Talk:Premier League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Premier League is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Football (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the English football task force.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Inconsistency compared to other articles.[edit]

Many football leagues and tournaments have changed names over the years.

UEFA Cup => Europa League

UEFA European Nations Cup => European Football Championship

European Champion Clubs' Cup => UEFA Champions League

Division 1 => Ligue 1

First Division => Premier League

to name a few.

All other tournament and leagues that have undergone name changes (that may or may not have included mention-worthy changes in format) have still their main article to their current name in Wikipedia, being an article covering the entire history of the tournament/league.

Emitting the history prior to name changes to the great extent that it has in this article simply is not standard for Wikipedia and confusing to say the least for people with limited knowledge to the higher tier of English football.

I strongly suggest making this article mainly about the history of the top league of English football (just look at for instance how Champions League, Europa League, Ligue1 or European Football Championship articles are composed) and then (if necessary) have a separate article or a section mentioning exactly what has happened since the name change of Premier League and why the name change took place. I actually had a hard time finding a wikipedia page that covered what I was looking for as the diversion between pre-1992 and post-1992 is so extensive the way the articles are composed right now.

Champions League have undergone much more significant changes since it was founded in 1955 than the top league in England have...

Seems like someone is favouring emitting portion of the history in some sort of history altering attempt. Wikipedia is not a place for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engolfer (talkcontribs) 14:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The creation of the Premier League was not just a name/format change, the founder members all resigned from the Football League to create a new entity. The Football League administered the First Division, the Football Association administers the Premier League. In terms of how the matches are played not much changed, but organisationally, much did (especially in terms of revenue distribution). In the other examples the same body has run the competition in both guises. This is more similar to Fairs Cup -> UEFA Cup than it is to UEFA Cup -> Europa League. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't really see how that is a relevant answer though (nor precise) and think you are making a rather easy aspect unnecessarily complicated. The point is that Premier League is in daily language associated with "the highest tier of football in England" and therefore a re-organization no matter how substantial in it's bureaucratic nature, would not justify splitting up the history of the article prone to be the main article used for people looking for information about the top league of English Football. Therefore I find this misleading and inconsistent with many other similar instances where there have also been name and organizational changes associated with it.Engolfer (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You are talking about merging the histories of two separate entities. The Premier League and the First Division are completely separate, regardless of the fact that the Premier League replaced the First Division as the top level of English football. The change was not mere bureaucracy, and for you to pretend otherwise would be more misleading than the situation we currently have. – PeeJay 03:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not saying that there are no difference. The problem is that there are no good article on the top tier of English Football as it stand with it's overview, history and interesting facts. Of course Premier League can have an article of it's own, but it shouldn't be what is used as a main page for the cover of the top tier of English Football. If this article is to remain like this, links from for instances with intent to link to the top tier of English football should not link to this page, but the one which indeed is about the top tier of English football... Engolfer (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If a link refers to the top tier of English football in the context of pre-1992 football, I agree that it should not link to this page; it should link to Football League First Division. Problem solved. – PeeJay 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
But what if a link is (like most probably are) just referring to the top tier of English football without taking into account various changes that occurred in 1992, as it is now, it cannot link to any suitable article. There needs to be a page about the top tier of English Football and it's history, regardless of it's name at the given times. All other leagues have this and I see no reason the English should be different. It's not like that other leagues have not made huge changes as well... Engolfer (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you point me in the direction of such a link? I honestly can't think of an instance where anyone would need to refer to an article specifically about the top tier of English football as a whole. – PeeJay 22:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Table and text under "foundation" section[edit]

There was a narrow band of text to the left of the table, so I tried to move text below, but another editor started and conflict, then "intermediate edits so cannot undo" when I tried to undo. I had to sign off without repairing, so hope someone else can help? So sorry, I tried to fix, but kept getting "conflict" "cannot save" and "cannot undo". I am such a fan. This page is so important. Please fix placement? AnEyeSpy (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Premier League performances in Europe[edit]

We probably need a section on this though I'd prefer to leave the details and the hard work to somebody more enthusiastic than me. Suggested possible contents might include:

