Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

Total missing: 0 (92 at initial posting)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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,^[1][2][3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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^[4], 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^[5]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Ecuador

Any update on whether the league is fully-pro or not? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added (and sourced) Ecuador. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 05:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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):

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

+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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed and it's all in the page history. Hmlarson (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are either @GiantSnowman: or @Number 57: open to administrator recall? If not, perhaps we need to consider arbitration as a way forward? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I forgot to include a few reports demonstrating how a handful of editors with WP:ADMIN privileges self-appointed themselves managers of the WP:FPL WP:ESSAY which has been used for over a decade to delete articles about women footballers (and male footballers predominantly in non-UK countries) based on a standard ("fully professional") FIFA doesn't even use:

• GiantSnowman • Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues : 2009-present # of reverts don't show in summary report.
• Fenix down • Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues : 2014-present
• Number 57 • Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues : 2008-present

Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we good with this? Hmlarson (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Care to suggest a better guideline then? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to comment, I understand the arguments laid out, and I think a case can be made for more inclusivity of leagues (both female and non-European). But the way Hmlarson and others are going about this is not productive, and is instead destructive. The more leagues they get rid of, the higher the standard of what gets included in the list. And let's be honest, women's football in general is less "notable" than men's football. Should women's footbal articles be carpet bombed and removed without reason? No. But the same applies to the other leagues that are being targeted, which are also notable in their own way, and certainly have their own WP:GNG arguments.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some editors fervently wish to pretend that certain men's leagues were 'fully professional' (Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Scotland, England etc etc). But the fact is they aren't, or weren't, and we are not here to right WP:GREATWRONGS. Perhaps instead turning up here with their petty nationalisms and tendentious POV-pushing, they should get a personal blog instead? I myself am a keen blogger and if I want to churn out any obscure, completely non notable dross I would do it there where it would be at reduced risk of being 'carpet bombed'. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and would rather add an addendum protecting these leagues since they clearly pass GNG even if you're right. And you lost me at the second part.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bring back Daz Sampson: If you insist we are pretending men's league are 'fully professional' even though they contain a couple amateurs, then you should stop pretending the WSL is fully professional. Removing these leagues would not be at all productive as players playing in these leagues clearly pass GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ortizesp: When you say "other leagues that are being targeted" - tell us more about which leagues are being targeted. Surely, you have a list or do you just use this one? Hmlarson (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

GiantSnowman this is you, right?

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman - 2011
• GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review - 2019

Do you still stand by your answers to Q9 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman - 2011 and Q17 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman 2? Hmlarson (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson may I ask that you post on GS' talk page instead of here? I really don't see how any of this is relevant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman was reminded by ArbCom to:

• "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy";
• "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed",
• "treat newcomers with kindness and patience";
• and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. Completely relevant when they choose to do the opposite right here.

Also relevant are the 36 opposition !votes contributing to the initial faliure, of which many have to do with WP:FPL and WP:AFD, the subject of this talk page. Hmlarson (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source which is about Berglind Rós Ágústsdóttir turning professional now that she has joined a team in Damallsvenskan. It implies that the league is professional or that it is expected that you sign a professional contract after joining the league. I know this isn't going to be enough to add it to the list but I thought that I'd throw it in here anyhow. Spiderone 16:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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 (^[1]) is not relevant as it is about a Second Division (third tier) club, while ^[2] describes Raith Rovers as being a mixture of full and part-time players. Also, ^[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's disappointing to see the entry and its defective sources have been edit-warred back in again, despite both the second tier in Scotland being unequivocally not full-time professional for the entirety of its existence. There is now a clear evidence-based consensus for this. GiantSnowman's high-handed and disdainful manner can't disguise that his only argument is irrelevant nonsense: unqualified opinions about 'media coverage' can't in themselves render leagues fully professional. Even his long time collaborator (cough) Number 57, conspicuous by his absence here, seems to have recognised the futility of this position. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only two people seem to want it removed, correct me if I'm wrong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I think, if this list is to have any credibility,^{[note 1]} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notes

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In 1978-79 there were 136 full pros and 295 semi pros in the Eredivisie. In 1979-80 there were 132 full pros and 283 semi pros. In the Eerste divisie there were only 6 full pros in 1978-79 and 4 in 1979-80 (SC Amersfoort numbers not included). [5]. Cattivi (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting @Cattivi:, thank you. So it's clear in 1980 they were still a long way off 'fully professionalism'. I thought Johan de Kock playing in Euro 96 as a part-timer was one of these fabled "random outliers" but perhaps not. Realistically the Netherlands seems to be like the situation in Scotland where you had part-timers very common in the top division until the TV money started to come along in the 90s. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Number 57 when you state "I think without evidence that most clubs were still at least partly semi-professional, it would make sense to say 1967 for now" can you let Nehme1499 know? Seems s/he is reverting changes without contributing to the discussion here... You also have a fascinating recorded history of reverts on this WP:ESSAY - thought you might want to act consistently. Hmlarson (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this discussion. I'm just saying that it's premature to start removing/adding content before a proper consensus has been formed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there is absolutely no one disagreeing here and a WP:CONSENSUS is evident. I agree that this is still an WP:ESSAY since there was no consensus on this (15:24, June 22, 2019‎ edit from Number 57). Hmlarson (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see different cut-off dates here: 1965, 1967, 1970, 1980... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal. GiantSnowman 19:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:LOOKATME essay? Hmlarson (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear from the evidence provided by Cattivi that it was not fully-professional before 1980 – that is all we can state definitively for now. Number 57 21:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - the stats provided by Cattivi only show it was NOT fully pro for 1978–1980. No indication before or after. GiantSnowman 10:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd like to see some evidence supporting this League's inclusion, ideally with dates. At present the only source supposedly demonstrating 'fully professionalism' is a defunct Wordpress blog from 2010 (which is completely mute on the subject). At the moment we are giving a misleading impression the the two thirds of part-timers in the Eredivisie suddenly all became full-time in 1980 – and that the Eerste Divisie has always been 'fully professional'. We now have an unsatisfactory situation where one appearance in the 80/81 Eredivisie will "confer presumed notability". It's interesting to me that in favoured cases like this the bias seems to be towards preserving "fully professionalism" at all costs whereas in certain other cases the opposite seems to apply. Let's be clear: this form of POV-pushing from Number 57 might not be as crude and childish as some of GiantSnowman's, but it is no less insidious. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put 1980 as a placeholder in the absence of anything more definite as I thought it was better than having nothing (which would suggest it was always fully-professional). It could be reworded to something like (at some point after 1980) if that's preferable. Number 57 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the Eerste Divisie has been removed entirely. Was there enough consensus for this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't notice it being removed - I have restored. Clearly it can't have been fully-pro if the Eredivisie wasn't for a time, but removing completely is not supported. GiantSnowman 15:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, GiantSnowman, Bring back Daz Sampson - according to this 2019 FIFA report, there are 34 professional clubs in the Netherlands. Since the Eredivisie has 18 clubs and the Eerste Divisie has 20 clubs, this casts doubts over the professional status of some of the 2nd tier clubs. What do we reckon? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My research at User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Dutch football#Eerste Divisie strongly suggests that the Dutch second tier has never been "fully professional". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: I assume that's just because there are four Eredivisie reserve teams in the Eerste Divisie. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. BBDS' research shows that TOP Oss and MVV Maastricht are semi-professional as well, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to remove the Eerste Divisie from the list. GiantSnowman 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better get a source to support its inclusion then. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is one, refer to the list.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A defunct blog which doesn't even address the subject? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with BBDS on this - the only source supporting Eerste Divisie is a blog which I do not see how it is verifiable. From my read through the source, it also doesn't seem to mention "fully-professional" or incomes of the players. --SuperJew (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: - that FIFA list has a more lenient, and somewhat odd, definition of professionalism than we do, i.e. it seems to include all of the SPFL most of the National League, the Namibia Premier League, and what I assume is the top three tiers of Senegalese football (I don't know as we don't even have articles for leagues below the Senegal Premier League). It just seems to be a list of clubs who play in leagues which call themselves 'professional'. Anyways, this suggests an average salary in the Eerste Divisie of €2750/month, or €33000/year, which is roughly the same as the Dutch average wage. This, to me at least, satisfies the first part of the requirements. I don't know about the second part, but if someone could find any sources for that, that would be great. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a quick look at the methodology section in that FIFA report shows we shouldn't use it as conclusive, as it's largely self-reported. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can any Dutch editors find sources to confirm the professional status of the Eerste Divisie either way? @Bocanegra and Cattivi: et al? GiantSnowman 12:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note the league is described as "professional" by KNVB, which contrasts with the Tweede Divisie clearing being detailed as a mix of professional and amateur (i.e. semi-pro). "At the top of the new pyramid is the Eredivisie, followed by the First Division, a new Second Division (Tweede divisie), two amateur Third Divisions (formerly Topklasse) and four amateur Hoofdklasse leagues". GiantSnowman 12:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This says there are 1,000 professional players in the Netherlands, of which 400 earn less than minimum wage. That works out as 25 players for 40 teams in the top 2 divisions; presumably it is young players who earn less. The Eredivisie average salary is 291,000 per year. GiantSnowman 12:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clubs in the Eerste divisie need to have 16 players earning more than the minimum wage to get a license. s.05 Cattivi (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Cattivi it is refreshing to get an occasional contribution based on evidence, as yours always are. This requirement looks to have been reduced to only 14 players now. And the wording allows for these contracted players to be part-timers, as long as they are paid the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage? ("[...] ongeacht het aantal uren dat zij onder contract staan"). Admittedly I don't understand Dutch, so apologies if I have picked this up wrong. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because of COVID-19 the number for this season was reduced to 14 and will be 15 next season. [6]. Salaries were reduced as well. It doesn't matter if a footballer has a 20,30 or 36 hour contract. It's the amount of money they get that counts. Cattivi (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the wage is not the only thing to consider when chasing down the elusive - cough - concept of Wikipedia "fully professionalism". In the English men's National League the contracted part-time players are generally paid more than the equivalent of full-time UK minimum wage, but still only train two nights a week (just as Football League players did in the recent past). In the case of the Eerste Divisie, 14 players is only half a squad. Some of the 14 will be part-timers and some will be youths earning the tiny under-21 national minimum wage. A cross section of the other players in the league are paid a "volunteer's allowance". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It seems like most players, even with a pandemic, are earning enough to warrant the division staying on the list. What year should we propose as the cut-off point for full professionalism for the Eerste Divisie? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBDS's research says that "by 2000, 90% of Eerste Divisie players were full-time professionals", so 2000 might be a decent placeholder. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe c.2000 for the Eredivisie, but the Eerste Divisie fell away in 2003 and then again in 2010 before it got anywhere close. Realistically it has never met the current "fully professional" definition. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think there was enough to support the Eerste Division's inclusion in 2000, and enough to support it now, though admittedly a lot of it comes down to semantics and how exactly the FPL definition is interpreted. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"On this evidence" - Look, I know next to nothing about Norwegian football but I think we're going to need better evidence than the mindless ranting of some nobody in the Mirror who was just a bit miffed that his team drew. BigDom (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sourcing is an issue. A journalist describing a team as "part-timers" - does that mean, like Marine the other week, that their entire squad has full time day jobs (teacher, trainee plumber, manager who worked for a train company etc.), or that one or two players do, or that they all have part-time jobs to supplement wages from football etc.? GiantSnowman 16:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough @BigDom:, thanks for your contribution and I have my doubts over that one as well. But at the same time venturing 1991 as the "fully professional" date seems to me like a fairly committed feat of POV-pushing, since it necessitates ignoring all the other sources there which do go into much more detail. The Irish Independent source gives a detailed breakdown of the makeup of the Rosenborg squad in 2000, and Kevin Twaddle explained how it worked when he was at Lyn the year before. Clearly – like the Linfield manager said – they had a sort of culture where the clubs got them fixed up in agreeable jobs and the players did their training around that. Brattbakk goes into detail about how he worked five days a week in an office before coming in to train with Rosenborg and about how that was the norm. If you have any evidence of your own to add I'd obviously be interested to see it. Thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: the year 2000 as a tentative cut-off date for 'fully professionalism' in the top Norwegian men's football league

