Isn't Primera B Nacional Argentina (effectively 2nd division), also fully professional and therefore missing from the list, unless I'm mistaken? -- Alexf⁴² 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of debate going on as to the professionalism of the Israeli second tier and third tier. The leagues are being restructured at the end of this year and the Liga Artzit will no longer be a fully professional league. Let´s stop the edit wars and have a proper discussion. Second, there needs to be corrections made as to the history of Israeli football. The Premier League did not always exist, the Liga Leumit was the top tier before it. As such, players who played then should not be deleted either. SpeechFreedom (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this FIFA document (which was published in January), the top two leagues are professional. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't re-add this as a source, because there is nothing on that page about leagues being fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone confirm where the wording on this article's page for defining a professional league has come from, as it has added detail to the original (master) guidance at WP:ATHLETE. Has there been a past discussion on this point? Else I would suggest the wording on this page is changed to match that at Athlete. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty standard definition of what the professional level of football is - all the players are full-time footballers, not part-timers with jobs outside football. I don't see why it would be controversial. Since you seem to disagree with it, what would you consider to be the definition of a fully professional league? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if one footballer in a league is not paid then the league is not fully professional, and thus all players in the league would fail ATH? My comment also relates to how some people in AfD's link talk about WP:ATH to this page, whereas I would argue to do that the wording on this page should be as ATH. Also, for how many leagues is there a source that all players are fully paid? Eldumpo (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the list stands at the moment, we have 24 sources for fully-pro leagues, plus 3 more for semi-pro leagues. Obviously this list is still in progress. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 21:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how many of the sources confirm that 'all first team players, in all teams composing the league, are known to be contracted in a full-time basis.' Eldumpo (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not proposing any other definition. Fully professional is a reasonable shorthand for saying that the league doesn't have jobbing (sh)amateurs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition at ATH is a slightly separate matter. I'm saying that the Pro Leagues page should have the same guidance/definition, but as it stands I can't see why people say a player fails ATH as based on the current wording at Pro Lges, no one would pass it. Eldumpo (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nonsense. For instance, the Scottish First Division has always been conveniently ignored for the purposes of WP:ATHLETE even though there is no guarantee of teams in it being fully professional. The same obvious applies to historical teams. The fact is that this is an arbitary guideline which isn't recognised outwith this particular WikiProject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - yes, that was where I was coming from, or at least wanted to understand first if there was a previous discussion. Eldumpo (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eldumpo, what alternative to the current guideline would you propose? From your comments at recent AfDs, you clearly regard anyone playing in the top level of any European league system as sufficiently notable, which is fair enough, but what about lower levels? England's Football League Championship is clearly a much "bigger" league than the top divisions of most other European countries, and even Football League Two is "bigger" than the top flights of countries like Iceland and Latvia...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see ATH amended to maybe say something like 'mostly professional' or if 'fully professional' remains it should be more clearly defined - as discussed, I think the requirement for every player to be pro is extreme, why not just apply it to every club? Or there should be a formal link from the main ATH guidance to where there is more detail on what exactly this means for particular sports. However, that is a bigger issue really, for the present I would like to amend the wording on the definition part of this article's page to be the same as the current ATH wording, and not the extra text that has been added. Eldumpo (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem would then be defining "mostly". This season the Conference National will probably have about six teams out of 24 who are not full-time - is 75% full-time pros enough to be considered "mostly professional"? Some would probably say yes but others no...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a recent read through the ATH talk page it would seem that quite a bit of work would be needed to get a consensus on any change there. However, I have not seen within this discussion any specific disagreement to changing this article's wording in-keeping with ATH and thus this is something I am shortly intending to do. Eldumpo (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But what does full-time fooballers mean? There are very high level leagues that have the odd player, who also has a part-time job, particularly during the off-season, to make ends meet; or who brings in a part-timer for a game or two occasionally. Yet we've always turned a blind eye to that. Surely fully professional should mean that all players are significantly compensated; not necessarily that none are moonlighting. And even then, if a league is mostly composed of fully-professional teams ...? BTW, where is this 'list' to which people refer? Nfitz (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to my earlier posting today (see above) I have just come across the sub-page List of professional sports leagues#Football: Assocation Football which lists professional sports leagues. There seems to be no logic in having 2 separate sections essentially trying to compile the same information, and it is perhaps not surprising that the contents of both lists are not the same. However there is virtually no definition on that article at present of exactly how a 'professional sports league' is defined. Rather than having our own sub-category for football would it not actually be better to delete this Wiki Football page and concentrate on the master location where all sports are listed? Eldumpo (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed ... perhaps a redirect is in order. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one objects to this - if no, I'll implement. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I object; this list is actually sourced (in places), and has the advantage of also listing leagues which are not fully-professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But those sources that do exist do not confirm the 'extreme' definition on the page (a definition that is not the same as ATH). Having said that, would keeping the page (but with the definition changed to ATH as my original suggestion) be best - but also with a link to the List of professional leagues? As a general point I would say a normal article is a better source than an informal Wiki page, albeit I except some work has gone into the page, and of course it's not ideal for good pages to disappear when people have put hard work into them. Eldumpo (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a question. What does one mean by "contracted in a full-time basis." There are leagues that are without a shadow-of-a-doubt professional where the players are contracted only for part of the year (from the beginning of training to the end of the season). Is that full-time? Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources suggest that it is professional. I can vouch for 80% of the clubs but I am sure some of the newly promoted clubs have a mixture of semi pro and pro players. discuss!