  • a brief overview of English teams in the European Cup and CL since 1955
  • a more detailed analysis of the Premier League period
  • Period of peak Premier League dominance (9 of the 12 available semi-final slots, and 4 of 6 finalists, though only one winner, in 2006-7 to 2008-9; 22 of 24 available Last 16 slots, and 16 of 24 available QF slots in 2004-5 to 2009-10; etc)
  • Reasons why such dominance before the final produced relatively few winners
  • Recent decline to no quarter-finalists this season
  • Reasons for dominance and decline (it's seemingly at least partly to do with changing tax regimes in UK and abroad, though I presume there are other factors as well)
  • Criticism, especially by UEFA President Michel Platini when the Premier league was still dominant
  • a brief look at Premier League teams in other European competitions
  • English and Premier league teams in the Intercontinental Cup and the FIFA World Club Championship

Tlhslobus (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've kickstarted the process by adding a few relevant tables Tlhslobus (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that content be put in English clubs in European football rather than here. European qualifiers are not necessarily Premier League teams. Birmingham last season for example, or Millwall in 2004. Plus European competition pre-dates the Premier League by a long way (as does the peak period of dominance by English clubs). Oldelpaso (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
In particular, I don't think tables of results of the World Club Championship by country have any place in an article about the Premier League. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The World Club Championship by country table is there as the only available measure of the strength of the Premier League relative to non-European leagues. The other tables are intended to show how the Premier League compares to other European leagues, and how the English top level has fared relative to the rest of Europe from the beginning and since the PL was created. Maybe it would be better if the tables were split 1956 to 1992 (rather than 1956 to present), and 1993 to present, to facilitate a comparison between the PL and pre-PL periods (and I may well do this, but not today). But shifting the whole thing to English clubs in European football will deprive readers of information which IMHO is of huge importance to understanding the significance of the PL, and how well it is faring, etc. These are the data on which the rest of the world (and many sensible English people too) judge the PL. Birmingham and Milwall were not in the Champions League and thus do not affect any of the tables currently shown. The peak period of English dominance (presumably in the 1970s) is not particularly relevant to an article about the PL (except perhaps for purposes of comparison with the PL era) but matters such as the PL's overall performance (as well as its not yet discussed dominance and then decline) in the Champions League are utterly relevant to an article on the PL and should not be shifted out to an article about a related but different subject (English clubs in European football) unless at the very least that article contains separate PL and non-PL data, and good links from the PL article to those PL tables (and quite likely even then it's probably more sensible to keep the PL in Europe tables in the PL article, or in a separate PL in Europe+the World article with good links to it from the main PL article). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Chinese viewers[edit]

These two sentences don't do much for the page's credibility. To say that the estimate for Chinese viewers was wrong by about a factor of 10,000 is clearly nonsensical.

"In China, data from 2003 suggested that matches were attracting television audiences between 100 million and 360 million, more than any other foreign sport.[73] However, when the Chinese rights to Premier League matches were sold to a subscription channel in 2007, the number of viewers proved to be in the tens of thousands" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Need for a coherent section explaining and describing the presence and performance of Welsh clubs in an ostensibly English League[edit]

There is a need for a coherent section explaining and describing the presence and performance of Welsh clubs in an ostensibly English League. At present mention of this is incoherently scattered all over the article, and not mentioned, let alone explained, in the lead article. As a result many readers are likely to fail to notice the Welsh presence (as I did for several years), and to be confused about it when they come across it, and to get very incomplete information about it - for instance as the article is at present, a reader would heve to search through the article for both Wales and Welsh (assuming it occured to him or her to do so in the first place), and would still not be sure how many Welsh teams there currently were in the PL, nor have any idea how they were performing. The whole business may well also be somewhat offensive to at least some Welsh people,(and, if so, seemingly offensive without any obvious justification of 'unavoidable necessity'). But as I am Irish, not Welsh, I can't be sure whether it offends any of them or not (if it was Irish clubs being treated that way, it probably would cause offense to at least some Irish people, at least judging by the apparent need for such awkwardly long sporting expressions as 'The British and Irish Lions'). But as already mentioned above there are plenty of other problems associated with the current situation even if no Welsh reader ever gets offended.

