Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues

Missing men's leagues of current FIFA member countries

I thought I'd compile a list of all of the current FIFA member countries (and their top divisions) which are currently missing from the list, hopefully this can serve as a point of reference so that all of these leagues may be added in the future. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Total missing: 1 (92 at initial posting)

• CONMEBOL (1 missing)
  • Ecuador – Ecuadorian Serie A

I'm not sure I understand why we need both a list of FPL leagues and also a list of leagues which aren't FPL. Clearly if a league is not on the FPL list, it's not FPL, so what's the point? --SuperJew (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not being on the list may also mean status is unknown or that references cannot be found (there are a few countries that almost certainly have fully-pro leagues, but it's been difficult to source). I think your statement is probably applicable to women's leagues though, as a league being fully-pro would be unusual and probably highlighted somewhere. Number 57 20:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I would assume the main (if not only) use of this list is to know if a league is FPL in relevance to WP:NFOOTY. In that case, if a league is not on the FPL list, it doesn't matter if it's because it's confirmed as not FPL or if it's unknown, a player playing in the league wouldn't be considered notable. --SuperJew (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding it, but your point doesn't seem to make sense. If we have a player in a league whose status is currently unclear, we don't know whether they pass WP:NFOOTY or not. Number 57 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: Say for example there's a player who's only played in the Ecuadorian Serie A at an AfD. Would you say keep or delete based on WP:NFOOTY? --SuperJew (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No-one would be able to !vote either way on the basis of WP:NFOOTY because we don't know the league's professional status. Number 57 22:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If only the verified fully professional leagues were included, that would imply all other leagues missing from the list are not fully professional, which isn't necessarily true. Having two lists is helpful in knowing which leagues are still undetermined. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So what's going on with the Ecuadorian Serie A, is it a FPL? I want to know if I can create a page for a player. Cam (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on this guideline, no. However that doesn't mean an article can't be produced if you can cite sufficient third party coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say, that a player has to be a pro (in most league in Europe a player can make an apperance even if he is not a pro, eg a junior). It says that only professional contracts can be signed. There is no such thing as an "amateur contract" in slovenian first league, all contract listed in the pdf are professional contracts. That is the vast majority of players in the league. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've always scratched my head on why it's so difficult to find Honduran and especially Costa Rican references about profesionality (one way or another). And watching such teams play, and knowing that they are televised internationally, I've scratched my head on how the top league isn't fully professional. Someone recently brought this 2016 reference] about the Costa Rican Liga FPD to my attention. I'm told that these are monthly salaries, and the minimum reported is equivalent to that of an average rural wage. But there's only 4 teams here, I don't really know how far down the depth the minimum salary is, etc. But it's the best information one way or another I've seen. I'm not providing a recommendation - just passing on what I've seen. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a heads up, Costa Rica was added to fully-pro list (along with their second division) a month ago, although there was no consensus reached here on talk page. Not sure how good is the provided reference since I don't know Spanish. It looks like official regulations for 2019 domestic leagues.--BlameRuiner (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I have no idea where the Segunda Division even came from, considering the source is just the UNAFUT statutes, which only says that the clubs and players and staff of the first division are professional (without confirming fully pro) and literally does not mention the Segunda at all. Costa Rica has a strong league though and picking a couple redlinked players on Saprissa it takes a couple Google pages to confirm (thanks transfermarkt) but the top of the league at least should all pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For anyone with the time and knowledge of the Spanish language, there is a lot of details on the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras website - a list of notes from the president, which may give clarification can be found here - and even better, a list of league regulations can be found here. The Honduran league is often referred to as professional in Honduran media, though I don't know if this is enough to grant it a place on the list. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Further to this, this document confirms the professional status of the league:

ARTÍCULO 14.-
Los Clubes Afiliados se obligan a:
...
6) Celebrar contratos por escrito en el formato autorizado por la LIGA debiendo
ser su contenido impreso con todos y cada uno de sus jugadores, cuerpo
técnico, los cuales deberán ser registrados obligatoriamente en la Secretaría de
la Liga. Requisitos que están regulados en el Reglamento de Registro de
Jugadores y Cuerpos Técnicos de la Liga Nacional de Futbol Profesional.

A rough Google translation tells us that all affiliated clubs in the league must enter into written contracts with each and every one of your players, technical bodies, which must be registered with the secretary of the league. If this isn't enough to confirm professional status, I don't know what is. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick ping to those involved to get this pushed through quicker: @S.A. Julio: @SuperJew: @Number 57: @Fenix down: @Nfitz: @BlameRuiner: @SportingFlyer: Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That would confirm professional status, User:Davidlofgren1996. It wouldn't confirm fully-professional status. The difference is, can the entire squad (or at least the top 20 or so players) fully support themselves playing football, or are they just semi-professional (which is still professional). A good question, is what is the 20th player paid, on the lowest-paid team in the league , as there's always going to be an exception or something. I've no doubt that the Motagua, Olimpia, and Marathóns are going to be fully professional - and all their players receive no end of media coverage. But what of Honduras Progreso? My gut feel is that they are ... but sadly we need more than my gut. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nfitz: I believe this source would cover that. Article 3 states (roughly) that "The professional player must consider playing soccer a way of life." (El jugador Profesional debe considerar la práctica del fútbol como medio de vida). This says to me that it would have to be their only source of income, as this document is specifically relating to contracts. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand this form of Spanish, and while your translation is correct, I read this more as "you can't play people as players who aren't players." I'd like some salary levels before I draw any conclusions, but that's not the worst rule. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Hmm I see your point, but I think besides the top European leagues, average player salaries will be very hard to come by. So far I've managed to find this source which states the Honduran players at the 2014 World Cup earned an average yearly wage of £339,498, with 11 out of the 23 players playing in Honduras. With the Honduran national salary being around £10,931 a year, it's almost guaranteed that these players are earning a considerable amount more than that.

Another source is this, a news article from 2009 claiming that Deportes Savio owed a player by the name of Lenin Suárez 38,000 lempiras (£1222.73) as a monthly wage. This would amount to a yearly wage of just over £14,750, putting his earnings above the national average.

Finally, this source, again from 2009, is about a former Honduran league player Allan Lalín, who was asking for $8000 a month. As a forward who had scored 13 in 57 for his club, he doesn't strike me as the best player in the league, but I think this gives a good range for a decent player. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Nfitz here, if there are fully professional leagues in Central America, Honduras is morelikely than others to be one of them, but im not seeing confirmation of that here. What I am seeing is quotes indicating a desire for the league to be professional in spirit and attitude, not necessarily fully-professional in terms of salaries. I'd also be wary of drawing conclusions on a league based on one players reported salary demands. As mentioned earlier, we need to see some reporting on the level of salaries across the league. Fenix down (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nfitz: @Fenix down: Okay, I have had a look and I have found a few articles that may shed some light on salaries for footballers in Honduras:

1) This article from El Heraldo Honduras is an interview with a former footballer, who has switched to a legal profession. The article states that (rough translation) "In Honduras, it is estimated that no less than a thousand soccer players in different categories play "professionally" (that is, they live on it), with those from Division A (LNP) being the most privileged to have full salaries and dedicate themselves exclusively to it." To me, this clears up any confusion over whether the league is fully professional in terms of spirit and attitude or in terms of salaries.

2) This article from Diari Mes seems to claim that the average salary of a second division side is 77,500 euros(?). I'm not sure if it means lempiras when it says Euros, but besides that point, it states (rough translation) "Thus, the cost of a staff of 25 men where all of them had exceeded 23 years and were limited to the minimum wage established by the LFP would exceed 900,000 euros. The agreement that regulates working conditions in professional football activity establishes a maximum working time of 7 hours a day for players, who have the right to use a full month of vacation with at least 21 days that "they enjoy continued form »." From what I can gather, this seems to imply that the second division also operates at a certain level of professionalism.

