Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Liga MX Femenil

According to this source it would appear that a new top-level women's football competition is to be established in Mexico and I would like to seek consensus as to whether this can be deemed to be a fully professional competition. Although, like many leauges, sources do not explicitly state that the competition is fully professional, I believe the following comments within the source support the notion of full professionalism:

  1. It is described as a professional competition
  2. It is specifically designed to mirror the branding of the men's competition, an acknowledged Fully professional competition
  3. It is actively backed by Liga MX
  4. Key national media organisations own teams in the league

Additionally, Other sources indicate strong initial attendences. However, my one concern on this would be the level of salary being paid. Onthe one hand there is clear indication in Mexico sources that everyone is getting paid, but there seems to be substantial coverage (such as this, this and this) complaining that the level of remuneration is quite low (substantially lower than OECD $ equivalent averages for the country).

Interested in thoughts on this. The level of salary is a negative, but, and this is a real rarity for the women's game, this does seem to be a league that has been set up where all players are getting paid a proper salary. In my mind, this is just about sufficient for FPL confirmation. Thoughts welcome from others. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Also, does FIFA distinguish between a player who is fully professional vs a player who plays in a fully professional league vs a player who plays on a fully professional team? Hmlarson (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
FIFA does not define any of those. -Koppapa (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
FIFA does not define fully professional, but an editor named Angelo.romano did when this WP:FOOTY project was started in 20052008 about men's football. Maybe he can provide some insights? Or should we add some inclusion criteria for notable women's footballers since the majority are not included. Hmlarson (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Well that is broadly how an FPL is contstrued now. Essentially do sources indicate, either directly through clear discussion of salaries, or indirectly through remarking on levels of attendence, sponsorship, t.v. deals, etc, that the level of money involved in a particular league is likely to be sufficient to enable all first team players to be paid a salary sufficient for them to be deemed full-time. This may be where the Liga MX Feminal falls down, since the levels of salary on offer make it seem unlikely that there are all that many full time players. Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Which is applicable to men's football, sure. That's fine. I'll work on making the women's section of the "not fully professional" list more complete so the disparity in the 8+-year-old essay guideline is clear to everyone. Hmlarson (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, but I fear that might be counter productive. It will be pretty easy to use it to underline the following logic:
  1. leagues that are fully professional have more money sloshing around;
  2. leagues with more money have more TV deals, higher attendences, etc;
  3. leagues with more TV deals, higher attendences, etc are more popular;
  4. leagues that are more popular receive more independent coverage;
  5. leagues that receive more indepenedent coverage are more notable;
  6. leagues that are more notable contain more notable players.
I don't think there is necessarily correct logic in assuming that because you can demonstrate most women's leagues are at best semi pro if not amateur you will throw weight behind creating different notability guidelines for them, moreover it will, as I think I have shown above, merely highlight the disparity in notability. Fenix down (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Nonetheless, as noted at the top of the WP:FPL essay, the lists are incomplete. Hmlarson (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but where does this assumed correlation between salaries and popularity come from? People love going to free/cheaper things too. --SuperJew (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The logic is outlined above, The most notable players play in the leagues with the most money. That's why the most popular / notable players in the world are people like Neymar not your local Sunday league clogger. Fenix down (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fenix down: Here's an one example of stats showing there isn't a necessary correlation between money and participation. I'm sure there are more if you look into it more. --SuperJew (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not relevant, no one is trying to draw a comparison between participation and money, the comparison I am making above is between money and notability and that notability is inherently linked to popularity. However, in this argument popularity and participation are not the same thing. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
And participation and popularity are linked too. If you want to base your basic assumptions on a certain correlation you need to prove it from an outside source. --SuperJew (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
No. Not for the purposes of this discussion. Public participation in a given sport does not impact the notability of players in a given competition in that sport. The fact that women's soccer in the US is a very popular participation sport in terms of the numbers of people playing the game, does not directly impact the notability of players in a given competition, only independent coverage of a non-routine nature of that specific competition does that. Anyway, this has nothing to do with discussion of the level of professionalism of the Liga MX Feminil and we are arguing at completely cross purposes here, so I am not going to enter into any further discussion of this in this thread. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
But the Damallsvensken is a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
These sources suggest it might not be; the first two explicity describes it as a semi-professional league; the third refers to players having to take second jobs. Number 57 14:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
For future reference, Club León (Women) drew 25,000 fans on Monday. The times they are a-changing (with or without Wikipedia projects). FIFA WWC Hmlarson (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League