I tried to remedy these problems by adding a small section under clubs entitled 'Welsh clubs in the Premier League' and by having a brief mention in the opening paragraph (which I linked to the added section). I also amended the then text in the Infobox from Wales (2 clubs) to Wales (2 clubs in the 2013-14 season) and linked this to the added section. I now discover that my work was deleted with the not-particularly-flattering and not-particularly-explanatory 'explanation' that "this is preposterous" (even supposing for the sake of argument that my approach is mistaken, I fail to see how it can be so absurdly mistaken as to be 'preposterous'). And as a result of later edits I would have to re-do these changes manually if I wanted to restore them. I am currently considering doing so for all the reasons mentioned above, but whether I decide to do so or not, comments on the matter would be welcome. I will shortly be informing the reverter about this post. It turns out he seems to be part-Welsh, so clearly not all Welsh people are offended, but that doesn't prove that none ever are (in any case, as already mentioned, complete accessible coherent information for readers of any nationality, not avoidance of potential offense to Welsh people, is the main reason for my changes - indeed the changes are probably more useful to non-Welsh people, as Welsh people who are interested in the PL probably mostly know it already). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It may well be that the proposed section should be widened and be entitled 'non-English clubs in the PL' and include brief mentions of discussions concerning Wimbledon becoming the 'Dublin Dons' before they became the MK Dons, and brief mention of periodic discussion of the idea of Glasgow Celtic and/or Rangers joining the PL (along with relevant media citations where available). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not something that belongs on this page, in my opinion. It should probably go on the Football in England page, as this is not an issue that solely affects the Premier League. Welsh clubs have been present in the English football league system since time immemorial, and so perhaps this might even be a topic for its own article, but I do not believe that we need to go into so much detail about Welsh clubs in the Premier League when next season will only be the third season when this has been relevant. Finally, apologies for the edit summary, but it was more referring to the other part of the revert I made, which included Wales in the article infobox. – PeeJay 16:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
First, thanks for the apology, Peejay. Second, your comment has in effect conceded that it is info that needs to be somewhere in Wikipedia, and that all we are doing is disagreeing about the ideal location. What article it is in doesn't hugely matter as long as it is in a single coherent place, and is linked so as to make it easily accessible from the other places. In other words, even if you put it elsewhere, you will still need the links from this article, and typically these links are also accompanied by a brief summary (which can lead to problems keeping the main article and the summary in sync). Though I don't hugely care, I favour having it in the PL article because 'Football in England' is not the logical place for people to go looking for questions about Welsh clubs, and because perhaps 90% of the interest in club 'Football in England', and perhaps 99% of the international interest in club 'Football in England', is in PL clubs (quite like including foreigners next year curious to find out more about why a Welsh club is representing the PL in the Europa League). If you're going to relocate Welsh clubs in the PL on the grounds that they also exist in lower leagues, then for consistency you should also relocate such sections as 'Foreign players and transfer regulations' on the grounds that such players are also present in other English and non-English leagues (I don't favour either relocation). The fact that the Welsh arrival in the PL is recent is all the more reason for updating the PL article to adequately reflect the new situation. Nor is 'Football in England' a suitable place for providing info about proposals involving Irish or Scottish clubs in the PL. It is part of the job of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to provide this kind of information, and what all these things have in common is not Football in England' but 'Non-English clubs in the PL'. But in any case, like Rome, Wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and it could never be built if info which is admitted should be in it cannot be added until there is unanimous agreement on the ideal location, and the ideal structure and hierarchical organisation of the info, etc, and if such info, when added, gets deleted pending the settlement of such secondary disagreements. So what I have done is to add the info back with a few amendments of the kinds already mentioned (plus a few Citation needed requests where appropriate). You are free, if you so wish, to restructure and/or relocate it as you see fit, provided you ensure suitable links to wherever you choose to relocate it (this does not mean that I think such a relocation is a good idea - I don't, but provided decent links are there, relocation is not particularly objectionable). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear Tlhslobus - there is absolutely nothing stopping any team in the UK registering to play in any of the affiliated league structures. The use of the phrase "The English Premier League" is really only a naming convention to differentiate from the SPL and neither of which define the origin of all the players, clubs, or the location of their stadiums. The fact that there are teams ostensibly in Wales that are playing in the English league structure is notable to those clubs - and not really particularly notable for the league (and completely unnotable for the Premier League as the sharer of a historic league structure).
By the same token, discussions relating to Wimbledon when they were considering moving to Ireland in some fashion highlights the irrelevance of "country". Would the "participants" of the football league really be England / Wales / Scotland / Ireland in that case? Doesn't that somewhat generalise (and muddy the waters) of the sovereign Leagues of those countries by suggesting that they somehow do not exist? Koncorde (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Koncorde. You raise many points.