3) This source from Vavel claims that "The professional teams in Central America do not give figures of the players' salary, in some cases it is for security in countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala." This to me implies that it is a salary better than the national average, and the protection is from people looking to steal from them. Even better, it goes on to say "The average salary in the Honduran League is $ 1,800 to $ 18,000". (I am presuming this is monthly, as the next sentence describes the Guatemalan captain's salary as monthly). This would be a minimum of $21,600 and a maximum of $216,000 a year. Both are above the £10,931 average yearly wage cited above. The source also confirms that "All the leagues in Central America have a professional profile, even that of Nicaragua."

I hope this is enough evidence to support my claim. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work. I've been looking for references like that on and off for years! That's more than enough for Honduras as far as I'm concerned. Does anyone object? Nfitz (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nfitz: It’s been just over a week now, safe to say there’s no objections? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure ... be bold and add it to the list, with the references. Nfitz (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

What is a fully proffesional league?

This list is used in deletion discussions and does not have a definition of ist main criterium. How are we supposed to judge whether a league is "fully proffesional" ? Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Asmodea Oaktree: Based on different discussions I've seen in the project in this regard, my understanding is that a fully-professional league is one that every player playing in it earns enough money so that the player doesn't have to earn from anything else to be able to make a living (usually judged by the average salary in the country). I definitely agree with you that this should be written on the page with clear criteria. --SuperJew (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Asmodea Oaktree: Agree on what @SuperJew said. In my opinion, it's basically when all players from the league are only footballers to make their living (i.e. Premier League). We can clearly see cases when players are part-time footballers, while also act on another profession to complement their wages (i.e. National League (English football)). MYS77 ^✉ 15:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a reasonable definition. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 34#New section - 'what is a "fully professional" league?'. GiantSnowman 16:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As a starting point, I've added a definition based on the above and the previous discussion. Cheers, Number 57 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Asmodea Oaktree, footballers are employed based on skills and normally paid salary. They may work part-time (less than 30 hours/week) or full-time (40 hours), it does not matter. What matters is the fact whether they will be wanted by professional clubs willing to pay for their skills. It is not punch-in/punch-out job. Each league has certain requirements that are set by continental confederation for a club to be considered professional, UEFA, for example has 5 criteria (sporting, infrastructure, personnel and administrative, legal and financial) UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (pdf). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The Premier League has published own "handbook" which demonstrates and explains what a professional league should look like Handbook Season 2020/21. The handbook explains financial, legal and administrative organization of the league, its development program and playing/non-playing staff compensation and welfare. The FIFA also regulates in more detail players' status and transfer Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

→ Notability proposal discussion starts here

@Asmodea Oaktree: You should know that you aren't alone in questioning the concept of "fully professional" being an adequate indicator for footballer inclusion on Wikipedia. It's been questioned numerous times since the original creation of the WP:FPL essay on men's leagues in August 2008, but we need to have a more robust and official WP:CONSENSUS discussion.

Here are just a few examples of questions in the past (I'm working on writing up a more complete list for another task):

List

• June 30, 2009 Discussion about how difficult it is to confirm "fully professional" status for men's teams and vagueness. Objection to change at the end of the discussion from Number57.
• April 2013 GiantSnowman dictates that even though the English women's league may pay all of its players a professional wage, he has deemed it not fully professional because it is subsidized by the Football Association It should be noted that the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL), the top league in the United States is subsidized by the United States Soccer Federation and is included on the fully professional women's leagues. There is no WP:CONSENSUS for GiantSnowman's declaration other than their own opinion.
• February 20, 2015 "The whole pro vs semi-pro has been a headache" with suggestions on revised criteria submitted by other editors besides Number57
• April 22, 2016 Questions about double-standard for women's leagues (any changes appear to be opposed by Number57 referencing things not in the guideline -- but their own opinion)
• August 8, 2017 Questions submitted to better understand and clarify "fully professional" definition: vague response provided by Fenix down
• September 11, 2017 Fenix down has reverted a change related to Spain's top women's league inclusion and is questioned (again)
• August 8, 2017 Message posted addressed to Hmlarson responded to by Fenix down. Seems a few editors with admin privileges here consistently comment authoritatively in these conversations and later refer to them WP:CONSENSUS.
• September 27, 2017 Fenix down and GiantSnowman dictate FA WSL (England's top women's league) exclusion despite reference provided
• the same day Number57 decides to remove the Swedish top women's league, Damallsvenskan from the list with help from Fenix down
• May 20, 2020 only objection to change includes Number57, Fenix down, GiantSnowman, Nehme1499; no notification to any relevant parties or notification tools that this was a WP:CONSENSUS discussion
• September 9, 2020 Appears Number57, GiantSnowman dictate again what is fully professional in this case

Many editors have requested the guideline be updated over the years (search Talk archives at the top of this page for reference). This repeated pattern is a core part of why WP:NFOOTY is due for an update in 2021. It should be noted that the discussions referenced above do not reflect WP:CONSENSUS policy and appear to have some disregard for WP:OWN and WP:ADMIN policies.

If anyone's interested in collaboratively drafting a proposal to update the WP:NFOOTY guideline to better reflect football/soccer notability, let's discuss and follow actual Wiki Policy for garnering consensus to clarify the confusion. I realize my focus is largely women's leagues with these examples and this issue is not just regarding women's leagues. We can evaluate other sports notability guidelines at WP:NSPORT to compare and see how we can improve.

1. For example, let's include some agreed-upon threshold of the top finishing teams for UEFA Champions League, UEFA Women's Champions League and similar top-level club tournaments in WP:NFOOTY. It's strange they are not mentioned at all.

Lastly (for any editors who weren't aware)... WP:GNG / WP:N takes precedence over WP:NFOOTY. Hmlarson (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mind if we carve out a separate SNG exemption for women's leagues versus men's leagues, provided we can demonstrate a player who has appeared in one those leagues will almost always pass WP:GNG, which I think is what you're after. I also don't see any issues with any of the links that you've posted - many of them were "should we add this league," not "we need to replace NFOOTY." SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, my proposal was to include some agreed-upon threshold of the top finishing teams for UEFA Champions League, UEFA Women's Champions League and similar top-level club tournaments as stated above. Hmlarson (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to identify top-level club tournaments since those typically lead to game reports which are routine, but if you can show Women's Champions League teams/players get coverage after a certain round, I would definitely listen to that argument. Also, respectfully, it's better form to start new sections for new proposals instead of responding in threads which have been long dormant. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Please explain how your proposal(s) do not represent a double-standard? Hmlarson (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what you mean by that - are you implying that there's a problem if we create a guideline for the Women's Champions League but not the Men's? SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with SF - when we say 'fully professional' what we really mean is "of a high enough standard that means there is sufficient significant coverage of clubs and players, which means they meet GNG and are notable". If anyone can evidence that there are women's leagues which meet that standard then I have no issue adding them to the FPL list for the purposes of NFOOTBALL/player notability. GiantSnowman 22:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"We" or you? There's a difference. Hmlarson (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Further, this is subjective criteria applied to women's leagues that is not for men's. It's a double-standard. Hmlarson (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying women's footballers should be excused from GNG? GiantSnowman 22:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Let's be constructive. Do all players currently included under WP:NFOOTY meet WP:GNG? What's the point of the additional guideline? Hmlarson (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