In 2000 Tippeligaen Rosenborg won their tenth consecutive national title with only five full-time professionals in their squad. Therefore it seems improbable that the rest of the teams in the league had "virtually all adult players" full-time during this period? The other leading clubs were invariably described as part-time when they competed in European competitions throughout the 90s (and beyond). The link supposedly supporting fully professionalism is dead. Does anyone have any other evidence? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I would say 'from 2001 season' for fully professional. GiantSnowman 12:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding 'from 2001 season' Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Has this issue been raised with anyone that knows Norwegian football? It's kinda harsh to be met with a ton of deletion discussion where the claim is that the Norwegian league was not fully pro at the time. Starting from the 2001-season is arbitrary, the 1991-season with the introduction of "Tippeligaen" has always been considered as the cut-off point for professionalism in Norwegian football. It wasn't allowed to be paid as a Norwegian footballer until 1984 source, and Norwegian footballers that went abroad wasn't allowed to play for the national team. But when the Tippeligaen was founded in the early 90's, we had the similar escalation as what happened in England (just not in the same scale) with TV-deals and professionalism. I can't find a source for that right now. Though by defination, the Norwegian league isn't fully pro even today, as you still have people that choose to study or choose to have a part-time job besides being a footballer. They do however get enough coverage to pass GNG. We shouldn't start a douzen of deletion-discussions because some English paper called a Norwegian team "part-time", that's just a technicality. We have this guideline because the footballers that play at the top level of Norwegian football are presumed to pass GNG on the basis that they played in that league.

Lastly I want to quote a part from this piece from the national library in Norway [7] "Likevel ble norske fotballstjerner dyrket på samme måte som i dag, forteller Sæter. Også før profesjonalismens tid var de store fotballspillerne kjendiser, og man kunne lese om dem i aviser og sportsmagasiner." which can be translated as "Regardless, Norwegian footballstars was idolized in the same way as today, Sæter says. Even before the time of professionalism the big footballers was celebreties, and you could read about them in newspapers and sports magazines." Mentoz (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can evidence that Tippeligaen players received significant coverage from 1991 onwards then I am happy to consider that the start date of 'fully professionalism' for these purposes. GiantSnowman 10:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if I get this straight: a non-Norwegian finds four citations from the english tabloid press during the 90's that Tippeligaen was "semi-pro", but a Norwegian who is trying to correct this blatant error has to find "significant coverage"? At the same time the editor that has convinced you that the Norwegian league wasn't fully pro is leading a crusade against Norwegian footballers, putting them all up for deletion because of his own personal belief? All of these deletion discussions are leading to a keep, so it's primarly just a waste of everyones times. This is not the wikipedia I signed up for. Mentoz (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A 2001 cut-off date makes very little sense, when it leads to players like Kjell Roar Kaasa being proposed for deletion ([8]). Tippeligaen in the 1990s got massive attention in Norway's largest newspapers, try for example searching Norwegian newspaper archives for "Kjetil Roar Kaasa" from 1990–2000, and you'll find 8600 hits.([9]) You can't simply disregard these players as "not professionals, thus not notable". Regards, Kjetil_r 21:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage is irrelevant in terms of determining whether the league was fully-professional, which is what WP:NFOOTBALL requires. However, if what you say is true, then the players from that era will be notable under WP:GNG. Number 57 22:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The only reason 'fully-pro' = 'notable' is because it is presumed that 'fully pro' = 'significant coverage of the league and players' and that means GNG is met. WP:NSPORT specifically says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia". There are clearly leagues on this list which are not technically 100% fully pro but which we let by because a) they are nearly there and b) they meet the GNG test. If Norway is the same then why not change it? GiantSnowman 14:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like even Number 57 is uncomfortable with abandoning any semblance of objectivity. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2001 seems a bit random to me. I think 1991 is a better year to start with. The coverage of Norwegian football was by my opinion, significant at that time so I will say that players with over 100 matches in the nineties meets GNG. --- Løken (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this list is so that once a player makes 1 appearance, he is presumed to have passed GNG, not over 100 games. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the problem is that this list is used in AFDs as an exclusion criteria. (and also it seems that 1 appearance is not enough for GNG, but thats another discussion). Other than that, 2001 seems a bit random year, and put another way, I agree with Mentoz in this matter. --- Løken (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These claims of 'Norwegian exceptionalism' don't carry too much weight, especially when they are completely unevidenced. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One could look at the large number of Norwegian players you have recently sent to AFD on the basis that they were "non notable" that have been kept by consensus. GiantSnowman 13:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority got deleted, because once they couldn't hide behind the farce of WP:NFOOTBALL they were found to be miles off WP:GNG. You voted delete in most of them yourself. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally Oppose these suggestions. I think the league's founding date should be the cutoff as mentioned above.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.83.30 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Brilliant points raised by MYS77 which have not been countered at all. It's very clear this league isn't an FPL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. GiantSnowman 08:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