You say "There is absolutely nothing stopping any team in the UK registering to play in any of the affiliated league structures". 'Absolutely Nothing' is a rather broad term - it seems to me there are many things stopping Scottish teams registering to play in the affiliated league structures - if Glasgow Celtic wanted to play in the PL as the rules currently stand, it would have to join non-league English amateur clubs and take many years to qualify its way up to PL status, which would be arguably be financially impossible, logistically impracticable, as well as psychologically unacceptable to all involved (By contrast, Rangers boss Charles Green has proposed doing just that, while adding that there may be many obstacles to overcome in court, and that the option is much more attractive to Rangers, demoted to the Scorrish Second Division, than to Celtic at the top of the SPL. It's also unclear how serious Green really is, and how much is intended perhaps to put pressure on the Scottish Football authorities to reduce Rangers' punishment).So any Glasgow Celtic participation in practice might require either a rule change, or perhaps the buying of an existing PL club by a Scottish club, or the move of such a club to Scotland (the Dublin Dons episode was a suggested move of Wimbledon to Dublin - they eventually moved to Milton Keynes), and quite possibly several other hurdles to overcoma as well. By the way, the Dublin Dons proposal would have involved a country outside the UK.

You may think that "The English Premier League" is really only a naming convention to differentiate from the SPL. This seems unlikely, as the SPL is named after the PL, and English Premier League is a name used outside England to tell people where the PL can be found, just as people don't say Spain's La Liga to distinguish it from some other La Liga but to tell people who might not otherwise know that it's Spanish. But even supposing you are right, this is far from self-evident to the average reader of Wikipedia, who is told in the opening two sentences 'The Premier League is an English professional league for men's association football clubs. At the top of the English football league system, it is the country's primary football competition'. There is currently nothing in the article's lead paragraphs to tell him or her that things aren't quite that simple, still less to give him or her your interpretation of the matter. So if a reader wishes to find out why Welsh Swansea is representing the English PL in the Europa League, and if he or she is unable to read your mind, then at present he or she will find it difficult to have this kind of question answered (the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide such answers, not to test people's mind-reading abilities).

You say the presence of Welsh clubs is 'completely unnotable for the Premier League as the sharer of a historic league structure'. So PeeJay above thinks the Welsh shouldn't be mentioned because they've only just arrived, and you think they shouldn't be mentioned because they've always been there. I should add that nobody reading the current article could learn about your 'historic structure' unless they already knew about it, whereas it was mentioned in the section that I created, and will again be mentioned if and when I get it restored. And without such knowledge the presence of Welsh clubs may remain a somewhat confusing mystery to many readers.

You wrote: 'By the same token, discussions relating to Wimbledon when they were considering moving to Ireland in some fashion highlights the irrelevance of "country". Would the "participants" of the football league really be England / Wales / Scotland / Ireland in that case? Doesn't that somewhat generalise (and muddy the waters) of the sovereign Leagues of those countries by suggesting that they somehow do not exist?' My reply is that 'country' is in practice hardly ever 'irrelevant' (as anybody listening to the Irish debate on the Dublin Dons proposal would find hard to doubt). Indeed the reason we are having this discussion is because Welsh participation in the English PL is highly anomalous when looked at from the perspective of football in most other countries (and therefore highly notable, in a way that the participation of foreign players is not, that being the international norm, tho this has so far quite rightly not caused the deletion or relocation of the section 'Foreign players and transfer regulations' on the grounds that such players are also present in other English and non-English leagues). But the waters are indeed muddied by such things as history, geography, and human nature. This has resulted in various anomalies arising. It is part of the purpose of an encyclopedia to make the waters somewhat less muddy by documenting, describing, and explaining such anomalies, not by suppressing attempts to document, describe, and explain them. Meanwhile it is very easy to avoid suggesting the non-existence of domestic leagues in Scotland and Ireland, by simply mentioning their existence when describing the proposals (and those leagues' typically furious objections to such proposals). Such mentioning seems a great deal more sensible than suppressing matters which are a rather interesting part of the history of the PL, and perhaps of its possible future, for fear that mentioning such history might cause a few people to reach strange conclusions such as the non-existence of Irish and Scottish leagues.Meanwhile, our existing articles had left me totally unaware that there is in fact a quite separate Welsh Premier League, and I will be modifying my article to briefly mention this. And, however irrelevant you may believe 'country' to be, the question of which country clubs like Cardiff and Swansea represent has unsurprisingly caused lengthy debate in UEFA (see here for details).