+98% of them should pass GNG. We do frequently delete players which pass WP:NFOOTY but fail WP:GNG, since sports SNGs defer to GNG, and because some players who make only one or two appearances may not have received GNG-qualifying coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL. How'd you come up with that "should" #? Hmlarson (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sports notability guidelines such as NFOOTY need to be tailored to ensure almost every player that they cover would independently pass GNG, and the guideline for showing that is >90% and frequently greater. If you want an example of this, look at the discussion we're having on cricket over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). SportingFlyer T·C 22:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that's just your way of avoiding the issue and attempting to maintain status quo. Thanks for your input. Hmlarson (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please explain to me exactly what issue I'm avoiding. SportingFlyer T·C 22:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What's confusing to me is that we're using the exact same standard for men's and women's football? I wouldn't mind a proposal which sets out different standards for women's football - it might be needed - but every sports SNG has to be fine-tuned to ensure the players covered by the SNG almost certainly meet the GNG, so you'd need to show this if you make a proposal to add additional leagues. If you want to see why this is an issue, there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) about cricket because that sport's SNG is too broad. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that we are using the same standard, unless the "standard" is the circular one that a fully professional league is one that this project has agreed is fully professional. The men's leagues that are deemed fully professional are passed without remark, while in this very discussion the women's ones that might plausibly be fully professional are asked to meet extra requirements, such as documentation that their players uniformly pass GNG, that are not applied to the men's ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: The men's leagues that are deemed fully professional are passed without remark. See these discussions relating to men's leagues: Syria, Norway, Azerbaijan, United States (1), United States (2), United States (3), DR Congo, for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should lump the non-European and non-Latin-American countries in with the women in the way they have been treated. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Non European such as Norway and Azerbaijan (part of UEFA)? There is no "systemic bias" going on here, let's be clear. A European, or men's Asian, or women's South American league get the same exact treatment. We try to analyse the status of the league based on official documents or articles. Are players paid enough to live off of the sport? What do sources say? We never differentiate our treatment based on male or female, European or non. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

David, you may have mis-understood my argument. I am saying that we could add women's leagues that aren't fully professional to NFOOTY as an exemption in order to improve our coverage of women's footballers, if we can show that the players participating in those leagues all pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: So, in your opinion, "fully professional" (which is evidenced to be murky as dung in numerous discussions previewed above) ensures that players "almost certainly" meet WP:GNG and this applies for men and women players. Is that your opinion? Hmlarson (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no "opinion" - I've described how we've set up this particular notability system, and why. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Based on the diffs in your edit history on WP:FPL, it looks like you've mostly focused on removing (women's) leagues that have been added by other editors and have only actively edited the list since 2018. Do you disagree with this report? Hmlarson (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you say this edit summary is an adequate reflection of your standard? Hmlarson (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying really hard to assume good faith right now but it's clear you've come here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Now you're lying about my contribution history. Find me a single instance where I've removed a women's league from the list. You will not be able to. I added the Croatian league to the "not fully professional" list after reading the regulations a year ago, which is absolutely true - the standard of women's football in Croatia is unfortunately terrible. I added it without a source, it was reverted, I added the source two hours later, all normal Wikipedia practices. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for providing more context. My apologies if I misinterpreted the deletions since 2018. Number57 also cites WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sometimes when we get to this point of discussions: but alas, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (top of page). Hmlarson (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I'm reading the tea leaves here, but my guess is that you're raising this discussion since the Swedish league was on the fully pro list, then removed? My other guess is, if that's correct, that you viewed my responses above as someone who was trying to defend gatekeeping. Other sports don't use a fully professional league list, but instead tailor their guidelines to which leagues pass GNG (such as WP:NBASKET.) I think we could make that type of list work for women's football. One of the reasons we have the men's list is because football is popular worldwide and we have difficulty tracking down English-language sources a lot of the time, and the assumption that fully professional leagues receive coverage when you look for it has proven consistently good. If the FPL list isn't working for determining which women's footballers are notable, we can switch the SNG out partially or completely and tailor the women's football SNG so it approximates when women meet GNG, but it's going to take discussion and time, and the discussion might not be an easy one. SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It'd be nice to hear from additional editors at this point-- particularly those who work more often on expanding articles in countries other than England and the United States, and of course, women's football articles. Appreciate your input. Hmlarson (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I fully understand where Hmlarson is coming from and also feel like WP:NFOOTY is just plainly sexist (e.g., when GiantSnowman wrote that FPL means "of a high enough standard that means there is sufficient significant coverage of clubs and players, which means they meet GNG and are notable", the first part of that statement is obviously subjective and leads to routine discrimination against female players). Given my past experiences, I would think the most likely path to reach consensus is to develop a separate notability criteria for women's leagues / female players as SportingFlyer suggested, rather than trying to fix WP:NFOOTY (and of course WP:GNG still takes precedence). To put it bluntly, this path doesn't require convincing editors who don't regularly contribute to creating and improving applicable articles on women's soccer anyway (which has always been an almost impossible task to begin with), and could also account for different historical backgrounds/standards between men's and women's soccer currently. Seany91 (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You both keep on talking about having a separate notability system, but have not yet proposed one... GiantSnowman 11:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I make my first comment in this discussion to second a previously raised proposed path forward, and immediately get accused for not providing a fully formed notability guideline already. It's no wonder inexperienced WP contributors quit every day... Assuming good faith from you, the reason why I only seconded the suggestion from SportingFlyer was because it seems important (at least to me) that we first try to reach consensus on whether to fix WP:NFOOTY to better account for women's leagues (and men's leagues outside Europe/Latin America, as David Eppstein noted), or to have a separate notability guideline for women's leagues altogether. I'm not going to waste my time and labor working down one of these paths if there wasn't already consensus about the right path to go on, and in fact I was trying to promote compromise among everyone's contributions so far, which you don't seem very interested in. If you want some proposed guidelines, Hmlarson proposed using continental competitions as one way to further distinguish notable women's teams (e.g., UWCL, Copa Libertadores) on top of WP:NFOOTY, but I don't see you engaging with the substance of their proposal above either. Seany91 (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm still oblivious toward this apparent "bias" toward Europe and South America... I edit Lebanese and Asian football on a regular basis, and have no problems in the way I operate. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to have proposed one yet, we're still discussing things. The first step is to get consensus on spinning off women's leagues from FPL. A really easy thing to do: propose the initial women's guideline to be exactly equal to what's currently at FPL, which may not seem like it makes a big difference, but it means any discussions going forward will be GNG-based. The next step is to look at a couple of the proposals (later rounds of the Champions League, other leagues), see if those players meet GNG, and update the guideline accordingly. I have no idea if that's something anybody would want but there's at least a clear pathway to discuss changing things here, if there is a need to change them. SportingFlyer T·C 13:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really mean to come off as extremely cynical here so I apologize in advance if it seems that way but I don't see this as a big issue with current events as they are. Most of the premier leagues in both men's and women's football today are professional unless you get outside the subject dominating countries and regions. No matter what, if GNG, as it is currently written, is the primary governing decision on inclusion you will be no better off than you are now. The AfD's of the past few months already reflect that. The initial argument is that a subject doesn't meet NFOOTY and the evidence is that the league the player/club is a member of is not a FPL according to the essay list. If that argument doesn't fly the next is that they don't pass GNG, even as relaxed as it is, which is a dubious claim to begin with. The GNG policy at Wikipedia is one of the most biased, discriminatory and exclusionary policies I have seen in a while. AfD's are basically a momentary mob rule. If you can get just enough people to side with you and possibly an admin who refrain's from giving their opinion just so they can rule on the AfD, then you can get your way. We have rogue admins who choose when and where to take a hard line approach on the "rules". How many articles on a men's footballer were drafted just long enough for him to play his first "professional" match and then quickly reinstated even though he is notable for what, one event with a half dozen sources, most of which have nothing but a name and stats? And we absolutely eviscerate an editor for daring to create an article on the impact of a murder victim of a serial killer and the way a community was torn apart with fear and sorrow. The reason given is that the victim is only known for one event no matter how many national and international sources covered it. Mind you, their killer gets a full spread that details out their whole life from birth. That is the problem with SNG's so I get it. I think SNG's are well-intentioned yet harmful but let's not kid ourselves, it starts at the top with GNG. Carry on but don't expect anything to change of note. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tsistunagiska: aka ARoseWolf - Yeah, it's a wonder why AfD is also the abbreviation used by Alternative for Germany, "a German nationalist and right-wing populist political party, known for its opposition to the European Union and immigration." It goes beyond WP:GNG and any sports notability guideline (SNG). There is movement at the Wikimedia Foundation on some of these issues, we'll see. The activity in Wikipedia's AFD is just a desperate, last-gasp effort IMO. Thanks for your input. Hmlarson (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We've said it a million times over the years but this page is a genuine disgrace to the project. It's nothing but a superficially-plausible pretext for privileging favoured leagues, teams and players (invariably pale, male and stale). This page's gatekeepers scrutinize the credentials of certain candidates with laser-like intensity, then deliberately look the other way or make excuses for others – as with the Scottish men's second tier. I do sometimes feel a pang of pity for WP:FOOTBALL's in-house admins. A handful of them have now spent over a decade of their short time on this planet tenaciously clinging to what is essentially a bigoted enterprise. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Damallsvenskan

