directly as claimed by him (the plaintiff's testimony on pages 13-14 of the transcript of the evidence).  He did not present evidence regarding payments for electricity, water, etc.  On the other hand, the defendant presented various documents - water bills and municipal taxes (Appendices 14-15 to Zimmerman's affidavit; summaries of the plaintiff's reply on page 61 of the transcript of the evidence).  The fact that these are in her possession strengthens the conclusion that she paid the expenses related to the apartment instead of the plaintiff.  Therefore, we determine that the defendant did so in the plaintiff's place, and in these circumstances she was entitled to deduct from his salary the sums she paid for him (section 25(a)(6) of the Wage Protection Law; section 36.1 of the statement of defense; section 75 of Zimmerman's affidavit).  To this, it should be added that the plaintiff did not complain about the deductions in real time, even though he was aware of the contents of the pay slips, and it must be determined that he did not believe that they were excessive deductions.
26. The deductions related to the plaintiff's vehicle - Route 6 + tunnels; traffic tickets and alternative fuel - were allowed to be deducted because the defendant undertook to bear only the cost of making the vehicle available to the plaintiff, while the plaintiff bears all other expenses such as toll roads, fuel and fines (clause 2.4 of the contract). Thus, for example, the plaintiff confirmed that he did not pay the car insurance (his testimony on page 16 of the transcript of the evidence).  The same applies to the deduction of funds for flight tickets beyond one double flight ticket from Brazil to Israel in Economy Class Plus (clause 2.6 of the employment contract).  The defendant explains that sometimes the plaintiff asked to take advantage of more than one flight ticket given to him according to his entitlement in the employment contract or when he requested an upgrade to the flight, and therefore the difference was deducted from his salary (paragraph 36.2 of the statement of defense; paragraph 83 of the Zimmerman affidavit; the plaintiff's testimony on page 13 of the transcript of the evidence; the defendant's summaries on page 60 of the transcript of the evidence).  In all of the aforementioned cases, the plaintiff did not come to the defendant in a real time complaint about the deductions, even though he was aware of the contents of the pay slips, and this should be seen as his agreement to the amount of the deduction and to the fact that he expressed expenses that the defendant was not required to pay for him.  In light of this, it was permissible to make the wage deductions in accordance with section 25(a)(6) of the Wages Protection Law.
27. As for the deductions under expenses, the defendant explains that it was a reimbursement for personal expenses that she incurred in favor of the plaintiff - such as equipment for the apartment, flowers, etc. (paragraph 79 of the Zimmerman affidavit).  Here, too, the plaintiff did not come out against these deductions in real time, and it must be determined that they did indeed reflect reimbursement of the defendant's expenses for personal purchases that she made for the plaintiff's benefit.  In practice, the defendant's payments for these purchases can be viewed as a repayment that would have been allowed to be deducted from the plaintiff's salary (section 25(a)(7) of the Wages Protection Law).  The deductions for tickets/subscriptions and the Maccabi Haifa store should also be regarded as a repayment that was allowed to be deducted from the plaintiff's salary.  Even with regard to these deductions, it was not proven that the plaintiff approached the defendant and complained about the amount of the deductions in real time.
28. The defendant explained that the deduction that appeared under the deposit was made for the payment of future expenses that would turn out that the plaintiff did not act to pay them, and if necessary, to the extent that there was an amount left in favor of the employee, the defendant would return the deposit (paragraph 36.3 of the statement of defense; paragraphs 84-85 of Zimmerman's affidavit; Zimmerman's testimony on pages 52-53 of the transcript of the evidence). We determine that this deduction was made unlawfully: the defendant was prohibited from making this deduction in accordance with section 25 of the Wages Protection Law.  Such a deduction is also not reflected in the employment contract.  The calculation regarding the deposit deductions has not been proven.  Nor was it proven that in the end, after the plaintiff terminated his employment with the defendant, he was returned any sum for the deduction of a deposit (paragraph 85 of Zimmerman's affidavit; Zimmerman's testimony on page 53 of the transcript of the evidence; the plaintiff's summaries on page 54 of the transcript of the evidence).  In these circumstances, the defendant should be obligated to return the sum of ILS 30, 000 for the deductions of the deposit that were made illegally in the pay slips for the months of 5/19 and 9/19 in the sums of ILS 10, 000 and ILS 20, 000, respectively.  Shekel interest will be added to this amount as of July 15, 2019, the middle of the relevant period.