I've now added back the changes as indicated to Peejay. My comment about him being free to relocate it provided he has suitable links (see above) applies equally to you. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am very much open to suggestions concerning Gordon Strachan's unnoticed (because only implicit) possible bombshell for the PL - that discussions for a breakaway European Superleague are implicitly ongoing, and implicitly sufficently advanced that they already know it's going to have 2 divisions (not '2 or 3') and 38 teams (not 'about 40') - such a Superleague may or may not have room for Celtic or Rangers, but it's difficult to see it not including teams like Manchester United, presumably meaning that what's left of the PL will resemble the Championship today. Of course we can't say that because Strachan doesn't say that - but the questions are more like where do we put his statement, how much prominence do we give it, etc...? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My points stand - there is absolutely nothing to stop a team from another country registering in the English league structure. That they would go bankrupt is irrelevant, they could still do so. That there are "psychological" implications are irrelevant. That there are considerations about why a team would do so does not change the fact that they can make that change (and have done so historically - i.e. Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham).
The location of a team does not change what the FA or the PL represents - i.e. the highest representative division in England. The Premier League is Englands top division. The use of "English Premier League" is used to differentiate only from the SPL. What it does not say is "all the clubs are from England" in the same way it makes no claims about the origin of the managers, players or chairmans.
An encyclopedia is there for people to read, not for us to cover every possible eventuality of a subject - and also makes an assumption that people from other countries have no idea what it's like to have clubs from other countries in their respective divisions (and yet Italy, France, Spain etc all have notable principalities and even sub-nationalities without going into the specifics of other nations, and many other sports across the world have similar cross-nation spanning competitions). If people wish to read about why there are Welsh clubs in the League structure then they should read about those teams and/or the history of the league structure because that is where the information regarding their historic association will be stored. The Premier League article should instead be about the Premier League. By all means the presence of the Welsh teams should be mentioned (even providing a link to a larger article on the make-up of the league structure if needed) however adding undue weight to the implication / meaning / relevance of the Welsh teams is unlikely to clarify anything.
The confusing mystery of Welsh teams isn't particularly confusing or mysterious, and the arguments related to where the "home nations" sit with regards to UEFA registration / qualification is relevant in particular to the FA's themselves and again not the Premier League.
As for Gordon Strachan - Wikipedia is not the news media. The Super league discussion has been going on for years, and it should be discussed as part of the Champions League history / future development. Making such changes to the article as it stands will lead to recentism and narrative based on punditry. Koncorde (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to reflect the general incoherency of what is being talked about "Besides English clubs, some of the Welsh clubs can also qualify to play, and participation by some Scottish or Irish clubs has also sometimes been discussed. Such national anomalies are unusual in world football, though they are not unique to Britain and Ireland, nor to football." I think the last few words of that sentence should have been "...wait, what I was I talking about?". If it's not unique, not unusual, and in the case of discussions never been anything other than largely informal then why is it encycopedic? Koncorde (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Amount of matches played[edit]

The wiki says that each year, 760 matches are played, while it should be 360, since every match features two teams: 10 matches per week, 38 weeks: 10x38 is 380. Can someone please change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed back to 380. Barret (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

International performance tables[edit]