also outdated, just read league description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Premier_League — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.81.30 (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTARELIABLESOURCE. GiantSnowman 12:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campeonato Brasileiro de Futebol Feminino Série A1 seem like a professional league, per: this regulation. Plus, the RGC - Regulamento Geral das Competições (Competitions' General Regulation) states that contracts should be registered in a national database (BID) before these athletes can play a match. Some of the tournament's matches are televised in a national channel (Band) and even though the players do not receive a high wage, all of the players play in a professional manner, not having another part-time jobs. MYS77 ^✉ 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you analyse/translate the sources for us - what do the Regulations say, and what wage do they receive and how is that comparable to national averages? You do not have to earn a lot to be a professional footballer - as you say the key thing is not having any other job, and the media coverage certainly hints at a fully professional mature. GiantSnowman 15:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Sure! In the last link, it talks about the wage cuts due to the COVID pandemic... They cite that Santos had some pay cuts for those who earn above R$ 6K, which is a very reasonable wage on the country (the minimum wage reaches R$ 1K), but the majority of the squad earn less than this; the values are not disclosed. They also mention all of the teams who play in the division, mentioning their cuts and/or difficulties while in the period of the pandemic. The main point, for me, is Iranduba: they had some players under non-contracts, but according to their president, they didn't register the new contracts (professional) because of the costs, and due to the pandemic affecting the club's earnings.

The first regulation (first link) cites that all those teams who played in the previous year, plus four who achieved promotion from A2 in the previous campaign, are available to play in the edition. It also cites that all contracts must have a registration in the national database (BID), and should respect the RGC; players are only allowed to play in the competition once their contracts are registered, same goes to managers. The RCG (second link), in the other hand, describes that professional and non-professional contracts can be registered, but I've only seen the latter type of contracts on those who are under-20, which qualify into a youth contract, in "European standards" (this already happens in the Série C, considered fully pro).

Even though I'm almost certain that the first division meets the standards to be considered a fully-pro league, I would put this from 2019 onwards, because that's when CBF obliged the professional clubs of the first division (Série A) to have a senior and at least one youth squad, and play in at least one of the professional competitions established by them (women's national or state league). When it comes to the second division (Feminino A2), however, I'm not so sure that it is professional... MYS77 ^✉ 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support adding Campeonato Brasileiro de Futebol Feminino Série A1 (2019 onwards) only, per sources provided. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support including this league, from 2019 onwards. GiantSnowman 17:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adding support too --SuperJew (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add to the main page, or should we wait for more consensus, then? MYS77 ^✉ 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I was looking through the Afd of Lennart Fridh and @Bring back Daz Sampson: has put up an interesting source relating to his Professionalism in Swedish football area where their is a PDF in the first source. This source after looking at resembles the possible dates professional football that is legalized. These dates resembling in 1967 (Sweden), Denmark (1978) and Norway (1991).^[1] These three dates could be helpful in determining the possible starting point for these leagues and where they turned professional. HawkAussie (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should We add (from 1967) to Sweden and (from 1978) to Denmark unless anyone thinks that we should move the year even further forward than those? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for these dates to be implemented for Sweden and Denmark; I think Norway needs more discussion given the recent implementation of 2001. GiantSnowman 14:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something became legal doesn't mean it became widespread. Eg. homosexuality was decriminalised in England and Wales in the same year, but that didn't mean everyone immediately became gay! I was still working on the Sweden info, which is why I hadn't posted it here yet. Looking at the evidence compiled so far I think it's obvious that, like Norway, the sort of cultural zeitgeist was against full-time professional football in Sweden until the 21st Century at the very earliest. I'd be very surprised if "virtually all adult players are paid a salary that they can live on and do not need additional sources of income" at present. In 2019 only 90% of male players came into this bracket and 50% female. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark I haven't really looked at yet but the bits I have seen point to the formation of the Danish Superliga in 1991. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this "fully professional"? Were the 168 part-timers all "outliers"?^[2]

I oppose any suggestions that the Swedish, Danish, and even Norwegian leagues should be taken off the list or amnended. I recall an addendum that top tier leagues were presumed notable before non-professional status anyways and I posit that most these players would pass WP:GNG to begin with.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you had got on board with my requested move we might have been able accommodate these sorts of unqualified/unevidenced opinions here. But as it stands they are totally irrelevant and you constantly repeating them is tantamount to spam. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, addendums are always possible. And I counter that if my comments are spam then so are yours.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know if the National Football League (South Africa) was fully-professional? Attracted lots of English/Brazilian players in the 1960s, and article claims to be "professional", but I'm struggling to find sources to support... GiantSnowman 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 34 and 35 of ISBN 978-1-3179-6818-4 would suggest that it was professional, though I only looked at the preview on google books. I think the National Professional Soccer League (South Africa) was professional too, with page 43 of ISBN 978-0-9814-3982-2 describing it as 'a truly professional league'. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this looks like it might help if anyone has access to it. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see how this can possibly be professional/notable. Based on this, the average attendance is around 350, which is what you typically get at step 3 of English non-league. I don't understand Russian so it would be great if someone could see what is actually stated in the source, but the extract from it doesn't seem to suggest full professionalism to me. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have linked the RSSSF page for the Belarussian season (which is in English, not Russian). But yeah, an average of about 250 is very low. I'm surprised it's listed as a pro league, I though you were talking about the first division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it cannot be fully professional and should be removed from the list. GiantSnowman 21:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: - I meant the source provided on the list - [10] Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok sorry, got it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get a source that it's non professional? I don't feel comfortable removing it from the list without something tangible backing it up. Slippery slope and whatnot--Ortizesp (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning should go the other way. We should find a source that proves that it is fully-pro. There is the Russian PDF linked above, but ideally we need someone who speaks Russian to translate it for us. It's often difficult to find a source (especially in Russian) which explicitly says "The Belarusian First League is not professional". Since the PDF is the source being used to demonstrate its professionalism, we need to make sure that it is actually proving it is fully-pro. If not, the league should be removed unless another source which proves it is fully-pro can be found. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue without further clarification, the source actually cited is not sufficient to justify inclusion. If I'm understanding the translations correctly, the source seems to only apply to the one season, probably 2009 judging by the dates. The part highlighted in the citation only says that clubs have to submit copies of their players' labour contracts to the ABFF (I'm assuming that's the Belarusian FA) to be allowed to participate in the championship. It provides no details on the nature of these contracts, so semi-professionalism seems at least possible. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I've been BOLD and have removed it. I hope there are no players up who have been created solely for having played in the Belarusian 2nd tier... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'll ping @BlameRuiner: to see if they have any knowledge, as a Belarusian, on this. I, too, was fairly surprised to see it on the list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pinging me. I don't watch this page so I wasn't aware of this discussion. Let me add some comments. 1) The document that was used as a source is a bit outdated, here's the more recent one from 2020: [11]. Some sections were rephrased and rearranged since 2009, but the main part remained the same: First League clubs can only use players with professional contracts, with the exception of youth players that belong to the academy of said club, or conscripted players (in case a club has a partnership with a nearby military base - there are no stats as to how many people fall into this category, but it's what the regulation says. It's the same for Premier League, actually). 2) In a country like Belarus, the league attendance cannot be used as a merit of professionalism, simply because the clubs don't profit from it. You don't seriously think it makes any difference if it's 300 vs 2,500? I just quickly googled and found that a season pass for Shakhtyor Soligorsk (the current champions) costs 20 to 50 rubles (which is roughly 7 to 15 Euro). All of our clubs' money come from sponsorships, ~95% of which is from state-owned enterprises. Plus BATE had about 10 years of good UEFA money flow, but that's gone after they failed to reach GS for many years by now. 3) Honestly, even if the final assessment will exclude the league from fully-pro level, it may affect like 5 players, tops. I never created articles for First League players because their level is below my own notability bar. --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BlameRuiner: Brilliant, thanks. By 'professional', would it imply that the players are full-time or just that they are under paid contract? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The text doesn't imply nor specify one way or the other, I'm afraid. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As far as I can tell, that source shows the average attendance per game is about 2,500, very different from 300. @Microwave Anarchist:, where are you getting 300 from? Absent a satisfactory explanation, I would support readding it for the moment. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is average attendance being used as a proxy for a league's professional status anyway? Seany91 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: I think you're looking at the Belarusian Premier League, rather than the First League. @Seany91: - it's not. The league's professional status was unsourced, and I merely used the average attendance to make the point that it is unlikely to be an FPL, given how little money is in the game. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Microwave Anarchist: I support your proposal; just wanted to cut off this particular line of argument using average attendance as evidence for professional status. Seany91 (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Microwave Anarchist: The league's professional status was sourced, this is a professional league (professional contract means professional contrqact, full time players), so it belongs to the list. Using attendance as a criteria is irrelevant and OR.Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludost Mlačani: paid players ≠ professionalism, and the editors who have been kind enough to analyse the source for me suggest that the source suggested nothing more than they are under contract, meaning semi-professionalism seems likely. If you have a source that shows it meets the fully-professional criteria, then I would be more than happy to have another look at the league. Though, to be honest, any notability guideline that suggests all players to have played in the Belarusian First League are notable is a stupid notability guideline in my opinion. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source does not suggest that, read it again please. Only profesional players can compete in the league (and youth academy players of course) and there is a clear definition: Футболисты, участвующие в соревнованиях, проводимых под эгидой АБФФ, являются любителями либо профессионалами (не любителями). Футболист обретает статус профессионала с момента заключения контракта с профессиональным футбольным клубом с целью участия в соревнованиях.Футболист-профессионал –это игрок, который имеет письменный контракт с клубом и получает за свою футбольную деятельность доход сверх компенсации понесенных расходов. Деятельность футболиста–профессионала регламентируется действующим законодательством Республики Беларусь, уставными документами и регламентами ФИФА, УЕФА и АБФФ. And you said everything about yourself with the last sentence. I am surprised and shocked about such humiliating, biased and ignorant stance against a league you personally do not like. As you said it is just your opinion. It has nothing to do with the policy. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludost Mlačani: Google Translate has translated that to:

Football players participating in ABFF-sponsored competitions are either amateurs or professionals (not amateurs). A footballer attains professional status from the date of contracting with a professional football club to compete. A professional footballer is a player who has a written contract with the club and receives income from his football activities in addition to reimbursement of expenses incurred. The activities of a professional football player are regulated by the current legislation of the Republic of Belarus, statutory documents and regulations of FIFA, UEFA and ABFF.

That, to me at least, suggests there is not even a requirement for all players to be 'professionals' (with it definiting professional as ;not amateur'), though I could attribute this to errors in translation. But, even so, this does not prove or suggest the league meets the status of full-professionalism, as it does not prove players 'do not need additional sources of income', that the salary is a 'living wage', or that it extends to 'sufficient contact hours, and facilities, equipment, expenses and other support as necessary to allow full-time pursuit of the sport'. This is not a 'humiliating, biased and ignorant stance against a league you personally do not like'; I know sod all about Belarusian football and couldn't care less about whether or not this league was on the list if it wasn't for the fact that having leagues like this on the list undermines the integrity of this list, the guideline and the WikiProject as a whole. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is in the other paragraph, I thought we already established that. Here is just the definition of professional players you said is lacking. Read the whole document. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludost Mlačani: - I can't - I don't speak the langauge. And the definition of professional we have here is that they are paid, which is far from fully-professional. Unless you can provide some solid evidence that shows this league meets the FPL criteria, I suggest you just WP:DROPTHESTICK. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not speak the language, how can you then remove the league from the list. You should drop the stick. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave Anarchist makes a valid point. Having a written contract and having expenses reimbursed could just as likely be true of a semi-pro club as well. It doesn't necessarily guarantee that the league is fully pro. MA is asking difficult questions but they need to be asked. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give an example: my friends who play in the Italian 9th tier get reimbursed for travel and miscellaneous expenses (a few hundred euros a year). There is no way one could define them as "professionals". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So is that not fully-pro anymore? Govvy (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on? SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the list it says until 2019, so I was confused at that, was trying to verify a new player article earlier. Govvy (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The until 2019 applies to the Football League. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then maybe we need to put that in brackets, because it also looks like it's counting League 2 also. Govvy (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a comma separating Super League Greece 2 from Football League. There are multiple similar instances, such as Mexico, Hong Kong, France, etc. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help a dyslexic person now does it! Not very clear in retrospect. :/ Govvy (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think ideally the Super League 2 should have a source attached to it, which would further help distinguish it from the Football League. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, 70% of players in the Super League 2 are paid minimum wage. This other article seems to suggest that lower-tier clubs are, at best, having difficulties paying their players with regularity. Is there any basis to keep the league as fully-pro? Many of this is probably down to the current COVID-19 situation, but still. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's another thing, the Greek economy crashed (Greek government-debt crisis) and still has major problems, this in turn surely effects the football leagues there. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this 2019 article states that while the average Super League footballer earns about 10x more than the average Greek citizen, 31.5% had salaries of below 934 euros. To me, between the crisis and COVID, the status of the Super League is proportionally comparable to that of the Super League 2. I wouldn't be against keeping the SL2 using the sources above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Campeonato Brasileiro Série D - https://conteudo.cbf.com.br/cdn/202003/20200312172902_571.pdf
• Campeonato Catarinense - http://fcf.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/diretrizes.pdf
• Campeonato Paulista Série A2 and Série A3 - https://futebolpaulista.com.br/Repositorio/Competicao/Regulamento/958/958_637449354558719256.pdf
• Campeonato Baiano - https://www.fbf.org.br/ckfinder/userfiles/files/reg_seriea_2021.pdf
• Campeonato Potiguar - http://www.fnf.org.br/files/REGULAMENTO_1_DIVISAO_2021.pdf
• Campeonato Paraense - http://www.fpfpara.com.br/files/c3fbcf45f902d80f6107374d371a52df.pdf
• Campeonato Goiano - http://www.fgf.esp.br/media/REGULAMENTO%20ESPEC%C3%8DFICO%20DO%20GOIAN%C3%83O%202021.pdf
• Campeonato Alagoano - http://futeboldealagoas.net/assets/uploads/157903354361.pdf
• Campeonato Sergipano - http://www.fsf-se.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Regulamento-Campeonato-Sergipano-de-Futebol-Profissional-da-S%C3%A9rie-A1-Ano-2020.pdf
• Campeonato Cearense - https://futebolcearense.com.br/2010/downloads/arquivos/arquivo_7296.pdf

Their respective sets of rules all explicitly mention the league to be professional, following common obligations to the national and state leagues previously discussed and included on the list. Horcoff (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horcoff - to aid non-Portuguese speakers, please could you provide translations for the relevant sections that support the claim that these are fully professional leagues? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the first page of all rulebooks, all leagues include "professional football championship" in their full title (Example: Campeonato Baiano de Futebol Profissional, which would be Bahia State Professional Football Championship). All the state leagues have relevant media coverage in their respective states, and the lowest average wages I could find for those leagues is R$ 2000, which is over the national minimum wage. The richest clubs from the state leagues play in the national leagues which are fully pro, and the players from the other clubs usually join clubs from those divisions in the second half of the season.

To sum it up, basically all the points made for the Brazilian Women Leagues above can be easily applied to those leagues - including the national database registration and the non-professional players being the U-20 ones. Horcoff (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Campeonato Gaúcho Série A2 (http://fgf.com.br/Layout/documentos/REGULAMENTO%20ESPECÍFICO%20DIVISÃO%20DE%20ACESSO-%202020.pdf) can also be included in this list, because it is also fully professional in the same way as the others. Lucas Gaúcho (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any details about how the salaries of, say, the Série D players compare to the national average? Just out of interest, are there actually any leagues in Brazil that aren't fully professional? Since Série D is the lowest point in which the league is defined in Brazil, it does seem odd that there isn't a league where people can play part-time and still have a career outside football. Do players definitely have to be full-time footballers? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wages can vary. América-RN, for instance, has a R$ 200K monthly payroll (according to Veja) , same as Brusque, while the lowest payroll for a first division team is R$ 800K. While the Série D may be the lowest national league tier, the fact we have state leagues in our football pyramid make it hard to explain (and for foreigners to understand) the complexity of the Brazilian league systems. In all leagues, players have to be full-time footballers as long as their contract is up. The thing is, the lower level clubs often have short contracts for only the duration of the state leagues.