This issue was raised by @Hmlarson: on their talk page. In 2016, the Damallsvenskan was listed at FPL, based on this source which states the league as "a full-time professional league that attracts some of the biggest stars in the global game". That is fairly clear that it meets the requirements of FPL. So why/when was the league removed? If the league was not fully pro in 2016, as this seems to suggest, then fine. If the league was once but is no longer fully-pro, then it should still be listed there with dates that it was - because a player playing in the league when it was FPL would meets NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's reduce the # of clicks needed and speak for ourselves -- this is in response to the proposed deletion of Paulina Hedqvist Damallsevenkan player in 2016:

@Spiderone: (cc: Fenix down, GiantSnowman, and Number 57) -- I would like to request your individual opinions on how relevant WP:FPL is for women's football? Damallsvenskan is on essay in 2016 when Paulina Hedqvist was published.

When creating the Paulina Hedqvist article, I went along with WP:FPL "notability" and now you appear to be reinforcing the essay's irrelevancy once again. I invited Fenix down, GiantSnowman, and Number 57 to this discussion as you appear to have a long history of edits and reverts on the WP:FPL essay.

Is an article on a 2016 Damallsvenskan player notable based on WP:NFOOTY and its essay, WP:FPL? Hmlarson (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The answer depends on whether or not the Damallsvenskan was a FPL in 2016. The sources are conflicting. GiantSnowman 15:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it was – there was a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 26#Damallsvenskan on this issue and there are sources from dates either side of the one in question that claimed it was fully-professional that say it wasn't, and one from the same time that also says it wasn't. It seems unlikely that it would have become fully-professional for one or two seasons and reverted to being a semi-pro league? There have been errors in the listings before – the Russian Professional Football League was included for some time and then realised to be a mistake, after which a lot of articles (over a thousand) were deleted. Number 57 16:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It's funny how these discussions are always buried on a men's football-focused talk page. I'm going to go with WP:FPL not relevant, nor reliable as evidenced here for who-knows what time. See also WP:WOSO. Hmlarson (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally ignore NFOOTBALL, and even if you choose to do so, you still need to ensure articles meet GNG... GiantSnowman 08:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

As a comment, NFOOTY policy is a bit stupid and too rigid. First of all Olympian athletes often are not professional or part of senior squad in association football. Second of all how do you define the phrase "fully professional" in regards to players and what is it based on? Players are not being paid by time they spent on the field, am I wrong? What is "fully professional"? It is either is or not. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability should not be based on Wikipedia's categorization, but rather on sources and references, otherwise it is discriminatory. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well no, in football you have professional (what we call 'fully professional'), semi-professional, and amateur. Olympic athletes are notable under separate provisions, see WP:NOLY. And yes, it's well established that GNG takes precedence over SNGs. I don't fully understand what your point is. GiantSnowman 10:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with @Aleksandr Grigoryev: that "Notability should not be based on Wikipedia's categorization, but rather on sources and references, otherwise it is discriminatory." Well said. I've suggested we create a new proposal for modifying the guideline in the thread just above this one: What is a professional league (December 2020). Curious what editors come up with to improve this.Hmlarson (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, have you read the Wikipedia article "FA Amateur Cup"? It says that the English Football Association reorganized its amateur competitions in mid 1970s, but does not disclose fully what led to it and what caused discontinuation of the tournament.

Now if you look at the articles of the English football, there are huge number of ridiculously unimportant amateur clubs of like the 11th and 12th tier, information of which has not been updated for several years. Not that I do not think they are worth of an article, but what are the standards then? If it is not English, it is garbage, but if it is out of the United Kingdom, it is ok. Is that how it is?

Another issue is the fact that Wikipedia is becoming somewhat judgmental based on random media outlets of certain journalistic opinion which not necessary correspond with reality. There are certain criteria that is implemented by such football organizations like FIFA and UEFA (for Europe) that for some reason are ignored and on talk pages Wikipedia users get impression and professional player should go to work from 9 to 5 to be considered professional. That is funny. Sports is an art of physical culture where its participants, athletes, express themselves. Sports should be treated as a form of art as its product is at the end entertainment or spectacle and it is not the same as craftsmanship. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Per one 'gatekeeper' here, "a small number of semi-pro players (in a league) has no impact on the FPL status" and if "media coverage of those leagues can be shown to be equal to those considered fully-pro" then the league can be included in FPL. I cannot speak to Damallsvenskan in 2016, but it is certainly the case *now* in Damallsvenskan that there are only small number of semi-pro players (if any) on first-team rosters (so not including academy call-ups) and major Swedish media outlets cover the league regularly (to infer notability). Therefore, I'd nominate Damallsvenskan to be added back to the FPL list regardless of the discussion outcomes above. Seany91 (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence for the fact that almost all the clubs are fully professional? I am also not sure GS' view on media coverage is widespread – it certainly isn't something I share. Number 57 09:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I have subjectively assessed the Damallsvenskan coverage, and found it to be "massive". Although I can't be arsed to supply any WP:RSs to evidence this. Additionally, I am sure everyone realises I bring to bear a considerable degree of charismatic authority, and I have therefore decreed that all leagues beginning with the letter 'D' will henceforth be considered as a fully professional league for purposes of conferring presumed notability. I must emphasise that I am more than happy for other male leagues to be added to the list, provided I can be satisfied that they begin with this letter. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to continue discussing this topic when you grow up. GiantSnowman 15:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Iraq

Iraq should be reclassified to Fully professional

I seem to have found the confusion, the mistranslation of sources used to classify the league as "not professional". The word translated as professional actually means foreign, as in Arabic the word for foreign players is the same as professional players. The Asian Football Federation, as shown in it's Entry Manual for AFC Club Competitions (2021 Edition) in article 4 says that Member Associations must meet all of the ACL Criteria as set out below in order to obtain direct slots for the ACL: The relevant criteria, Article 4.1.4 says; Organisation of Professional Football League. As you can see by 2020 AFC Champions League Iraq had a direct spot to the ACL, meaning that they have satisfied Article 4.1.4, meaning that the Iraqi premier league is a fully professional football league. I can't seem to figure out how to cite a pdf but if you google the entry manual and click on the link provided by the website of the Asian football federation you can clearly check it out for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitheboss55 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've corrected the citation. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We've already discussed the matter of the AFC assessment criteria when talking about Syria (see discussion). As I said there, the AFC divides countries into pro and not pro: the pro go to the Champions League, the non-pro go to the AFC Cup. Some clubs that could participate in the CL on the basis of their country ranking were barred from entry as they did not pass the AFC requirements (in the entry manual Ali linked above). These entry requirements seem to have been implemented in 2009 (for example, in 2011 only 5/13 countries in West Asia passed the requirements, with the other 8 non meeting the criteria). Iraqi clubs are not to be seen in the AFC Champions League until 2019 (in 2014 a team took part in playoffs, but Iraq was not assessed).