What is the point of the tables at the bottom of the page? They don't seem to have any particular context, at least none that is indicated on the page. In all honesty, it just seems a bit crufty and even a bit self-wanky. Furthermore, the tables really have nothing to do with the Premier League. Sure, they relate to teams who qualified for international competitions through the PL, but success in European competitions has no measurable, quantifiable impact on the PL itself. – PeeJay 13:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, PeeJay, we meet again :(  :( :(  :) :) :) ??? Some of your points were already discussed earlier in Premier League performances in Europe, which you may or may not have read (if you haven't, please do). When the lists were created two months ago, one person raised objections, which he did not pursue when I answered them. Some editors have since updated the tables without complaining that they didn't see any point. So I don't think I'm alone in seeing some benefit to having these tables. But that discussion also indicates there's at least one table I think probably should be changed as in "Maybe it would be better if the tables were split 1956 to 1992 (rather than 1956 to present), and 1993 to present, to facilitate a comparison between the PL and pre-PL periods (and I may well do this, but not today)." (That raises a separate question of whether the suggested new table should replace the existing one of be in addition to it - I favour replacement, but worry this might now meet objections, while addition could get charges of too much, so I've been procrastinating a bit about it) And there are other tables I think should be added, notably ones showing the rise and recent decline of the PL in Europe (by indicating number of PL teams reaching each stage of the competition, perhaps broken into 4-year periods), and perhaps ones giving win-lose percentages for PL and other leagues in the FIFA world club championship. But it's a question of when I feel like doing the work, and I'm not all that enthusiastic at the best of times, still less when the entire thing is under threat of deletion (as you have now ensured). And of course there's also a question of whether the stuff is best here or in a separate linked article, or as a linked section in another article, about which I'm not too concerned provide the PL article still links to it, and the PL data doesn't go missing.
You ask: What is the point of the tables at the bottom of the page? I doubt if I am alone in finding these tables rather interesting, but probably the main reason, and the one originally mentioned, is that "These are the data on which the rest of the world (and many sensible English people too) judge the PL." (It's certainly a large part of how I judge it myself, but then maybe I don't count as a sensible person). That is also one part of the answer to your claim that "Furthermore, the tables really have nothing to do with the Premier League" - the data by which the PL is judged have everything to do with the PL. Other relevant points may also include that success or failure internationally affects the finances of the PL, the balance of power within the PL (by giving more financial and other clout to internationally successful clubs), the international interest in the PL, and the willingness of top players to play in the PL, and many of these matters would be important even if their impact on the PL was not measurable or quantifiable (in fact, I suspect there are experts who do measure and quantify many of these things, and I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that some of this is available online, but it would take a lot of hard work to find it, and I don't see any urgent need for it at present).
The above hopefully also answers your 'crufty' charge (the 'lists' are not pointless, as I have explained their point - though actually they are not lists but tables, so quite likely 'crufty' doesn't apply to them on that ground too). I shall ignore your 'self-wanky' charge, as, how shall I put it, unlikely to lead to constructive discussion :)
As for giving more 'context', some of that context is already there in the section title "Premier League international performance" as well as in the text explaining why 1993 has been chosen, but it might indeed be a good idea to give a bit more "context" (some of which has already been given on this Talk page), especially now that you have raised the matter as a perfectly legitimate issue. I'm a bit reluctant to do it myself, as I fear it will be hard work that others will shoot down as anodyne if it says too little, and inaccurate or original research if it says too much (and I'm already having a thoroughly miserable and exhausting time having to defend myself on these Talk pages). In fact ideally you could put in what you think would improve it (but I'm not sure that you are willing to do that given that you also want to get rid of the stuff). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't pursue it because I forgot about it :) Contextless tables do detract from an article in my opinion; tables are best when they supplement a narrative, not replace it. When an article has fourteen tables, I'd contend that reader focus suffers. Surely the heart of a good encyclopedia article is in providing a broad summary, not raw data? This is, after all, a featured article and not a featured list. I'm also mindful that adding more and more material to the page is not necessarily the answer. That would take it over the recommended article size. That, of course, is why we have summary style. I'm thinking a paragraph or two of prose, with a {{main}} pointing to an article where all these tables and what have you are present. English clubs in European football was my suggestion in the earlier thread, there may well be suitable alternatives. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Oldelpaso, that was very informative and helpful. Given what you say about it being a featured article, then a summary pointing to a Main article seems like a very sensible idea. Also I've never had a problem with more 'context' - I've just been a bit scared of adding it myself for reasons mentioned above - hopefully I'll have less reason to be scared in a non-featured (or at least not yet featured) article. However English clubs in European football doesn't seem to be the right article, because the FIFA world club champions are not a European competition. So I think it would be best to have it as an article in its own right, presumably with relevant 'see also' links to and from English clubs in European football.

Can I run the following suggested Summary by you for your comments:

Main Article: Premier League international performance

Between the 1992-93 season and the 2012-13 season, Premier League clubs had won the UEFA Champions League 4 times (as well as supplying 5 of the runners-up), behind Spain's La Liga with 6 wins, and Italy's Serie A with 5 wins, and ahead of Germany's Bundesliga with 3 wins. Premier league clubs have also won the Official FIFA World Club Championship once (Manchester United in 2008), and been runners-up twice, behind Brazil's Serie A with 4 wins, and Spain's La Liga and Italy's Serie A with 2 wins each.