00Circumstances of Termination of Employee-Employer Relationship

29. 0The plaintiff's claim that at the beginning of training in the third season, the defendant decided that she was not interested in him and began to abuse him, while banishing him from the team's training and games (paragraph 18 of the statement of claim; paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's affidavit) was not proven. It was claimed that as a result, the plaintiff was forced to move to play for another soccer team in Israel.  The plaintiff did not present any external evidence in this matter, such as his agent's inquiries to the defendant or real-time text messages between the plaintiff and the defendant.  The plaintiff did not summon players from the team to testify, for example.  In addition, the plaintiff confirmed that he continued to live in the apartment that the defendant rented for him for a year after he ended his relationship with the defendant, and this greatly weakens the weight that should be attributed to the allegation of abuse (the plaintiff's testimony on pages 18-19 of the transcript of the evidence; the defendant's summaries on page 58 of the transcript of the evidence).  In any event, no remedy was claimed in respect of the claim of abuse.  Therefore, we reject the claim that the defendant abused the plaintiff.
30. It was also proven before us - as appears from the defendant's version - that the termination of the employee-employer relationship between the parties was done by consent. This can be learned explicitly from the waiver letter, which the plaintiff signed (Appendix 1 to the statement of defense; Appendix 24 to Zimmerman's affidavit; the defendant's summaries on page 58 of the transcript of the evidence).  There it was noted that the parties had mutually agreed to an early termination of the employment contract.  It should be noted that at the time of signing this document, the plaintiff was represented by a players' agent (the plaintiff's testimony on page 25 of the transcript of the evidence; Zimmerman's testimony on page 45 of the transcript of the evidence).
31. The defendant claims in the statement of defense that the background to the mutual agreement on the termination of the employee-employer relationship was the fact that the plaintiff was required to train separately from the group after he had committed a serious disciplinary offense; The defendant was not satisfied with the plaintiff's professional level and decided to bring reinforcement to the position in which the plaintiff was playing, in a way that reduced the plaintiff's expected playing time. Since the plaintiff's desire, like any professional player, is to actually play, the plaintiff asked to move to another team where he could make the most of his playing time while his salary level would not be affected.  Under these circumstances, the plaintiff moved to play for Bnei Yehuda and it was agreed that the defendant would pay him a lump sum of €70, 000 net (paragraphs 12, 37-41, 62-66 and 78 of the statement of defense; paragraphs 116-117 of Zimmerman's affidavit).
32. The claims about the defendant's dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's professional level and the fact that his playing time with the team was reduced were not proven. The defendant did not present evidence in this matter and did not even summon relevant witnesses to testify.  The witness on behalf of the defendant did not purport to include in her version a reference to these issues.
33. However, it can be determined from the waiver letter that there was a mutual agreement to terminate the employee-employer relationship, prior to the end of the fixed period of the employment contract, and that within the framework of this agreement, the defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff the sum of €70, 000 net. In this regard, we note that it has not been proven that the defendant asked the plaintiff to leave the group, nor has it been proven that the plaintiff signed this document under the circumstances of a tight schedule (the plaintiff's testimony on page 17 of the transcript of the evidence).
34. The defendant claims that the said sum was paid to the plaintiff in a pay slip 9/19 and was even embodied in order to reflect a payment in net values (paragraph 118 of Zimmerman's affidavit; Appendix 25 to Zimmerman's affidavit). The plaintiff confirms that he was paid €70, 000 net, but claims that these were paid at the expense of other rights to which he was entitled (paragraph 25 of the statement of claim; paragraph 22 of the plaintiff's affidavit).  We reject this argument.  The pay slip indicates that this is a separate and distinct payment of this amount.  This is a sum of ILS 263, 870 that was paid under final account.  The additional component of the final account of ILS 92, 758.63 is tax deduction.  As part of the deductions of the obligation, there is a deduction of repayment in the sum of ILS 273, 770 - the amount that reflects €70, 000 during the relevant period.  In other words, the payment of €70, 000 net was paid to the plaintiff and did not affect the payment of the other amounts appearing in the pay slip for the month of 9/19.