Now, in and of itself, this does not necessarily mean that the Iraqi league itself is pro, just that the club(s) in question is(are) pro. Taking a look at the list of licensed clubs for 2019-20, 21/22 Iraqi clubs received a license, meaning that all (bar one) passed the requirements. Can we say that a league is fully-pro if 21/22 clubs are? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree to adding the Iraqi Premier League, with a timespan of (2019-present). Any other thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that seems fair enough Spiderone 12:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any website that has squads for Iraqi league matches? Soccerway only has goalscorers but not squads (so is Kooora, as far as I can see). If we're gonna accept the players since 2019 then we at least have to have proof of players actually playing. --BlameRuiner (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Obviously goalscorers would be sourced by Soccerway. Otherwise, we would have to use an article stating that a player has played a specific game (say, X plays for Y against Z, but we won't know how many games X has played, just that he has played at least one game in the Iraqi Premier League, and is thus notable). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe @Alitheboss55: can help. --BlameRuiner (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The league has started a partnership with the app 365scores. They currently list all the goalscorers with the time they score(in Arabic), they sporadically show the full line ups of games but there is no consistency there. You can find official line ups from the team's social media pages. I usually use an article from a news website that lists the line-up in their post-match coverage. The players that have specific games played is done through the efforts of specific users who keep track of them. For example @Mr. Port: updates the statistics of players from Al Mina'a using 2020–21 Al-Mina'a SC season

---

References

Lead question

Hello, the last paragraph in the lead states:

"Of FIFA's 211 current member associations, 209 have men's leagues which are currently included in this list (see talk page). Liechtenstein is the only FIFA member without its own national league, while four countries have leagues which appear in both sections (Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and the United States)."

Where:

• are the citations for these statements
• is the women's leagues information

Thank you, Hmlarson (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, only two parts of that statement require referencing; the number of FIFA members (211, confirmed here) and the fact that Liechtenstein is the only member without a league (I can't find any source confirming this, although this states they are the only country in UEFA without one; Canada previously didn't have one until the Canadian Premier League was established last year and some country's leagues (like the Montserrat Championship) operate on an irregular basis, while the Palestinian territories have two – one for Gaza and one for the West Bank). The rest is a description of the list itself so would not require a source. I checked the list of FIFA confederations against the list of leagues and the 209 figure is correct. The only one that is missing is Ecuador.

Re the women's leagues, you are of course welcome to add it if you can find the information. I guess it's complicated by the fact that not every FIFA association has a women's national team, let alone a league. Number 57 11:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add the refs unless you think a buried talk page is adequate referencing for this page. Hmlarson (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. I also changed the statement on Liechtenstein to simply say it has no league. Number 57 12:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a clarifying statement for editors who may not be familiar with all the buried talk pages and history of this project. Were you around when WP:FPL was first established? Hmlarson (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the roots of the guideline pre-date my involvement. They go back to when there was a single notability guideline for biographies with a single bullet point that covered all sportspeople. The fully-professional requirement (which covered most team sports) was introduced in September 2005. Number 57 12:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. Does this also jive with your memory? Or do you remember something else?

1. WP:NFOOTY was originally added to WP:NSPORT on September 1, 2007
2. WP:FPL was created on August 26, 2008. You are the second editor.

Hmlarson (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Number 57 - I'm curious why you state "There is only one notability guideline: WP:NFOOTY" in the "Everything okay with you?" discussion with Herthaaltedame starting 16 December 2020 on your talk page (see archives) and don't mention WP:GNG whatsoever when it takes precedence? Hmlarson (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This was a discussion about WP:NFOOTY and WP:FOOTYN and I was pointing out that there is only one football guideline, i.e. WP:NFOOTY. Number 57 13:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Ahh, but that's not exactly true - you know that with your long history here and the WP:ADMIN policy. Good thing I added that to the lead. Thanks for obliging this time. Hmlarson (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

FAWSL quotes

I noticed Nehme1499 reverted the removal of a quote by Hmlarson which said the English women's league is the only FPL in Europe from a number of leagues, even though that source does not mention those other leagues. I agree with the removal of the reference, since none of those leagues are actually mentioned, and I don't think we can prove the negative with just a quote from someone associated with a different league. I didn't want to revert since that cycle already started, so I'm taking it here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal of FA WSL reference as it does not mention the leagues its being used for and is already outdated. Hmlarson (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree: I mean, it would be pedantic to say: "England is fully-pro in Europe, whereas Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, [...], the Ukraine, and Wales are not". If it says that 1/50 is the only fully-pro league, it explicitly implies that the other 49 are not. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Well, the source is just a woman associated with the English league, which is close to the source - I know it implies every other league isn't, but it proves absolutely nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Where is this reference please? It's quite hard to follow from the back and forth in the history. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This one. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nehme1499 (talk · contribs). To me it does sound like a soundbite of marketing puffery from Kelly Simmons rather than anything definitive. So sorry but I'd support its removal. To take a blanket approach and disqualify dozens of other leagues like this I'd expect a much stronger source. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment If people are unhappy with a source that uses a quote or is associated with the FA, there are several others available that say the same thing:
  • For the first time in Europe the whole of a women’s top tier has played football full-time. The Guardian
  • 'Even in England's Women's Super League, or WSL, the only fully professional league in Europe' ESPN
  • The league’s attractiveness to overseas players – in part due to being Europe’s only full-time league I News
  • It is now the only full-time league in Europe The Telegraph

Appreciate they are all from 2019. Cheers, Number 57 23:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently "the fact that a handful of players at times have held other jobs - something that is already well known (so I'm unsure why you're pretending like you have a smoking gun!) - will NOT prevent having played in the league being considered as inferring notability" [sic] So thanks for the sources @Number 57:, but it seems they can be overruled anytime we feel like it – simply by using the power of imagination. Sorry about that! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Scottish Championship