(Square-bracketed links to the relevant articles still to be added in the above)

I expect that, at least initially (until somebody improves it), the above could serve as both the summary in the PL article and the lead paragraph in the new article. Once this transfer has been done, I and/or others can then start adding in a bit more contextual prose in the new article.

Is there any reason why I should not proceed with the above changes as soon as possible? Tlhslobus (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, with one caveat: it needs referencing. On the target article title, there has recently been some discussion about changing the title of some "European football" articles. One such discussion was here. That was inconclusive, but shows the idea has at least some support. So perhaps there's an argument for altering the title of English clubs in European football to something like English football clubs in international competition? Oldelpaso (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for yet more informative and helpful comments, Oldelpaso. I'm not too keen on the hard work (and often debatable judgment calls) involved in finding suitable references for statements which are not controversial (and are ultimately backed by vast numbers of reliable sources) and are not likely to be contested by anything backed by reliable sources, and are largely absent from most similar articles (presumably for the reasons I've mentioned). But you're probably right, especially for a summary in a featured article, so I suppose I'll just have to start looking for a few references (though sometimes I just wish I wasn't foolishly semi-addicted to this seemingly pointless time-wasting activity). Or alternatively as a stop-gap if I'm having difficulty finding suitable references I may just throw in a couple of [citation needed] flags to avoid further unnecessary delays.

As for changing the name of English clubs in European football to English clubs in International Competition, it may very well be a good idea in principle (though if it faced no objections it would presumably already have been adopted), but I'm not going to fight for it, and even if I did it would pesumably be ages before it got agreed, if it ever did, so for now we seemingly need a separate article (with suitable links to and from each other) at least until if and when the name changes, when a merger can be discussed.

Such a merger would possibly also involve further complications involving non-English clubs like Swansea. On which subject, though strictly speaking this belongs in the previous discussion topic on this Talk page, do you have any views on the Non-English clubs in the Premier League section? In particular, in the light of your understanding of what ought to be found in a featured article (an understanding which is clearly far superior to mine), do you think that this section would be better moved to a separate article with just a referenced Summary and link to Main article from here in the PL article? (At least in that case there are thankfully plenty of references already available there). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning to make the changes that I've described above (for International performance tables - not, or at least not yet, for Non-English clubs in the Premier League, where I'm still awaiting Oldelpaso's views as requested in the previous paragraph). However, this may take rather longer than I had originally hoped. So if anybody (such as PeeJay) wants to delete the International Performance section in the meantime, I won't be objecting (though I guess it's always possible that somebody else might, which is why I myself won't be deleting them until their replacement is ready - though the risk of objections is probably rather low if one describes the deletion "as per Talp Page discussion"). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've BOLDly moved the European football article – if everything that faced little to no objection had already been done we'd have a far more complete encyclopedia than we do now! As for Welsh clubs, I don't particularly see a need to go into depth. Lots of clubs are subject to historical, geographical or political anomalies. An in-depth treatment is more suited to the club article than the league one. Swansea will, after all, be representatives of The Football Association in Europe next season, not the FAW. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Oldelpaso, you're clearly a braver man than me :) Well I've made the changes more or less as suggested. For references in the summary, I've just linked to the relevant tables. Please feel free to change the summary (etc...) as you deem fit (apart from anything else I reckon I've wasted far too much of my time on this already, so if anybody is unsatisfied, can they please fix it themselves). For some reason, the link to the "main article" gets duplicated (or alternatively it appears with a hash and underscores instead of spaces) - does anybody know of a fix for this (apart from making it a genuine separate article (instead of a section in an article), which will fix it, but seems a bit drastic as a cure)? Tlhslobus (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013[edit] (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC) how twenty teams play 38 games and is 380 games for the season

Because there are two teams in each game. 38 rounds of matches with 10 matches in each round equals 380 matches. – PeeJay 22:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Chris Hughton Irish?[edit]