Example: The Campeonato Acreano is the Acre state league. By the rulebook, it claims to be fully pro. But only two or three teams have salaries around the national average. Those two or three teams are usually the ones that qualify for the Série D. On the other hand, the Campeonato Catarinense, which is based in a much richer state, have their clubs pay much more to their players than the Acre league.

This arcticle from Trivela kind of explains that. The Brazilian football system, by rule, is fully professional, which is absurd due to the large number of teams considered 'professional' in Brazil (around 800). The article says that things should be more like the English league system, but in reality, it's not. Horcoff (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There was a discussion earlier regarding the deletion of a player wiki profile named Asrar Rehbar who plays in the I-League 2nd Division for Bangalore United. The reason given was that I-League 2nd Division isn't included in the list of Professional Leagues. I would like to argue here that the I-League 2nd Division fulfils all the criteria of a professional league and the winner qualifies for the I-League. Players are on a long term contract earning basic income required in India. On the wiki page of I-League 2nd Division as well it's mentioned that it is a Professional League. It has been confirmed by the All India Football Federation as well. Could verify the same and add the league to the list so that the article doesn’t need to be deleted. Also not forgetting that Sevilla FC from La Liga have an exclusive partnership Tie-Up with Bangalore United who play in the I-League 2nd Division. Attaching the press release from Sevilla FC : ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide a reliable source to back up all of those statements? The fact that one of the clubs is partnered with Sevilla does not make the entire league fully professional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my two cents here. The 2nd Division is not fully-professional. The season isn't even half a season, a lot of the guys have second jobs. One club having a tie up doesn't make an entire league fully-professional. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ArsenalFan700- the last full season had 10-16 games for teams, and lasted 3 months. No way this is an FPL, and there would need to be very strong sourcing to prove this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Spiderone The I-League 2nd Division is usually held from January and goes on till April, before starting the 2nd Division every club also participates in their respective state leagues and have players on long term contracts, some players join these club during the January transfer window specially for the I-League 2nd Division. All the footballers associated to the 2nd Division Clubs are full time Footballers, rare case there might be someone is having an additional job. Due to the Covid this season had a short 2nd Division campaign to get a team for the I-League. The wiki page of the I-League 2nd Division also says its a Professional League, if its incorrect shouldn’t that be changed as well? Also there is no evidence or source which says I-League 2nd Division is not a professional league. The verification could be done if someone drops a mail to AIFF asking about the same. The State Leagues are considered as a Semi-Professional League, everything above it falls under the Professional Category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan700 I would request you to check with AIFF whether the I-League 2nd Division is falling under the fully professional league bracket, also rarely theres a club who build there team only for 2nd Divisions, most of the teams play throughout the season have players contracted for beyond 1 years. few clubs don't form the majority right. I know of atleast 12 Clubs who played the I-league 2nd Division last year before the Pandemic hit India, had players on multiple year contracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question, @Footballbrain01:. Do you have a source to say that the second division is a professional league because we can't add that league without a source stating that it's professional and no the one you provided doesn't count as their no mentions of that professionalism there. HawkAussie (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Footballbrain01:, the All India Football Federation is a primary source so that wouldn't even matter. What does matter is whether this is a league where every team is comprised of players who make their living playing football 'alone'. Just from looking at the 2019–20 season, ARA FC is definitely not fully-professional. The play a few months in the 2nd Division and then the state league which only lasts a few months. AU Rajasthan FC is the same. 2nd Division for a few months and then a non-existent state league. This isn't like Brazil where you have fully-fleshed out professional state leagues. And then you have a bunch of ISL reserve teams who are most certainly NOT fully-professional and are just youth players. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie: Clubs participating In the I – League 2 nd division are licenced by the AIFF, a licence which is only granted to them once they fulfil a certain criterion. The club licencing rules are available on the AIFF website for everyone to view. It is only once these rules are fulfilled by the club, that a license to compete in the I-League 2 nd Division is granted to them.

In order to be a “fully professional club” in accordance to the WiKi Project Football/Fully Professional Leagues - (A) virtually all adult players are paid a salary that they can live on and do not need additional sources of income (B) This salary should be a living wage in the nation where the league is based, and preferably around or above the average or median national wage. (C)  The professionalism of the league should also extend to sufficient contact hours, and facilities, equipment, expenses and other support as necessary to allow full-time pursuit of the sport. It is here that I would like to point out that if one goes through the licensing guidelines, you’d find that all the requirements of a fully professional league are in some way or form a requirement for all clubs competing in the I-League 2 nd Division to be granted a license. ALL CLUBS adhere to these guidelines, otherwise a license to compete in the competition simply wouldn’t be granted to them. What is to be understood here is that the I-League 2 nd Division is a part of the professional Indian football setup, wherein professional teams compete, that comprise of professional players. It is, as its Wikipedia page says – “The second tier of the Indian football league system”. Now the second tier of the Indian football league system surely can’t be semi-professional or amateur? I am attaching the link to the I-League 2 nd Division Club Licensing Rules on the AIFF website for reference. https://www.the-aiff.com/media/uploads/2019/12/AIFF-CLUB-LICENSING-CRITERIA-2nd-DIVISION-LEAGUE-2014-15.pdf

Why can't it be semi-professional? That PDF says that professional players must have a written contract but I can't see anything that says that the players need to be professional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It offers no indication to the professionalism of players themselves, and how much they earn. Also, why do you say that "the second tier of the Indian football league system surely can’t be semi-professional or amateur?". The first tier of the Lebanese football league system is semi-pro. The fact that it's in the Indian football league system doesn't mean much. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: As mentioned in the below article, the definition of a semi-pro league is "Semi-professional sports are sports in which athletes are not participating on a full-time basis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-professional_sports#:~:text=Semi%2Dprofessional%20sports%20are%20sports,a%20full%2Dtime%20professional%20athlete.

Now as I have stated before, apart from a few teams like ARA FC or AU Rajasthan whose states aren't upto to the mark in terms of Football, Can't be forming the majority right? there are exceptions everywhere. Apart from these teams, majority of the teams have players on over a year contract and players are earning monthly salary for upto 10-12 months as per the contract signed. Also to be a Professional League, the players should be full time Footballers right? Even in the case of ARA FC, the players are not part-time footballers, they are full time and when they are not under duty of ARA FC, they ply their trade in other clubs playing in State Leagues like Bangalore Super Division, Goa Pro League, Kerala Premier League, Calcutta Premier League. There are exceptions of players who are under the central government and play sports only under the Sports Quota. Even some of the ISL Players are having Central or State Government Jobs, so now this won't make ISL a semi professional league right? https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/indian-footballer-vineeth-gets-ker-govt-job

To play in the I-League 2nd Division, you need to fulfil the criteria mentioned such as having Youth Development, having youth teams playing in the official AIFF organised Leagues, written contracts with players as per prescribed by the AIFF, All the Clubs playing in I-League 2nd Division also needs to be on the Central Registration System of the AIFF and register themselves in the Competition Management System. The Clubs wanting to play the I-League 2nd Division also need to have an office space and have full time Secretarial staff, Chief Operating Officer, Finance Officer, Media Officer, Medical Doctor, Physiotherapy etc. All these positions should be filled with only persons having the required Qualifications. If these positions are not filled with qualified persons, the club won't be granted a license. Now could you bring to my notice whether all such criteria have to be followed by a Semi Pro League Clubs? Also the difference between a Pro League and Semi Pro League is usually vast. The difference between the I-league and 2nd Division is only that I-League follows 3+1 Foreigners rule and 2nd Division I-League has 2+1.

@Nehme1499: How much a player earns during the contract is always an undisclosed and the Club and Player are bounded by a Non-Disclosure Clause, also the player gets monthly salary and do not have to depend on a 9-5 Job to survive. In a Semi Pro League, players are usally 9-5 job workers who take leave from their jobs to play a match and matches are usually on weekends but in case of the I-League 2nd Division, it's a full time league and it's clearly mentioned in the player contract that a player cannot get into any other job during the course of the contract, not even commentary for matches unless granted written permission from the Club.

Please can you point us to the exact part of that document that states that the players are not allowed to get another job? Also, I can't find anywhere that says about them being full-time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: that's mentioned on the contract papers between the club and the player. 2nd Division I-League players are on full time basis and cannot indulge in anything else during the term of the contract. Could you point out any I-League 2nd Division player who has being working 9-5 while playing? I'm sure you aren't gonna find any.