@Bring back Daz Sampson: believes that the Scottish Championship is no longer fully-pro. No sources were provided. We need to discuss here before deciding whether or not to remove from the list. If it is no longer fully-pro then it should be relocated, not removed. GiantSnowman 18:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've had a quick look for sources about the professionally (or not) about the three clubs (Alloa, Arbroath and Raith) which BBDS says are not professional. I cannot find anything either way, with a dearth of media coverage. That does not inspire confidence about media coverage as a whole of the league. GiantSnowman 19:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I would support removing it based on that information, but only from this year until we can back-check. SportingFlyer T·C 19:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbroath, Alloa, Raith. See also Soccerex: "With so many players employed on a part-time basis and even at teams as high as Championship level, there are questions regarding their status and with the current season hastily ended (outside of the Premiership) a state of contractual limbo now follows." Or as I said elsewhere a few weeks ago: "Remember the criteria is that "virtually" all adult players must be full-time professionals, but very clearly that is NOT the case in the Scottish Championship. I mean, if you fell in a barrel of piranhas and they ate 30%+ of your body mass, you wouldn't describe yourself as virtually intact." Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Based on those sources I think it's clear that the Championship is NOT fully-pro, and has not been since the 2019–20 season (at least). I therefore suggest it is removed from the fully-pro list and moved to a section on former professional leagues on that basis. GiantSnowman 20:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've found this from two weeks ago says that "In the Scottish Championship and the top flight, barring three or four clubs, the money isn’t enough to live the rest of your life on when you retire. People are fighting contract to contract because there’s not many long-term deals handed out". That is not a comment on the professional status of the league, but is certainly indicative that the money isn't great... GiantSnowman 20:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks – do you have any sources to support your claim that it was ever "fully professional"? The ones I took out certainly didn't! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bring back Daz Sampson and GiantSnowman to remove it from the Fully Professional leagues list. Should adequate references be located, someone can add them obviously. If no reasonable objections, I'll re-instate GiantSnowman's 10:51, December 19, 2020‎ revert. Hmlarson (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 18:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hmlarson. Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's very curious that WP:BURDEN seems to have been stood on its head here. Apparently I'm being expected to provide sources to justify the removal of this contentious material? I see the material has now been re-added to the list without any sourcing to support its inclusion? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This outcome does have an effect on quite a few players in that they now fail NFOOTBALL if their only appearances are in the Scottish Championship this season and have never played at that level or higher in previous seasons. I put one up for AfD thinking it would be the only one but can now see that there are a good 10 or so. This also may affect season article notability as every club at that level has its own article (e.g. 2020–21 Alloa Athletic F.C. season). Spiderone 22:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As y'all consistently bring up when mass-AfD'ing female players who've played in top-tier leagues, WP:GNG trumps WP:NFOOTY anyway, right? Why this sudden concern about potential impacts of an WP:FPL decision when it's about a men's (non-top-level) league? Seany91 (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't show any amount of inappropriate bias towards UK footballers. A lot of these pages have been created by quite experienced editors, though, who don't seem to be aware of the fact that Scottish Championship footballers no longer meet NFOOTBALL as I am still seeing new stub pages created for people debuting in this league this season. Spiderone 09:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you should assess WP:GNG of these articles and PROD/AfD if necessary then ;) Seany91 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to suggest - it doesn't appear as though you are approaching this matter with quite the same gusto as you seem to have for deleting female players, Spiderone Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What gives you that impression? :) Spiderone 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so GiantSnowman has blindly reverted and reintroduced some dubious sources which supposedly warrant the Scottish Championship's inclusion. But can anyone tell me what date this league is supposed to have been fully professional? Most of these sources seem to be for 2011-12, but it wasn't called the Scottish Championship until 2013. One source () is not relevant as it is about a Second Division (third tier) club, while describes Raith Rovers as being a mixture of full and part-time players. Also, explicitly says that Ayr United are not full-time professional? I assume that the addition of this source is some some sort of mistake, instead of a deliberate attempt to introduce false information into the encyclopaedia. All the same, the page in its current state is unacceptably ambiguous, whether or not that is as a result of deliberate obfuscation. Is anyone seriously suggesting the Scottish second tier has been "fully professional" since the introduction of the four-tier setup in 1994? Or the three-tier setup in 1975? I've started a page here which should allow us to move forward on a basis of evidence. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I was merely reverting your complete removal of all the sources without consensus. There was consensus that it is no longer fully-pro, but not that it has never been. It has been listed for a long time here and the principles behind WP:STATUSQUO/WP:STABLE apply. More sources and information is needed before we decide on how to proceed. I have posted at WT:FOOTY for input. GiantSnowman 16:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't use WP:STABLE to 'lock in' your favoured versions of this page. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite what you think I have no agenda here. If you try and remember to before Christmas I actually agreed with removal of the Scottish Championship from the 'current' list. What I simply disagree with here is any attempt to remove it from the list completely, when it has been there for so long with no issues raised, without much wider discussion and consideration. If it's clear that it cannot be verified that it was ever fully-pro then I agree with it being removed. GiantSnowman 17:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that with this being a financial rather than a sporting issue its more difficult to confirm details because they're not published or sensitive in terms of wages etc. I don't think the second tier has ever been fully professional. Since the three-division was set up in the 70s, I get the impression there's always been a few teams just about pro, and a few professionals on each club, but a good clutch who pay a decent but part time wage to most of their players. The current ratio of 30% seems about right, in recent times there's been the likes of Dumbarton, Clyde and Cowdenbeath, and if we go back to the 80s it's documented that teams like Kilmarnock, Ayr and Partick were doing well and getting promoted with most if not all of their players on semi pro deals. I hope we're not even discussing pre 1975 Division Two, no way was that anything like professional. But equally I'm wary that this could lead to attempts to have the top division removed from the fully pro list too based on some of its participants having players on part time deals, i don't think that would be a good route to go down. Crowsus (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely have no objection if editors decide certain Leagues, nationalities, genders, are inherently more notable than others. But if that's the case we should just dispense with this subterfuge of pegging it to "fully professionalism". No one has ever demonstrated any correlation between notability and fully professionalism. It is a piece of nonsense: a quasi-objective rationale for preferencing certain leagues over others. The fact is that part-time teams and players were a common feature at the highest levels in men's football in both England and Scotland until relatively recently. When this is pointed out there is a barrage of excuses and 'whataboutery' trotted out here, ranging from the merely disingenuous through to the borderline deranged. As others have noted, other Leagues with this same mixture of full and part-time players seem to get the reverse treatment (League of Ireland Premier Division, Damallsvenskan, W-League (Australia) etc. etc. As others have also noted, there are also some worryingly major WP:BIAS, WP:ADMINABUSE and WP:OWN issues at play on this page. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have previously proposed that the League of Ireland should be included, and have no objection to other leagues receiving similar 'promotion' if they can be shown to receive significant media coverage. GiantSnowman 21:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The presence of a small number of semi-pro players has no impact on the FPL status of a league for NFOOTBALL purposes - IIRC that was established when we added the Finnish league to the list a few years ago, despite it not being 100% fully pro. No league in the world is, given the presence of youth players and occasional random outliers etc. The media coverage of a league doesn't change in those circumstances. GiantSnowman 18:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