I question that Hughton is Irish. He qualified to play for the Republic of Ireland through his mother, but that doesn't make him Irish. Obscurasky (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The criterion we use (I believe) is the person's footballing nationality. Hughton played for Ireland, therefore we list him as Irish throughout his career, since we cannot source any other nationality that is relevant to his career. – PeeJay 00:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Surely that can't be right. Most managers haven't played for their national team, so what you're saying is we list their 'passport nationality' unless they've played for a national team - in which case it is superseded by their 'football nationality'?Obscurasky (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


The table in the article states:-

The current managers in the Premier League are:

It does not state "The current permanent mangers", or have any other qualification of the word "Manager" so all current managers, be they permanent, interim, temporary, or otherwise should be included. - Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

An IP is now trying to make out that Gary Monk only became manager of Swansea City on 7 May, whereas he has been manager since 4 February. However, the same IP also "backdated" Tim Sherwood's contract, to when he became caretaker manager, so they are being highly inconsistent. The fact that Monk was initially a player-manager, does not alter the fact that he has been the manager since February - no-one else has been the manager. When the latest contract was signed is totally irrelevant, it is when they took up the job. We do not state that Wenger only became manager of Arsenal in August 2010, because that was when he signed his last contract. Arjayay (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Big Four dominance section, FA Cup winners mention?[edit]

Not sure if this has already been taken into account/considered, but the FA Cup was also won by the big four every year in the 2000s with the exception of 2008. (and overall, has only been won by teams not in question 4 times since the establishment of the Premier League). I understand that this is a Premier League article in the grand scheme but this is surely considerable enough to at least be noted? Strykie-boy (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the acquisition of MCFC in 2008 by an Abu Dhabi ownership group, with deep pockets and willingness to spend, it seems clear that MCFC is now firmly ensconced in the highest tier, and that the Big Four has now become the Big Five. This is similar to the shift a decade earlier from Big Three to Big Four following the acquisition of Chelsea by deep-pocketed Roman Abramovich. I would hope that an editor could incorporate this narrative into the current story of the Premiership. Jrgilb (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article status[edit]

I don't believe this article meets the Featured Article criteria any more. The deficiencies include the following:

  1. Length – when the article reached FA status in 2006, it was 37kB. Now the article is 134kB. That is well over the article size guidelines, which states that articles over 60kB probably should be divided and articles over 100kB almost certainly should be divided.
  2. Tables – there are several tables in here that take up a lot of space (list of clubs, list of champions and runners up) or are eye-catching without being particularly informative (big four dominance).
  3. The Lead suffers from WP:OVERLINK.
  4. Non-English clubs – the section on Welsh clubs gives undue weight to a small number of clubs and is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM. The section on Scottish and Irish clubs is irrelevant.
  5. The Media Coverage and Criticisms sections are so long they discourage the reader from wading through them.
  6. Awards – Most of this section, particularly the seasons awards, is a mess and violates overlink.

Does anyone want to take a run at improving the article? Much of what I have identified above could be fixed by creating new articles for these topics, leaving only a summary of the subject in the main article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of questions for us dumb Americans[edit]

I'd like to point out a couple of things that might things just a tad clearer for those who aren't natives. Is there some reason why teams in Scotland or Ireland are not included? It's mentioned in the article that it has been considered but there is no reason why given.

Also, are player transfers only in terms of money? Is it forbidden to trade one player for another player? If so, this is a marked difference from here in the US, as selling players solely for money is frowned upon, if not outright forbidden.

BTW, the sentence, "The record transfer fee for a Premier League player has been broken several times over the lifetime of the competition," is rather trite. It kind of goes without saying that the record has been broken, and will continue to be broken, as the simple reality of inflation will ensure that will continue. __209.179.51.170 (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason why Scottish and Irish teams don't compete is simply tradition. Those teams have never really attempted to enter the English league system, whereas Welsh teams have often been included due to the shared history of the two nations. However, I have no source for that, so it might be worth looking around a bit. As for transfers, players can also be traded (usually in addition to a cash transaction), but it's not very common. – PeeJay 19:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015[edit]

Please change 380 to 760 because per team 38 matches are played and 20 teams thus play 760 matches. The Premier League is a corporation in which the 20 member clubs act as shareholders. Seasons run from August to May, with teams playing 38 matches each (playing each team in the league twice, home and away) totalling 380 matches in the season. Mayank2409 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done 20 teams means 10 matches every round, 10matches/round x 38 rounds = 380 matches. It is correct. Your way of counting takes every match twice. QED237 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)