35. With regard to the nature of the agreed compensation sum - €70, 000 - this sum reflected wage differences between the salary that was supposed to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant and the salary that was paid to him by the Bnei Yehuda group (paragraph 12 of the statement of defense; the plaintiff's summaries on page 55 of the transcript of the evidence). It was not a sum that constituted a payment of rights.  It has not been proven that the defendant remained indebted to the plaintiff any sum for any right so that this compensation was under any payment.  Therefore, we dismiss the claim for payment of wages, and in any case the amount of the claim in this relief has not been proven (paragraphs 24-26 and 42-46 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 21-23 and 34-38 of the plaintiff's affidavit).  Since it is not an actual wage, rights cannot be derived from it (paragraph 47 of the statement of claim; paragraph 39 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
36. In light of this, it must be determined that the plaintiff was not fired. Therefore, he is not entitled to compensation due to lawful dismissal.  He is also not entitled to severance pay by virtue of the claim that he was fired.  It should be noted that even if he had been entitled to severance pay by virtue of the Severance Pay Law, 5723-1963 (hereinafter - the Severance Pay Law), there would have been no reason to calculate them from the signing bonuses and bonuses in respect of league points, since, as we have already noted above, these were not payments that constituted regular wages (paragraph 70 of the statement of claim; paragraph 58 of the plaintiff's affidavit; the defendant's summaries on page 60 of the transcript of the evidence).  In addition, the plaintiff's entitlement to severance pay is summarized in the entitlement to a total of 8.33% of a salary of ILS 35, 000 per month (clause 7.1.2 of the contract), which is a deposit rate that exceeds that of which the defendant was obligated under the Mandatory Pension Extension Order (hereinafter - the Mandatory Pension Order), given that the average wage in the economy is less than a total of ILS 35, 000 (section 6(c) of the Mandatory Pension Order; Section 2 of the National Insurance Law [Consolidated Version], 5755-1995).  It has been proven before us that the sums accumulated in the trust fund - the employee's share and the employer's part, which includes compensation - were paid to the plaintiff in the pay slip for the month of 9/19.  As for the balance of the severance pay - that is, out of the salary exceeding ILS 35, 000 per month - it was included in the plaintiff's monthly salary (paragraph 11 of the statement of defense; paragraph 127 of Zimmerman's affidavit; Zimmerman's testimony on pages 29-30 of the transcript of the evidence; clause 7.1.3 of the contract; Section 28 of the Severance Pay Law; approval by the Ministry of Labor under Section 28 of the Severance Pay Law - a copy attached on page 65 of the statement of defense).  As to the plaintiff's arguments regarding the validity of a certificate from the Ministry of Labor - beyond the fact that this is an argument that was first raised in the plaintiff's summaries and this constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front, we determine that there is a presumption that this document is valid (section 34(4) of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971).  There is no obligation to summon any official or public servant who has produced a document or signed any document in the course of performing his duties.  Insofar as the plaintiff believed that the certificate was invalid, he could have petitioned the court with an appropriate request to summon the relevant public servant to testify (the plaintiff's summaries on pages 56-57 of the transcript of the evidence).  In addition, the instructions claimed by the plaintiff were not submitted to the court file, and the possibility that the public servant has the discretion to give approval while deviating from the dates set out in the guidelines was ruled out.  Therefore, we found that weight should be attributed to the approval by the Ministry of Labor.  In any event, as stated, the plaintiff is not entitled to severance pay.
37. In these circumstances, we dismiss the claim for severance pay and compensation for unlawful dismissal (paragraphs 70-73 and 76 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 58-60 of the plaintiff's affidavit).