But it's a 3 month contract, right? So that's not a fully professional league... GiantSnowman 10:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AIFF under Article 2 of the regulations on the status and transfer of players gives a specific definition for who is a “professional” and who is an “amateur”. It defines a professional as - A professional is a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs. It defines an amateur as - An amateur is a player who has signed the consent/renewal form with a club as provided under Annexe-3 of these Regulations and is not being paid any remuneration for his footballing activity or any sum which is more than the expenses he effectively incurs for his footballing activity. The AIFF under its 2 nd Division club licensing rules mandates clubs to have a “written contract with PROFESSIONAL players”. It specifically reads - All license applicants' professional players must have a written contract with the license applicant in accordance with the relevant provisions of the FIFA regulations for the status and transfer of players and shall incorporate all key provisions required by

the national law and FIFA, AFC and instructions. So, to be clear, a “professional” according to the AIFF is one who has a written contract with the club, and it is in this context that the word “professional” has been used in the licensing regulations as well. Someone on here said that these players just have three-month contracts, someone said they have 9-5 jobs. Are random statements like these supposed to be “credible sources” on here at Wikipedia? Also, just to put some more FACTS on the table, the AIFF requires the minimum length of a PROFESSIONAL PLAYERS CONTRACT to be “from the signing of the contact to the end of the season”. THESE ARE AIFF RULES. THIS IS THE REQUIREMENT SET BY AIFF FOR ALL DIVISONS. Also, will someone please tell me where in the definition of a “fully professional league” is it a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT THAT A SEASON SHOULD BE OF MINIMUM 6 MONTHS OR SEVEN MONTHS OR AN ENTIRE YEAR? Simply going by the definition of a fully professional league as per wiki, WHERE DOES THE I-LEAGUE 2 nd DIVISION NOT SATISFY EACH REQUIREMENT? Also, why hasn’t a deletion request been put against Wikipedia’s I-League 2 nd Division page for calling itself professional? I am the one putting the actual evidence here, while everyone else is just making random statements. I would urge everyone to please up the level of discourse. I am attaching the link to AIFF’s regulations on the status of transfer of players 2020. Please go through it. https://www.the-aiff.com/media/uploads/2020/07/AIFF-Regulations-on-the-Status-and-Transfer-of-Players-2020.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That document explicitly gives guidance for amateur players so clearly amateur players are permitted to play in the league. Therefore, how can we claim from that that every player must be professional? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AIFF's definition of professional isn't necessarily the definition of professional someone else might give. We need secondary sources, not primary, that discuss about the status of the league. Also, "A professional is a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs". That's not enough: the point here isn't the expenses related to playing football, rather of the person being to live off of football alone. I highly doubt everyone in the Indian second division just plays football, and doesn't have any other (part-time or full-time) job to support his family. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spiderone okay so if your unaware about how Football Player registration work in India, let me explain to you, there are 2 types of contract which are valid with the AIFF, a Professional Contract and an Amateur Contract. The AIFF allows clubs upto the State Leagues to sign players on amateur contracts, but when it comes to the I-League 2nd Division, only players having a Professional Contract registered in the Central Registration System are allowed to be registered for 2nd Division in the Competition Management System. So in Short players with amateur contracts are ineligible to play the I-League 2nd Division. In short an amateur player cannot play the 2nd Division I-League. No offence, but seems like most people here calling themselves Indian and say they know 2nd division isn't professional league, they seem to be European Football Fans who have absolutely no Idea how the Indian Club Football system works and just make assumptions in their mind and try to potray them as facts which is ridiculous. I have already said if you are unaware about the league, you are free to contact the All India Football federation and verify whatever I have said. The I-League 2nd Division fulfils every criteria of being called a fully professional league. Also does it say anywhere that a 6 or 5 month league cannot be a Professional League? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide evidence that amateur players aren't allowed to play in the 2nd division? That's neither stated nor implied in the source provided. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nehme1499 What do you mean by a secondary source? Isn’t AIFF the all important source and there are already documents which show that the league fulfils every criteria. Sadly AFC or FIFA do not release any document which shows all the Professional Leagues in every country, or else that could have been my secondary source. Also I have said it time and again stop making assumptions without any proof, can you show me any player in the I-League 2nd Division who was playing for a club whereas also working part time elsewhere to earn money? Just don't say things without factual support. Every Player under contract during the I-League 2nd Division has to be with the Club and train with them, Food, Accommodation being provided by the club and the player has to only play football for the club during that period. I hope I make myself clear and understandable. I just see you'll asking me for proofs and when i provide documents everyone just makes blatant assumptions of their own without facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just to further put some more FACTS on the table, the professional football department of FIFA manages a variety of programmes aimed at promoting “professionalisation” of the game around the world. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLUB LICENSING REGULATIONS forms a core part of that. If anyone on here would have ever gone through FIFA’s club licensing handbook, they would’ve known that the entire purpose of club licensing is to PROFESSIONALISE CLUBS AND LEAGUES. It uses principle-based criteria and sets minimum standards which clubs must satisfy in order to be licensed. Granting of the license itself is a mark that a particular club is professional and adheres to a particular standard set by FIFA.

https://www.fifa.com/who-we-are/legal/professional-football-department/club-licensing/

User:Nehme1499 says that the definition of a “professional” as given by AIFF isn’t necessarily the definition that someone else might give. I would advise them to please look at FIFA’s Regulations of Transfer of Players (February 2021 Edition) that under its Article 2 (Clause (1)) gives the EXACT SAME definition of a professional player as is in the AIFF document. I will attach the document for reference. I would further urge everyone on this discussion to please make fact-based arguments rather than opinion-based arguments. Just to put the nail in the coffin, I am also attaching the FIFA Professional Football Report 2019. Please check page 24 of the report, which clearly categorises the 2 nd Division as a “Main League”. The report lays out that there are 33 professional clubs in India – 11 from the I-League, 10 from the Super League, and 12 from the 2 nd Division (As of 2019). I hope this document settles the debate.