I came across this source saying that the PSL and its clubs went fully professional for the 2013 season. Should we add it to the list of FPL?Das osmnezz (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said so on the strength of this source. Firstly it doesn't clarify what professional means. I'm not sure it is full professionalism and statements like that contained in the source can often mean that a league is looking to be more professionally organised rather than one that is seeking to pay their players more. More importantly here, this source is discussing, in 2011, and aspiration for 2013. I would want to see follow up sources before even beginning to consider the level of professionalism in this league. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

FA WSL going fully-pro

Hey, I would like to propose adding FA WSL 1 to the fully-pro list, as of 2018-19, following this recent announcement. --SuperJew (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a specific commitment to a fully professional league, so I see no reason why not. I would personally hold out adding it until closer to the start of next season to avoid confusion (though I won't stand in the way of it being added now with clear caveats if that is what people want). If I really wanted to nit pick, I would query how a full-time league can employ people on 16-hour a week contracts, which at my work would be less than half a week's work, but I'm not sure that matters as this is an all too rare event where we have a reliable source explicitly confirming a league to be full time and therefore fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreeing with Fenix, I think it should only be added once it happens, otherwise people might think it's fully-pro this season. Let's hope there aren't a bunch of Notts County-style failures that stop it becoming a reality. Number 57 14:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Damallsvenskan

In the meantime, could we also agree to move the Damallsvenskan to the part-time list per these sources: "Sweden, a perennial world power in women's soccer, also has only a semi-professional women's league.""despite its quality, the league is not actually fully professional" "making it necessary for many soccer players in the Damallsvenskan to take work outside of playing in the league" Number 57 14:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need a discussion on the Damallsvensken, simply looking at those sources compared to that listed at WP:FPL. In fact, if you looked at only these three sources and the one at WP:FPL in isolation, you would draw the conclusion that the Damallsvensken was not fully professional prior to 2013 but was post that point. Looking at the sources chronologically in terms of the data points they discuss:
  1. Handbook on the Economics of Women in Sports - book published in 2013 (and presumably written prior to the Guardian article in July 2013), however the data employed to support the notion of semi-professionalism here refers to salaries earned in 2005-2006: conclusion - data in source only supports the notion that the league was not fully pro in 2006
  2. ESPN - article written in 2011: conclusion - league not fully pro in 2011
  3. Duke - article written in 2015(?), however, the source it uses to support the salary claim is the same ESPN source noted above, so cannot be used to claim non-fully pro status in 2015: conclusion - league not fully pro in 2011, use of sources in 2015 article too slack to provide reliable claim to non-fully pro status in 2015
  4. Guardian source at WP:FPL - explicit statement that the league is full time (and therefore fully professional) in 2013: conclusion - league is fully pro in 2013.
I'd want to see sources clearly using data from post 2013 to support the notion that the guardian article is an aberration and that the league is either no longer fully pro, or in fact never was. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
How about this source (the Swedish version of the PFA) from 2016, which states that "Most of the players in Damallsvenskan are semi-professional"? Can't really get more definitive/explicit than that. Number 57 17:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right, that is pretty explicit. However, it doesn't completely solve the issue as there are still questions as to whether it ever was fully professional between 2013 and 2016. To be honest, I don't think that is a battle worth fighting. I certainly have no appetite to remove the league from the listing completely and then go through the large amount of work that would be required to delete articles that do not explicitly indicate GNG. At best, I think the source should be used to show that the league is no longer fully professional, but that we recognize that between 2013 and 2016 sources indicate that it was. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's a source from 2014 also stating the league is semi-pro, so that narrows it down to 2013 at most. And then there's this from 2013, which says "Most [players] are part time"; it's only a blog post, but it is from a season ticket holder at a Damallsvenskan club. So, at best it was only fully-pro for 2013, and this doesn't really look terribly likely (I'm sure there'd be some kind of article speculating on the collapse of full professionalism if that had happened, as there were when Irish football went pop after getting close). Number 57 17:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I've moved it to the semi-pro section. I am open to having it listed in the fully-pro section for the 2013 section only, but as above, it does look like the assertion in the Guardian article may have been a mistake. Number 57 21:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Proxy indicator of status