Deposits to a pension fund

38. The parties agreed that deposits would be made to a mutual fund - instead of deposits to a pension fund - out of a monthly salary of ILS 35, 000, and that the defendant's share would be 6.5% for benefits and 8.33% for compensation (clauses 7.1-7.3 of the contract; clauses 11, 36.4 and 61 of the statement of defense; paragraph 89 of Zimmerman's affidavit). There is no flaw in such consent, since since the plaintiff is a foreign worker, it has not been proven to us that a pension fund in Israel would have agreed to accept him as a colleague.  In these circumstances, the defendant who performed an approximate performance of its obligation - by virtue of a mandatory pension order - did right to make deposits to a pension fund (Application for Leave to Appeal (National) 40577-02-17 El-Shai Super Clean Ltd.  - Tesfalidt, para.  7 (May 25, 2017); Application for Leave to Appeal (National) 26977-02-26 Keke - Brosh Iron Trading (Ashdod) Ltd., para.  6 (March 12, 2026)).  Therefore, we reject the plaintiff's claim that the defendant did not insure him with pension insurance (paragraph 66 of the statement of claim; paragraph 55 of his affidavit).
39. The plaintiff actually worked for the defendant for a period of 27.5 months, by virtue of which the defendant was required to deposit a total of ILS 200, 488.8 (ILS 35, 000 X 27.5 months X 20.83%). According to the trust fund's data, a sum of ILS 181, 974 was accumulated in the plaintiff's name (details of deposits dated October 28, 2019 - Appendix 5 to the statement of defense and Appendix 20 to Zimmerman's affidavit).  We determine that this sum was paid to the plaintiff.  This was a payment that appears under the name "Debtable Compensation" in the pay slip for the month of September 222, 2019 in the amount of ILS 222, 637, which reflected the amounts accumulated in the mutual fund plus an additional amount for the purpose of tax collection.  The plaintiff confirmed that the 9/19 pay slip was actually paid to him and therefore it must be determined that he was paid all the money in lieu of a pension insurance deposit (paragraph 71 of the statement of claim; paragraph 90 of Zimmerman's affidavit; the statements of the plaintiff's counsel and the defendant's counsel on page 3 of the transcript of the evidence; Zimmerman's words on page 4 of the transcript of the evidence).  In light of all of the above, we dismiss the claim for compensation regarding the pension funds (paragraphs 67-68 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 55-56 of the plaintiff's affidavit).