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-professional-football-report-2019.pdf?cloudid=jlr5corccbsef4n4brde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few points to raise here. Firstly, this document lists all 42 Scottish league clubs as being 'professional'. We know for a fact, however, that Alloa Athletic F.C. and Arbroath F.C. are semi-professional clubs (i.e. they have a significant number of part-time players). This is confirmed by multiple reliable sources as well as the clubs themselves. A few other interesting inclusions are the third tier Russian league, second tier Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland right down to even the third tier! Interestingly, Eerste Divisie appears to be excluded according to this document so that does certainly call into question the status of that league. Back to the topic at hand, the document explicitly states that there is no enforced minimum salary on Indian clubs. So, again, how do we know, from the sources provided, that footballers in the Indian 2nd Division are full-time players making a living from football? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footballbrain01, please make sure that you are signing your comments. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the document says that there is no minimum salary requirement for Indian clubs, but that is not just specifically the case for the 2 nd Division. That applies to the I-League and the ISL as well. So, are you telling me that there is no professional football in India? What is the logic behind this argument? Are you telling me that a document released by FIFA, the chief governing body of world football, which is titled as the “PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL REPORT”, which clearly states that there are 33 professional football clubs in India, 11 in the I-League, 10 in the ISL, and 12 in the 2 nd Division, is not credible source, but simply making unfounded claims like players have 9-5 jobs etc passes your test of credible sourcing? Is this the standard on here to bring an article down? And what is this illogical comparison being drawn with the Scottish league? Am I supposed to take FIFA’s word on whether a club is professional or not or am I or the readers at Wikipedia supposed to take your word? If you believe FIFA has put out something incorrect in their report in your humble opinion, why don’t you get in touch with them and ask them to rectify? Any which way, how is it even relevant in the Indian context whether there are 42 professional clubs in Scotland or 40? Till then, pardon me if an official document released by FIFA seems more credible than unfounded claims. And my friend, for the umpteenth time, 2 nd Division players are EXPLICITLY BARRED from any other employment during the course of their contract. You know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE PROFESSIONAL PLAYERS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A PROFESSIONAL PLAYER AS GIVEN BY AIFF, AFC, AND FIFA. This raises one very serious question, are articles on here deleted based on Wikipedia guidelines, or simply on the whims and fancies of some editors who are clearly not fully aware about the topic that is being discussed? Because no one on here is telling me what part of the definition of a “fully professional league” according to Wiki does the I-League 2 nd division not satisfy. Instead, random, uninformed and totally illogical arguments are being made. Rules, regulation, and guidelines that are passed by the AIFF under its constitution, which is a subordinate body of the AFC, which further is a subordinate body of FIFA, are being called “insufficient”, but “random statements” and “general feelings” and “high doubts” are considered to be sufficient enough to bring down someone else’s Wikipedia page? And since no one answered, I’ll ask again – Why isn’t the I-League 2 nd Division Wikipedia page being deleted for calling itself a professional league when a few editors on here so strongly feel it isn’t? Please, as responsible editors on here, I request you all to once again look at this holistically and logically. General sentiments, uninformed opinions and random untrue statements without any basis should not be the standard by which articles on here are deleted. Such low standards not just cause harm to the person whose page is being taken down, but it also infringes on the service that Wikipedia strives to provide to its readers. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide a source for your statement And my friend, for the umpteenth time, 2 nd Division players are EXPLICITLY BARRED from any other employment during the course of their contract.? Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spiderone, Have you ever seen a Player-Club contract published anywhere? its confidential and bounded by a Non-Disclosure Agreement. I think you should have that basic knowledge, also have you ever seen Barcelona or Chelsea put out a notice in public that our players cannot do any other work while on contract. but this same thing is mentioned on their contract paper. Since you are again and again saying that players are not playing full time, I have already asked you to show me proof of which players aren't playing full time while on contract. How do u expect to prove that players are playing full time for the club when they are doing it? but u can always prove that they aren't if u believe so with some facts. Otherwise it makes no sense and waste of money repeating and arguing on the same thing again. Also now don't tell me that wiki editors are bigger and have better knowledge than FIFA on which Leagues are professional and which not. Thank you. Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said that the players aren't full-time, I'm merely asking you to provide sources to support your statement that they are all full-time players. If you can't provide evidence then what makes you so sure that it's true and what makes your opinion more correct than anyone else's in this thread? Also, before we add this league, we need proof of [their] salary should be a living wage in the nation where the league is based, and preferably around or above the average or median national wage. The professionalism of the league should also extend to sufficient contact hours, and facilities, equipment, expenses and other support as necessary to allow full-time pursuit of the sport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user:Spiderone, instead of asking me to prove that these are full time players, can you prove to me otherwise that they are not? No. You have not provided one source that says that the I-League 2 nd Division comprises of part time players. Whereas on the other hand I have provided a document by FIFA that clearly says it’s professional league. It seems as though the only evidence that will satisfy your extremely -high standards is for me to publicly post a players’ contract on here which would be illegal. So I’m sorry about my reluctance to do that. Instead, I will try to break this down and make it as simple for you as I can. A professional according to FIFA, AFC, and AIFF is one who - is a player who has a written contract with a club and IS PAID MORE FOR HIS FOOTBALLING ACTIVITY THAN THE EXPENSES HE INCURRED. A 2 nd Division club in order to have a license to compete are MANDATED to have written contracts with ONLY PROFESSIONAL PLAYERS. Do you think FIFA, AFC, and AIFF are all idiots for using the words “professional players”? Have you ever heard of something called as a “part-time” professional footballer? Either you can be a part-time footballer, or you can be a professional footballer, how can you be both at the same time? Are you even making sense to yourself? Previously as well you asked a question - “That document explicitly gives guidance for amateur players so clearly amateur players are permitted to play in the league. Therefore, how can we claim from that that every player must be professional?” You said this in reference to the I-League 2 nd Division Licensing Guidelines. Firstly, how did you even glean that from what you read in that document? Secondly, In simple words, again, an amateur according to FIFA and AFC and AIFF is one who has signed the consent/renewal form with a club as provided under Annexe-3 of these Regulations and is NOT BEING PAID ANY REMUNERATION for his footballing activity or any sum which is more than the expenses he effectively incurs for his footballing activity. AMATUERS CANNOT COMPETE IN THE I LEAGUE 2 ND DIVISION BECAUSE IT IS MANDATORY FOR CLUBS TO HAVE WRITTEN CONTRACTS WITH PROFESSIONAL PLAYERS. AND WHO IS A PROFESSIONAL PLAYER? – ONE WHO HAS A WRITTEN CONTRACT AND IS PAID MORE FOR HIS FOOTBALLING ACTIVITY THAN THE EXPENSES HE INCURRED. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND IN THIS? EVERY SINGLE I – LEAGUE 2 ND DIVISION PLAYER IS A PROFESSIONAL GOING BY THE DEFINITION AS LAID DOWN BY FIFA, BUT IT SOMEHOW FAILS TO SATISFY YOUR UNREALISTIC STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE, THAT TOO WITHOUT YOU PROVIDING A SINGLE SOURCE TO BACK UP ANYTHING YOU’VE SAID ON HERE SO FAR. There is a publicly available document by FIFA that clearly states there are 33 PROFESSIONAL CLUBS in India, 12 of those from the 2 nd Division, BUT THAT FOR YOU IS NOT EVIDENCE ENOUGH. The report is titled “Professional Football Report” for crying out loud, and you’re still doubting the professionality of the league? Again, please go through the I-League 2nd Division Licensing Guidelines, and visit the FIFA website and check the purpose of such licensing as well. You will get your answer as to whether the 2 nd Division fulfils the requirements of a FPL according to Wiki Project/Fully Professional League guidelines. The same has also been discussed above, in excruciating detail in my posts. Also, please answer the specific questions I’ve asked on my previous posts – That why is a deletion request not being put against the I-League 2 nd Division Wikipedia page for calling itself “professional”, when you so clearly and so passionately believe it is not? Why is it that a document by FIFA, the world governing body of professional football, that EXPLICITELY STATES the 2 nd Division to be a “main league”, that there are 33 professional clubs in India, 12 of which are from the 2 nd Division, is not being considered credible, but claims being made out of thin air are considered sufficient to bring an article down? I frankly construe this as bullying, that certain editors on here fail to apply logic, have zero knowledge – not even basic knowledge on working of the industry, make sweeping untrue statements out of thin air, have not sourced ONE, not even ONE of their unfounded claims ON THIS ENTIRE THREAD, and are willy-nilly bringing articles down just because they feel so? A document by FIFA, on a discussion on football, is being said to be “not sufficient”. Instead of improving articles on here for readers, it seems you are more focused on deleting articles, that too unreasonably. What is trying to be achieved here? This is unbelievable. Appalling, honestly.

Also with your question about what makes my opinion more correct than anyone else in this thread is that I have been in this field of Indian Football for the past 3 years professionally and I have had access to Player Club Contracts ranging from the ISL, I-League, 2nd Division to the State Leagues to carry on my duties. This is the reason why I'm finding it frustrating and funny and people are making baseless and fact-less statements without having any actual experience and knowledge about the field and also upto the extend of overruling FIFA, whose statements and documents should be considered as the Final nail in the coffin. Footballbrain01 (talk • contribs)