When discussing women's leagues, FPL inclusion has always been denied based on a very strict interpretation of "fully pro." If now the "presence of a small number of semi-pro players has no impact on the FPL status of a league for NFOOTBALL purposes," then many top-flight women's leagues in Europe would qualify already. Seany91 (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and if media coverage of those leagues can be shown to be equal to those considered fully-pro then I'd be willing to support inclusion. GiantSnowman 17:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Due to lack of time and not wanting to get too annoyed about this issue, won't get too involved. I will just say that it seems some editors are trying to do back-flips to keep a men's not even top-level league on the FPL list, while for women's leagues it seems the back-flips are done to remove leagues from the FPL list (even top-level leagues). As much as users keep saying it's not a gender bias, but rather a money/crowds issue (which is a systemic bias built in but that's a different issue), seems from the side there is a difference in the handling. Also I agree with Bring back Daz Sampson's comments. --SuperJew (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Seconded (as I already contributed above). Seany91 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to move towards a WP:CONSENSUS. As I see it the question is a pretty simple yes/no. Has the Scottish second tier ever been "fully professional"? Based on the current definition and the research at User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Scottish football the answer is a resounding no. I'm not really interested in 'alternative facts' or allowing the discussion to be derailed again by talk about other irrelevant factors. Individual editors have no veto here, even if they are nursing delusions that they enjoy some sort of leadership role. I'd like the Scottish second tier to be removed from the list and I am proposing to add (from ~1990) to the Scottish Premier Division/League/ship. Any fact-based objections? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If we revert and say that the Championship was never 'fully pro' at any point, this could have serious implications for potentially hundreds of footballer biography articles not to mention another hundred or so season articles. Spiderone 13:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I suppose it would. Hey, I don't make the rules! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, Bring back Daz Sampson, why have you gone ahead and removed the Championship from the list already? Are you pre-empting consensus? What was wrong with the sources that were there that established that the league was professional, at least at the time at which those sources were produced? Spiderone 13:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Those sources established nothing of the sort. The one for Ayr United explicitly confirmed them as totally part-time, the one for Raith Rovers said they were a mixture of full and part-time players. Again, do you have any sources for this league being "fully professional" at any time? I'm the only one who has provided any evidence here, the opposition has been a mixture of disingenuous whataboutery and GiantSnowman pretending that changes need his royal assent! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, no. The sources on the historic revisions of this page only seem to discuss individual clubs so it's very difficult to get an overall picture of the league. Of course, for it to be added in the first place, a discussion must have taken place. I'll see if I can find it. Spiderone 14:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus here, here and here so looks like its inclusion was fairly well agreed upon before it was added. Spiderone 14:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much consensus there! Remember please that substantial new evidence has been provided and that the definition of a "fully professional league" has recently been tightened up. It just shows that the only arguments ever advanced for keeping this league on the list (WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE) are completely divorced from the evidence. Reading those threads back it also struck me that one of the contradictions at the heart of this page is that its longstanding 'gatekeepers' actually have little if any knowledge of the subject (let alone expertise). That's not to say that they don't have some very firm preconceptions. In some cases they have been made into administrators simply due to longevity, or because they've adequately performed lots of menial/bulk tasks over a period of many years. On the other hand, the better and more capable content creators usually have other matters to attend to so can't be on here 24/7. It doesn't mean that they 'call the shots', that they can govern by diktat, or that they don't have to provide any evidence to support their position. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to remember that there are numerous other factors that determine inclusion. For example, attendances at matches, how often matches are televised and depth of coverage are all factors that need to be considered too. Remember that the SNGs are only there to determine, ultimately, whether the topic is likely to pass GNG. Even following the removal of the Scottish Championship from FPL, a lot of 'NFOOTBALL failing' articles don't meet the criteria for deletion because of significant coverage in the media. I would still argue that, despite the league having a significant number of part-timers, the coverage is still massive. In fact, I went through the entire league's players and found that Edin Lynch, Calvin McGrory, Niyah Joseph and Charlie Cowie were the only ones that didn't apparently look to pass GNG and even Cowie's deletion was disputed at AfD. In contrast, there are many players that technically fail NFOOTBALL but pass GNG quite comfortably. Spiderone 17:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the Championship pending actual consensus for its removal, not one editor deciding it has to go. GiantSnowman 18:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

All I am asking is that the rule is applied evenly. When any number of women's leagues are found to have a part-time element, a portcullis slams down and they are removed with an air of grim finality. When the same is found to be true of certain favoured men's leagues, some editors immediately 'move the goalposts' and start talking about other things or constructing fictional scenarios. This is a list of 'fully professional leagues', not a list of leagues with subjective, unevidenced claims to "massive coverage". GiantSnowman can edit war and launch all the personal attacks he likes but ultimately the Scottish second tier cannot go on the list, unless we change the name of the list. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And as I have stated multiple times previously - something you have either missed or ignored - I am more than happy to include more female leagues in the list, if they can be shown they receive similar media coverage to the male leagues we consider 'fully-professional'. GiantSnowman 22:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually I've responded to this on several occasions already, but let's try again:

It doesn't matter what you think – at least, no more than what anybody else thinks. If you have arrogated to yourself a bogus leadership role, or think you have an imaginary 'casting vote', this is just something happening in your own mind. It isn't binding on the rest of us. In fact if you want your input to carry any weight whatsoever you should find some reliable sources to support it, for once. Much of your posturing on here can be summarised as 'because I said so'. This is not a good look and likely to result in other editors pointing at you and laughing rather than taking what you say seriously.

It's irrelevant - The only thing at issue is whether the league is "fully professional" or not. Resorting to other criteria whenever we feel like it makes a mockery of proceedings. It means that the whole list is not what it purports to be.

It's nonsense - I mean, all these players and clubs are part-time for a reason: the money/interest/coverage/sponsorship etc. simply isn't there to sustain full-time professional football. We might wish that were not so, but we are not here to right great wrongs. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Fully professional vs amateur in English men's football history

Hey guys - I'm reading the Football in England article and while it's not cited (nor is "fully professional" mentioned more than once and even that one sentence is unreferenced) -- I noticed there's a sentence in the Amateur section: "Although the FA abandoned a formal definition of 'amateur' in the early 1970s, the vast majority of clubs still effectively play as amateurs, with no financial reward." (unreferenced)

Does anyone know:

1. what the first men's league that became "fully professional" was (and when) and
2. why the FA dropped abandoned a formal definition of amateur in the early 1970's?

Thanks, Hmlarson (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The article on Professionalism in association football might assist. GiantSnowman 20:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

another men only article. Still looking for any mention of “fully professional” + #2. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article rather than just whining about it... GiantSnowman 12:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I can attempt question 2) @Hmlarson:, with an excerpt from Dave Bassett's book Settling the Score (2002):

“ I was particularly proud to receive it since the historic Amateur Cup competition was nearing the end of its days. The following year was to see the end of 'shamateurism'. The game was to go open at all levels and 1974 would see the FA Amateur Cup won for the very last time. It was a decision which we all knew to be right. Top amateur clubs had been paying their players for over two decades and tales of inflated 'boot money' had abounded for much longer than that. I don't mind admitting that I was receiving £25 a week as an 'amateur' with Walton & Hersham and it was possible to line our pockets even more by collecting additional cash incentives structured to success in both League and Cup. ”

So the delineation between amateur and professional was largely "bollocks", to borrow Mr Bassett's vernacular. Much like the bogus delineation between professional and fully-professional often peddled in this corner of Wikipedia, we might well conclude. Interestingly Bassett also says of his playing days with Wimbledon F.C. in the (allegedly fully professional) Football League Fourth Division in 1977–78: "We also had a squad of players who were mostly part-timers and who wouldn't train more than twice a week because the club refused to compensate them for loss of earnings at work". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well shoot, that is a lot clearer than murky dung. Thanks for that info on the Football League Fourth Division in 1977-78. Where, in your opinion, should we add this referenced material GiantSnowman? Hmlarson (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This kind of information is already well known and would not change the classification of the Football League as anything but "fully-professional" for notability purposes for the length of its entire existence. GiantSnowman 21:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My facts don't care about your feelings! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the English men's league setup is often smugly presented on here as a sort of gold standard for "fully professionalism". But it's arrant nonsense. Charlie Buchan played in the 1910s and 20s and was a schoolteacher, a soldier (obviously), and then a sports shop proprietor during his playing career. Tom Finney (40s/50s/60s) was famously the "Preston Plumber". Nat Lofthouse (40s/50s/60s) was employed as a paint salesman. In Lofty, Matt Clough wrote: "While the maximum wage for professional footballers was to be raised by £1 to £15 in 1953, Nat followed the example set by many of his contemporaries by taking a part-time job as a paint salesman". These examples are all elite international players, so it seems to me unlikely that rank and file players further down the football food chain would be any different. For example, Southport F.C. finished fifth in the 1955–56 Football League Third Division North with a squad comprising "seven full-time professionals, eight part-time professionals and three forces players". In The Leaguers: The Making of Professional Football in England 1900-1939, Matthew Taylor wrote: "Squads were smaller in the lower divisions. Clubs signed fewer full-time professionals and relied more on the services of part-time and amateur players [...] most Third Division clubs, and many in the higher divisions, regularly included a number of amateurs and part-timers, presumably as a means of keeping wage bills low." Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bring back Daz Sampson Where, in your opinion, should we add this referenced material? Hmlarson (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I think, if this list is to have any credibility, we have to be dispassionate and let the facts fall where they may. So the Third Division North/South (the forerunners of Leagues One and Two) were evidently not "fully professional" in any sense whatsoever and that should be made clear in the list. Equally Division Four wasn't fully professional in the late 70s. Pre-WWII part-time and amateur players abounded in all four Divisions, so again a "(since 1946)" should be noted by the listing. Of course if anyone has any actual sources to the contrary (note: sources GiantSnowman, not your unevidenced opinion) we'd need to consider those before making the changes. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Calm down. As I said, the fact that a handful of players at times have held other jobs - something that is already well known (so I'm unsure why you're pretending like you have a smoking gun!) - will NOT prevent having played in the league being considered as inferring notability. I'm pretty sure we did this with the Finnish league as well a few years ago. GiantSnowman 10:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It will prevent it, unless you can come up with some sources to support your opinion. Maybe you should ask for help at WT:FOOTY as it seems you have little knowledge in this subject area. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it won't, and doesn't on a weekly basis. Common sense applies - I suggest you ask Santa for some in a few days time. GiantSnowman 11:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: - have you reviewed WP:ADMINCOND lately? Most of that I consider common sense - but maybe not everyone does and needs a refresher from time to time. Hmlarson (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Bring back Daz Sampson: I think these should also be added to the Professionalism in association football article as a start. Do you want to collaborate on a (separate) WP:ESSAY? Hmlarson (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure! It might be after Christmas though? I've been doing some more reading/research and have plenty more to add here for both the EFL and the Scottish Leagues (second and first tier - not "fully pro" until the 90s) when I get some time. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Sounds good! Feliz Navidad! Hmlarson (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Hmlarson: hope you had a great Christmas and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have started a separate page here which can either go 'live' as it is or be integrated into the main 'professionalism' article? I'd obviously be happy for anyone to contribute to these, so long as the contributions are evidence-based. Were you thinking of 'grasping the nettle' and drafting a WP:NWOSO essay?