Work pay on the weekly day of rest and on holidays

40. First of all, we note that we reject the defendant's claim that the plaintiff was in a position of personal trust, so that according to her, the Hours of Work and Rest Law did not apply to the plaintiff, in accordance with the ruling in the Maccabi Netanya case and the fact that it was not proven otherwise in the plaintiff's case (paragraphs 46 and 74 of the statement of defense; Maccabi Netanya, paras. 75-77).
41. The plaintiff is a Catholic Christian and therefore his weekly day of rest is Sunday (paragraph 48 of the statement of claim; paragraph 40 of the plaintiff's affidavit; Section 7(b)(2) of the Hours of Work and Rest Law; the plaintiff's testimony on page 20 of the transcript of the evidence). He claims that he regularly worked on Sundays and Saturdays (paragraphs 10 and 49 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 7 and 41 of the plaintiff's affidavit).  His version was not concealed, when we were not presented with a work-hour booklet.  In addition, we have already determined above that the plaintiff worked on Sundays and Saturdays, although not all of them he played in competitive soccer matches (Appendix 6 to Zimmerman's affidavit) and that he also participated in training that took place during the week, including Saturdays and Sundays (Zimmerman's testimony on page 39 of the transcript of the evidence).
42. In countries abroad, where most of the population is Christian, it is customary to hold competitive soccer matches on Sundays as well, since this is the weekly rest in these countries (paragraph 44 of the statement of defense; paragraph 60 of Zimmerman's affidavit). The plaintiff confirmed in his testimony that soccer matches were held in Brazil on Sundays and Saturdays (paragraph 64 of Zimmerman's affidavit; page 20 of the transcript of the evidence).  This is similar to Israel, where soccer matches are held on Saturdays.  Therefore, part of the terms of employment of the plaintiff, as a professional soccer player in the Premier League, is that the work will be performed on the weekly rest days, i.e., Saturdays and Sundays.  The salary paid to the plaintiff includes payment for work on weekly rest days and also on holidays (Maccabi Netanya, paras.  94-99 and 142-148).  In any event, the plaintiff confirmed that, as a rule, he was given a day of rest (the plaintiff's testimony on pages 20-21 of the transcript of the evidence; paragraph 47 of the statement of defense; paragraph 65 of the Zimmerman affidavit; the defendant's summaries on page 59 of the transcript of the evidence; Maccabi Netanya, paragraphs 90 and 97-98).  In this matter, we reject the argument for the expansion of a prohibited front raised by the plaintiff in the summaries of the reply on his behalf, since the defendant already claimed this in the statement of defense (page 61 of the transcript of the evidence).  The result is that the claim for weekly rest and holiday pay should be dismissed (paragraphs 50-52 and 61-64 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 41-42 and 51-54 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
43. Had we determined that the plaintiff was entitled to work compensation on holidays, and as stated above, we would have charged the defendant in the sum of ILS 18, 044.4 for work compensation on holidays. This is based on the data below.  an hourly wage of ILS 300.75 (ILS 54, 737 divided by 182 hours of work per month); The entitlement to a holiday supplement is at the rate of 50% of the hourly wage (ILS 150.37) and not 150% of the hourly wage, since the plaintiff was a salaried employee; and eight hours of work on a holiday, since the exact number of hours worked by the plaintiff was not proven (Zimmerman's testimony on page 37 of the transcript of the evidence; paragraph 7 of the plaintiff's affidavit).  As to the number of holiday days for which work remuneration is claimed on the holidays, the plaintiff testified that he worked on the holidays detailed in the statement of claim (his testimony on page 21 of the transcript of the evidence).  The defendant did not contradict this argument, since we were not presented with a work hours register (section 26b(a) of the Wage Protection Law; the defendant's summaries on page 59 of the transcript of the evidence; compare: Labor Appeal (National) 38313-03-18 Ilan Israeli Association for Injured Children (R.A.) - Mohdinov, para.  68 (June 1, 2020)).  The plaintiff's claim that he played on holidays is supported by his game schedule, as we will see below (Appendix 6 to Zimmerman's affidavit).  It should be recalled that in addition to games, training was also held.  However, there are holidays for which the plaintiff is not entitled to work on holidays, as we will detail.
44. For 2017 - the plaintiff is entitled to remuneration for work on a holiday that falls on December 25, 2017 - Christmas, in accordance with the schedule the plaintiff played on that date (Appendix 6 to Zimmerman's affidavit). The date of December 24, 2017 does not entitle to work on a holiday because it is a day of the "holiday eve" type, and on December 23, 2017 there is no holiday of any kind, as appears from the table of Christian holidays for Catholics, which is published by the Civil Service Commission and is available for review on the Internet (hereinafter - the NSAM table).  The plaintiff is also entitled to work remuneration on a holiday that falls on June 4, 2017 - Shavuot.  Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a holiday work remuneration for the year 2017 for two holiday days.  For the year 2018 - there is entitlement to all the holidays that the plaintiff specified, except for December 23, 2018, since there was no holiday, and December 24, 2018, since it is a "holiday eve" in accordance with the NSM table.  Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a holiday work remuneration for the year 2018 for seven holiday days.  For the year 2019, there is entitlement to all the holidays that the plaintiff specified.  According to the plaintiff's game schedule, he played on April 22, 2019, which fell on Easter (Appendix 6 to Zimmerman's affidavit).  Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a holiday work remuneration for the year 2019 for six holiday days.  Business restrictions 15 days of holiday.  However, we would have ruled the work remuneration on holidays insofar as we had determined that the plaintiff was entitled to it, and as stated, in accordance with what was stated in the Maccabi Netanya case, there is no entitlement to work remuneration on holidays.
45. We will also present a calculation for the defendant's charge with respect to the weekly rest days, if we were to determine that the plaintiff is entitled to work remuneration on the weekly rest days. This is a sum of ILS 134, 731.52 for work on the weekly rest days that we would have charged the defendant.  On the basis of the aforesaid regarding the calculation of work pay on holidays, the entitlement to additional work on the weekly rest day is at the rate of 50% of the hourly wage (ILS 150.37) multiplied by eight hours of work.  The plaintiff based his calculation on this component on 112 days of rest (paragraph 51 of the statement of claim), while during the period of his employment there were 120 days of rest.  It should be noted that the plaintiff's version that he worked on the weekly rest days is supported by his game schedule, according to which he played 14 times on Sundays.  In these circumstances, we would have adopted the number of rest days for which the plaintiff petitioned for remuneration during the weekly rest days.  Therefore, if we were to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a work compensation award on the weekly rest days, we would award him ILS 134, 731.52 for work on the weekly rest days.  As noted, this determination is also beyond what is required.