I was wondering what others thoughts were on a proxy indicator for fully professional status. It has been hard to find reliable sources defining the professional status of some leagues and for others we have contradictory material.

One of the basic yardsticks of a league's status is its attendances, as these are directly related to clubs' incomes and the league's wider status. I've done some analysis of status and attendances here (the data is taken from the European Football Statistics website unless otherwise stated). If you sort it by attendance, you can see that all leagues with an average of over 2,000 are fully-pro or their status is unknown. Could we perhaps say that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, any league with an average attendance of over 2,000 is deemed to be fully pro?

I also think we should take a second look at some of the ones far down the list that claim to be fully pro, particularly those under 1,000. Cheers, Number 57 13:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Some help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Nájera

Hey folks, is Andorra's Primera Divisió definitely not fully-pro? An article on the UEFA website leaves one with the impression that it is. Thanks in advance, A Traintalk 20:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's not fully pro. I also don't see anything in that UEFA article that suggests otherwise. Number 57 20:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but the article says Football in the landlocked principality had hitherto [the formation of the AFF in 1994] been amateur – a setup based around local teams with links to local businesses. The implication is that post-1994, football in the country was no longer amateur. A Traintalk 22:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but also definitely not a confirmation of full professionalism. Fenix down (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. A Traintalk 22:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I should also point out that the source is actually an article in The Independent that's no longer available on their website and so redirects to the Andorran FA's page the UEFA website. I've restored access to the article using the wayback machine. It describes the league as semi-professional, making it pretty clear that the league is listed correctly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

US football citations

Are 404! Also is the second devisions semi-pro and not fully pro? Govvy (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This Richmond Times-Dispatch article indicates the average Richmond Kickers player's salary averages from $1k - $3k per month during the 6-month season. That suggests most players would not be able to train full-time, although the RTD article includes an interview with a player who says they have other jobs in between seasons to make ends meet. I'm not sure that qualifies as fully-pro, but I'll do some more research to see if this is typical among USL clubs. Jogurney (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I read the article, it seems to me and sounds like they are operating a semi-pro club rather than fully pro. Govvy (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This Houston Chronicle article provides information about the NASL (which was quite similar to the USL) and has similar, if slightly higher player salaries. It also mentions that for some players the league represents part-time work. I'll keep looking. Jogurney (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I read that article as well now, that's another source that seems to suggest NASL is semi-pro. Govvy (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Forbes states United Soccer League Sees Attendance Rise 33% and that Professional soccer in the U.S. continues to grow at an unprecedented pace.This states they invested 100 Million on stadium here and 1.5 million fans attended the matches.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I read both of those, although interesting in the increases, that money is still just a drop in the ocean to the league above, Forbes article may refer to "professional" but there are certain aspects about clubs that they don't all adhere to these regulations. It sounds like there is still a lot of restructuring work to do on the leagues and the league format. There are plenty of questions that need answering. Govvy (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
These articles simply reflect the success of a select few clubs (e.g., FC Cincinnati) but provide no reason to believe that many clubs in the league are operating on anything other than a semi-pro model (paying players $1k per month during the season). I haven't have much luck finding addition player salary sources, but unless someone can show that all clubs have full-time players, I don't think the league belongs in the fully-pro category. Jogurney (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues/Archive_26&oldid=1065794067"