I won't respond to this incivility, GiantSnowman, except to say that it is unworthy of an administrator. Despite what you seem to think, you are not in charge here. You can't govern by diktat, and you need to deal in the currency of verifiability and reliable sources the same as the rest of us. In fact if you continue with incivility and repeatedly reintroduce false material as you did here, you are likely to find yourself back in front of the Arbitration Committee. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Bring back Daz Sampson can you ping me via the Message this User link in the left sidebar of user page? I’ll most likely be working on wiki-related business tomorrow while watching a couple English FA WSL games on American broadcasts. Hmlarson (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

From what date can the English Football League be said to be "fully professional"?

Based on User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in English football I think there is a case to use 1961 (the abolition of the maximum wage) as the cut-off date? It's obvious we'll have to draw the line somewhere, as projecting the FL's current professional status into the distant past is recentism. What do others think? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a madey up nonsense concept. GiantSnowman 21:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Is it necessary to be this petty? Aren't you the one who always insist that, regardless of what genuine criticism editors may have toward WP:FPL, that as long as it remains the notability guidelines we must all work with it as much as possible? I don't see why Bring back Daz Sampson deserves ridicule here when they're working within established guidelines while trying to improve them at the same time. Seany91 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one being petty. I am simply quoting BBDS on the topic. GiantSnowman 08:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet they're still trying to bring in substantive sources for discussion, while you're actively creating a hostile environment for folks who want to participate. Regardless of what you think about this specific issue, Wikipedia wasn't intended to be yet another exclusive gatekeeper in the world. Seany91 (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I - and many others - would have a lot more time for them if a) they didn't have a certain reputation as an editor and b) they weren't engaged in POINTy editing on the topic. Rather than trying to remove men's leagues, they would be better of spending their time and effort trying to include women's leagues, which is their overall aim. GiantSnowman 08:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to this - nobody is disputing that many of the 'fully pro' leagues have, at times, had a minority of semi professional players. That, however, does not mean the league should be removed from the list, or that playing in it does not confer presumed notability. GiantSnowman 08:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please try to comment on contributions, GiantSnowman, not on contributors. The definition states that "virtually all" adult players must be full-time professionals? I am just trying to drill down into the double standard which apparently waives this rule for certain favoured leagues, but not for others... Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a double standard here. While I was searching for articles in response to the FAWSL quotes section above, I came across an article stating that Liverpool players were semi-pros in 2019,[1] but I wouldn't consider removing the FA WSL on the basis of a single club. Number 57 12:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What date do you think for the EFL then? Are you seriously positing 1888–89 Football League? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know TBH; looking at your research, it's quite hard to say when would be an appropriate cut-off. Re your change to the Netherlands, would 1967 not make more sense as a cut-off (than 1970) given the Murray source? Number 57 13:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's try and stick to the subject here, I'll reply to the Netherlands question under that section. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Liga III and Liga II

As has been mentioned in a few AfDs recently, there are some that think that these leagues are fully pro. I have asked for sources yet but haven't had any back. Romanian football league system does say that the top three leagues are fully professional but this is unsourced as well. Has this ever been looked into? We've deleted footballers in the past for failing NFOOTBALL for only playing in these leagues. I'll admit to not speaking Romanian which is why I was hoping some of the Romanian editors in the recent AfDs would provide appropriate sources as I wouldn't know where to start with a search. Spiderone 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Liga II is certainly pro. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there any sources that mention this anywhere? Without reliable sourcing, we wouldn't be able to add it to the list Spiderone 19:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

National Independent Soccer Association

Is NISA (third tier US league) fully pro? Apologies if this has already been discussed. I've noticed that National Independent Soccer Association calls itself a professional league in the article and each of the member clubs' articles have the word 'professional' in the opening sentence of the lead. Their website also says "bringing pro soccer to every city in the US". Other sources in a quick search include Soccer Today and US Soccer Players. Spiderone 14:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Source 1 indicates that NISA has not disclosed any salary information, while a conservative calculation from Source 2 suggests that average salary for NISA players would be around $16,000 for an entire season (that's barely above poverty line for a single person in the US). Also there are periodic complaints of NISA players not getting paid at all (see here). Seany91 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, I agree with not adding it to the list. Spiderone 19:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can this be reconsidered? NISA is a professional league recognised by the US soccer federation. It is listed as professional on its own Wikipedia article. See [2][3] [4] Pbowmaker (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Netherlands

It turns out that the Dutch Eredivisie was completely part-time until 1965. Over the ensuing few years most teams were then a blend of full and part time players. There were even some part timers in the Feyenoord team which won the 1970 European Cup. I'm not sure the full league went "fully pro" at that stage (e.g. Louis van Gaal captained Sparta Rotterdam in the 80s while working as a school teacher). More research is needed and For anybody who is interested I am collating the info here: User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Dutch football. Evidenced additions welcome :) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that entire squads of full-time professionals were permitted in 1967, but that the process was not immediate. This seems reasonable when we consider that the top team in the Netherlands (and Europe) Feyenoord still had some part-timers in 1970. I sincerely doubt that the teams lower down the league were entirely full-time until much later – although I haven't got much evidence of this yet. I won't quibble over three years if consensus prefers 1967 to "~1970" as the cut-off. It is a dynamic list and we can always correct it later when new evidence comes to light. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I am having a browse of the references that you provided in the link and there is definitively talk about the Eredivisie not being professional in the earlier years. HawkAussie (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think without evidence that most clubs were still at least partly semi-professional, it would make sense to say 1967 for now. Number 57 09:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Norway

I have started some research on User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Norwegian football here. What date do people think is a sensible "fully pro" start date for the top men's league in Norway? On this evidence we must be talking well into the 2000s? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1991. GiantSnowman 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)