Redemption of Annual Vacation Days

46. The plaintiff claims that he did not take leave while working for the defendant and therefore petitions for redemption of approximately 33 days of annual leave (paragraphs 54-56 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 45-46 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
47. In accordance with the Annual Leave Law, 5711-1951 (hereinafter - the Annual Leave Law), the plaintiff was entitled to 14 days for each of the first two years. For the third year, the plaintiff is entitled to five vacation days - a relative amount out of 14 vacation days (14 days of vacation X 87.5 (25 days of work X 3.5 months of work) divided by 240).  Business restrictions are 33 days of vacation.  This is also a quantity close to the number of vacation days for which the plaintiff claimed redemption of vacation days.  It should be noted that the number of monthly work days that was taken into account benefits the plaintiff, since the scope of work of soccer players is partial in relation to the scope customary in the economy (Maccabi Netanya, para.  83; paragraph 10 of the statement of claim).
48. The defendant did not present a work hours register or a vacation booklet. However, we have reached the conclusion that the defendant met the burden of showing that the plaintiff took advantage of the vacation days to which he was entitled (paragraph 50 of the statement of defense; paragraph 92 of Zimmerman's affidavit; summaries of the plaintiff's reply on page 61 of the transcript of the evidence).  In football, the use of annual vacation days is made during breaks between seasons and during breaks during the season (Maccabi Netanya, p.  106).  This also arises from the provisions of the plaintiff's employment contract (clause 7.5 of the contract).
49. The plaintiff was on personal leave abroad during the period from 19 June 2019 until 4 July 2019, so it must be determined that this was an absence of 14 days, in accordance with what was stated in the statement of absence (paragraphs 55 and 90 of the statement of defense; paragraphs 96 and 99-100 of the Zimmerman affidavit; printout of entries and exits from the country and confirmation of absence for the month of 6/19 - Appendix 8 to the statement of defense; Appendices 22-23 to the Zimmerman affidavit; the plaintiff's testimony on page 22 of the transcript of the evidence; the defendant's summaries on page 59 of the transcript of the evidence). The plaintiff took advantage of additional vacation days while he was on vacation in Brazil, together with his spouse, during the month of June 17, the first month of his employment with the defendant, and in the month of May 2017, so that he returned to Israel on June 18, 2017 (the plaintiff's testimony on page 22 of the transcript of the evidence; flight tickets - Appendix 17 to Zimmerman's affidavit; printout of arrivals and exits from Israel - Appendix 22 to Dalit's affidavit; the defendant's summaries on page 59 of the transcript of the evidence).  In other words, already at the beginning of his employment, the plaintiff took advantage of vacation days.  From May 16, 2018 to June 20, 2018, the plaintiff was also abroad.  According to the flight tickets, this was a vacation in Brazil and these were booked for him and his spouse (paragraph 95 of Zimmerman's affidavit; flight tickets and a printout of arrivals and exits from Israel - Appendices 17 and 22 to Zimmerman's affidavit).
50. The aforesaid is sufficient to bring the plaintiff to the conclusion that the plaintiff took advantage of at least 33 days of vacation, to which he was entitled. This is without taking into account the fact that during the breaks the plaintiff probably did not work, and this should be regarded as the use of annual vacation days (paragraph 50 of the statement of defense; paragraphs 93-94 of Zimmerman's affidavit; Maccabi Netanya, para.  106).  Taking into account that the plaintiff was a salaried employee, i.e., the plaintiff was paid his full salary, the result is that the defendant paid the plaintiff for the annual vacation days, and even more, and therefore the plaintiff was not left liable for annual vacation days.  Therefore, the claim for redemption of vacation days is denied.
51. There is no reason to deduct any amount for those vacation days that were paid to the plaintiff Beitar (paragraph 57 of the statement of defense; paragraph 105 of Zimmerman's affidavit). There are two reasons for this.  First, even if the plaintiff was paid vacation pay for a number of days that exceeded that prescribed in the Annual Leave Law, these were the terms of the plaintiff's employment in real time and should not be changed retroactively just because the claim was filed here.  Second, the defendant did not act to deduct any amount in respect of vacation days in the last pay slip for the month of September 2019.  Although the pay slip contains a negative vacation balance, the defendant did not deduct sums from his salary in connection with this.  Nor was it proven that the defendant took this into account when the parties agreed on the amount of compensation on the date of the termination of the employee-employer relationship, or regarding the return of the alleged deposit deduction, for example.  Therefore, the defendant should be regarded as having waived its right to deduct any amount in respect of overpayment of annual vacation days.