@Footballbrain01: there is clear consensus here NOT to include the league. As such, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. GiantSnowman 10:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I want to put this to bed here. There are freaking Indian Super League reserve teams here and none of them are fully-professional since they are mainly youth players. That alone is enough, along with the league not passing WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few quotes from sportskeeda: "Pride Sports FC is a semi-professional football club", "salaries that have not been paid to staff and players of the club", "the players who had signed on a contract by match basis received payment for only the first two matches, while those on a monthly contractual agreement received only one month salary after several months of delay", "the lack of empathy and professionalism shown by the club's management shows the great deal of change that is required to make football a viable profession in India". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footballbrain01, I hope you know that I league 2nd division currently consists of reserves team of ISL clubs. Last week I went to see a match in Kerala Premier League and had a chat with one of the head coaches of a team. Last season, his team played in the I league 2nd division, so you can guess which is the team Im referring to. The coach said me that the complete wages of the players and other supporting staffs are being paid by himself during tne season. The club will only pay him back the money he spent including his salary after the season ends, when he shows a chart sheet consisting of full expenses. This is not actually a professional club actually would do when dealing with the club'a expenses. Some of your poinst are right, but still I believ I league 2nd division is not fully professional. I hope it will become so in 2025 as per the current roadmap of AIFF. And please dont be rude to other editors here. Most of them have plenty of experience and we make decisions here based on consensus. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Footballbrain01 is correct that the I-League 2nd Division will be treated as fully professional for the purposes of WP:GNG. If I state this with enough pomposity and entitlement I can simply ignore all the evidence against, while not providing any of my own. Please don't laugh, this is GiantSnowman's position on various English, Scottish, Dutch and Nordic leagues (see above). Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While initially funny, your POINTYness is becoming a bit boring now... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If a player made his debut in professional football in a cup instead in the league is notable? For example if a player make his debut in FA Cup or in Carabao Cup is notable? Dr Salvus (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: If both teams are from professional leagues, yes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: I know pages of players that the only professional presence is in the FA Cup against an amateur team. An example of such a footballer is Alfie Devine Dr Salvus (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: - Devine fails WP:NFOOTY but he does pass WP:GNG which is why he is considered notable. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Ukrainian First League and Ukrainian Second League (respectively the second and third tier) fully-pro? Can someone fluent in Ukrainian confirm what is being said in the source provided? I'm asking because Mohamed Dhou has been created on the basis of being a Ukrainian Second League player. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with the deletionism lately? Not only is there a plague of sending as many "not professional" players to AfD, are we now looking to remove as many leagues as possible from the list so we can send more players to AfD? Use your time to improve existing articles, instead of working so hard to delete as much as possible. --SuperJew (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are doubts about the professional status of leagues it is right they are raised here, and changes should be made as per consensus. Eldumpo (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eldumpo: Where are the doubts about the status of the league? The question was raised literally because Mohamed Dhou has been created on the basis of being a Ukrainian Second League player. --SuperJew (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should question the status of La Liga since Ilaix Moriba was created on the basis of being a La Liga player? --SuperJew (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article, if anything. But what I mean is that I really doubt he passes GNG: he "only" passes the requirement of playing in the Ukrainian third tier. So I wanted to make sure, since I can't read the source, that the league is indeed fully-pro. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew (talk · contribs) I don't see the problem. If your scenario pops up, La Liga would rapidly be proven as fully-professional. If someone has a doubt, bring it up and if it's fully-pro it will be proven. If not, hey, we fixed a potential error. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: These are the official regulations of the respective leagues, managed by the Professional Football League of Ukraine, saying that only professional teams consisting of professional players can participate. Here is the 2020/21 version, stating that only teams of professional clubs can participate (Article 12.1), registered players must be professionals (Article 17.8), the club might be disqualified if they register players who are not employed by the club (Article 17.44), the club might be disqualified if they field a player whose work contract with the club is invalid or has expired (Article 45.2). There is indeed a possibility for an amateur player to take part in these two leagues, but only as a goalkeeper when all available goalkeepers are injured or seriously ill outside transfer windows (Article 17.31): this is a new norm, it was not there in 2019/20, perhaps covid-related. However, I don't think this has ever happened in practice (I don't think any amateur goalkeeper played this season), and in any case Mohamed Dhou is clearly not an amateur goalkeeper — NickK (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: Still, what exactly is meant by "only professional teams consisting of professional players"? What specifically is meant by the word "professional"? Does it mean that players can live off of just playing in the Ukrainian Second League? Or that they just "get paid regularly" but are really part-time and have other jobs to survive? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: What a fully professional league means in this case? The regulations only specify that players must be employed by the club and must receive all related social security benefits. It is illegal for a club to field a player who is not employed by the club, and it is illegal to employ someone in Ukraine and pay them less than a minimum wage. Thus it is absolutely clear that all Second League players earn at least a minimum wage.

In practice Second League salaries are reported to be around 500 USD/month (roughly 13 kUAH), right in line with the national average salary of 12 kUAH. Not a great salary but one can definitely live on it. Here is another report saying that Second League players earn 10-15 kUAH/month and have to work daily, while top AAFU players can earn more (1000€ or 30 kUAH/month) and do not have to train daily: this basically confirms the border between pros and amateurs. Here is a 2016/17 report: the least paid Second League players earned 2 kUAH and the average was around 5kUAH (the minimum wage was at 1600 UAH at that time and the average salary was at 5 kUAH): once again, all were paid above the minimum wage and around the average salary

Thus from all points of view First and Second leagues are fully professional leagues. Not great leagues with top players but professional ones — NickK (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: Perfect, thanks. I've added a source to the list. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With UE Lleida season pages being purged, I was trying to work out when the top two Spanish leagues turned pro. I was trying to get a feel for that to help analyse the UE Lleida seasons, so I know which ones can be kept and which ones should go. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't what you asked, but I doubted Liga Portugal 2's credentials, given some teams have 'stadiums' with capacities under 2,000. It turns out they are currently (just about) "fully professional" as reading between the lines they are subsidised by the gambling industry: User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Portuguese football Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear now that clubs in the C-League are fully professional as reported here and here. There seems to be many more foreign imports to the league now as well with some British guys there also and players like Marcus Haber, which seems to point at it being fully professional now. Cam (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source says "Each club in the league is allowed five non-Cambodian players on its roster and only three of the five are able to play in any given match" - so I imagine the foreign players are professionals, but what about the local players? GiantSnowman 11:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little information on Cambodia in the latest FIFA report (page 20). Please note that they use a much more lenient definition of 'professional' than we do. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bias here is very much against non-white, Western leagues Cam, see for example above Bhutan, India etc. I don't fancy your chances of getting this league added to list, even if it is professional. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bring back Daz Sampson: the bias is against leagues that are not fully professional, I think you'll find. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet some leagues which have been shown to be less than "fully professional" are still on the list. Go figure! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Daz Sampson (talk · contribs) Neither the Bhutan and Indian 2nd Division were proven as fully-professional though. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure up until a few weeks ago, this league was classed as fully professional, even if its Northern Irish equivalent was not. Can someone confirm if it has moved list, and if so, why? Many thanks. --OGBC1992 (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been on the list as fully-pro AFAIK - and it certainly has not been changed recently. GiantSnowman 14:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost positive it was - but I'm still a bit of a novice, especially in being able to search through edit history to see if particular lines have changed. Appreciate the help though!--OGBC1992 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page, there is a search box. If you search for 'Ireland', you will see numerous discussions about whether this league should be included. Consensus has leaned towards it not meeting the criteria at WP:FPL. Hopefully, it will make the list someday. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the Russian Premier League being regarded as fully-pro, is it assumed that its predecessor (the Soviet Top League) is also fully-pro? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik and BlameRuiner: pinging Russian speakers. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I don't speak Russian. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I have no particular insight with respect to the Soviet League. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Ah oops sorry, I thought you knew Russian from the above discussion about the Belarusian League (I didn't catch the fact that you used a translator). Still, do you know anyone who might help? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100% yes. Although finding precise regulation documents may be a bit tough, even in Russian... And there is a nuance. Until some point in late 80s most players were most likely technically employed by whichever organization owned the club: the army (CSKA and various SKA), police (Dynamo), rail (Lokomotiv), plants (Torpedo) and so on, but that was only on paper. The players were paid for football and football only. This was in fact true for most of Eastern Bloc nations and used as loophole to field full strength national teams for Olympics in the amateur-era. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlameRuiner: Interesting. Do you think it's possible to find an article or document stating that footballers in the Soviet Top League lived off of football alone? The league would certainly be a very important addition to the list if so. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Soviet Top League was the last league in the top three European leagues not from Spain, England, Italy, Germany, or France (1982–1988) and was in second place during the English European ban. I'm not sure if it was "fully pro," but we should definitely be endeavouring to include these footballers, and narrowing down the time frame for significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn’t be looking to encourage a ‘free pass’ for any players from a league without any ‘fully pro’ sourcing. I would imagine a number of Soviet league players were ‘paid’, but don’t have any sources. In the absence of direct FPL evidence then we still have GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am wondering can it be reviewed that the League of Ireland guidelines can be updated and be included as a professional league? The Irish Government have stated this in February 2021, as it allowed the league to resume despite the Covid-19 restrictions as it was deemed a 'professional league'. [12] I believe the league is being unfairly treated by current wiki guidelines. comment added by Kilcock123 (talk • 20:34,26 March 2021 (UTC)

What sources are there that every player in the league (or near enough) gets a full-time wage from their clubs? GiantSnowman 20:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Premier Division is completely professional (though not all clubs are full-time and some players do have jobs outside of the game)" - said Stephen McGuinness of players’ union, the PFAI, February 2021. Finn Harps are the club who are part time in the league. The majority of players are on full time wages from their clubs. |a comment added by Kilcock123 (talk • 22:04,26 March 2021 (UTC)

Then the league is not "fully-pro" and should not be included. GiantSnowman 22:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What classifies as 'near enough' then? comment added by Kilcock123 (talk • 22:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A mere handful of players, not an entire team. GiantSnowman 07:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]