Convalescence Pay

52. We have already determined that the convalescence pay component paid to the plaintiff in the pay slips is a real salary component, and therefore weight should be attributed to the data regarding the convalescence pay in the pay slips. According to the pay slips, the plaintiff was paid convalescence pay, including tax collection, in the sum of ILS 7, 319.98.  This is an amount that exceeds the amount of the convalescence pay that was supposed to be paid to the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the extension orders regarding the payment of convalescence pay.  Even after deducting the portrayal, this is an amount that was paid in excess of what was supposed to be paid to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff was paid ILS 200 per month.  Therefore, the defendant paid the plaintiff the convalescence pay to which he was entitled (paragraph 106 of Zimmerman's affidavit).  Therefore, the claim for convalescence pay is dismissed (paragraphs 58-60 of the statement of claim; paragraphs 48-50 of the plaintiff's affidavit).

Rejection of the claim for wage withholding pay and severance pay

53. Once we have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to severance pay, the claim for severance pay should be dismissed. Due to the restitution of the deduction of a deposit, one should not be charged with withholding compensation.  We are not persuaded that the purpose of this deduction - which was made on two dates close to the termination of the employee-employer relationship - was to withhold wages or harm the plaintiff, but rather to serve as a mechanism that would enable the defendant to reimburse expenses that it incurred in favor of the plaintiff.  This is given that this is a foreign worker who can and will not stay in Israel when making a future calculation of expenses incurred in his favor.  Although we determined that this deduction was unlawful, it must be examined against the background of the fact that the defendant treated the plaintiff in good faith during the period of his employment and made sure to pay him his rights as an employee.  In these circumstances, the plaintiff should not be awarded wage withholding compensation due to this deduction (Labor Appeal (National) 43694-12-11 Effi Security Ltd.  - Mordechai, paras.  62-66 (August 28, 2017)).  Therefore, the claim for wage withholding compensation is also dismissed (paragraphs 77, 80 and 83 of the statement of claim; paragraph 61 of the plaintiff's affidavit).

Conclusion

54. In light of all of the above, the defendant must pay the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of the judgment in the sum of ILS 30, 000 plus shekel interest from July 15, 2019, for the restitution of unlawful deductions for a deposit.
55. In addition, the defendant will bear the plaintiff's expenses in respect of the proceeding here in the total sum of ILS 7, 000 as well as the plaintiff's attorney's fees in the total sum of ILS 3, 000. These sums will be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff within 60 days from the time the judgment is served on the defendant.  To these sums, a shekel interest will be added from the date of the judgment until the date of repayment.  In the ruling on the amount of costs, we included the sum of ILS 3, 000 due to the fact that the plaintiff was required to attend the evidentiary hearing from Brazil and taking into account the total amount that we awarded him in the judgment.  In addition, we included the sum of ILS 2, 000 for the expenses of the defendant's application for bail deposit, an application that was rejected (decision of August 30, 2024) and an additional sum of ILS 2, 000 in respect of the process of applying for leave to appeal to the National Court filed by the plaintiff, at the end of which the matter was returned to the Regional Court in order to clarify the claim on its merits, without delaying this clarification (judgment of July 25, 2024 of the National Court (Application for Leave to Appeal (National) 45577-06-24)).
56. The parties are entitled, within 30 days of the judgment being served on them, the right to appeal it to the National Court in Jerusalem.

It was given today, 26 Av 5786, (09 August 2026), in the absence of the parties and will be sent to them.