• League feels the pinch and The eircom League of Ireland is the professional football league of Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this story, Drogheda have gone part-time. As for the other teams, I think most of them are fully-professional. I'll look into it more when I have the time. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just found this from the BBC - a league that over the past several years transformed itself from a semi-professional league to a fully professional one.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've found so far:

Although it is trying, the league is far from being fully professional at the moment. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if these teams were fully pro last season and therefore the league was fully pro last season does that mean that players that appeared last season are notable and players that have only played this season arnt?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Dundalk, Galway, Sligo and St Pat's have been semi-pro for a while, if not always. I've recently noticed that the BBC aren't always accurate in their reporting. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true, Sligo Rovers are predominantly pro still and were fully pro last year. St. Pats were fully pro until very recently as were Galway. Dundalk are newly promoted.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So now that we have got proof that the league is indeed fully professional, why are we still tryind to AfD LOI players - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David O'Connor (footballer). Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, there is no proof. Shamrock are semi-pro, and it has been pointed out that two clubs (St Pats and Galway) are also semi-pro (having been fully pro in the past). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, there is no evidence of all the FAI Premier League clubs being fully-pro, ergo the league is not fully professional in itself. --Angelo (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what is being proposed is that Irish socer players are not notable, it is the highest standard that can be reached in soccer in Ireland which should be notable IMO. WP:ATHLETE is flawed in this case. BigDunc^Talk 14:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't defendable. Would you say that an Andorran player playing in the top division of the Andorran league was notable under WP:ATHLETE? The guideline is pretty clear - you have to play in a professional competition, or if you can't, then you have to play in the highest possible amateur level. Semi-professional (or amateur) football leagues clearly aren't the highest possible level, since it is possible for the player to be selected for the national team, or for them to move to a professional league. We have to agree on if and when the League of Ireland was professional. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The BBC Article made it clear they were fully pro. They seem more fully pro than many leagues listed. CSL players routinely hold other jobs, but they are listed as fully pro. There's a difference between a team being professional; and paying salaries that would deter people from holding other jobs. Nfitz (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is clear is that the BBC article made a mistake, as they are prone to do from time to time (I recently wrote in to correct them after they claimed there were only 12 Arab members of the Knesset), as they clearly overlooked the fact that not all clubs are fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It all depends on how you define fully professional. If your defining CSL as fully professional, how can you possible exclude LOI? Nfitz (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is CSL? And Number 57 maybe you found a mistake before with the BBC but you have provided no evidence that this is in fact a mistake. BigDunc^Talk 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shamrock Rover's website confirms that they are in fact semi-professional,[5] so I think that is conclusive proof that the BBC is wrong. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. Shams are usually professional - however, they have just gone through a long period without a home ground and are financially "fucked" after getting a new ground and had to switch to part time after the administrators stepped in.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes really - the BBC article was written after the Shamrock article, and is also contradicted by another BBC article written a week after the other one which states that Shamrock are part time. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Canadian Soccer League (2006–present) ... why are we holding Ireland to a much higher standard than many of the other leagues? Nfitz (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Which players in that league have been kept at an afd because of their participation in that league? I can't recall reading one. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nor can I ... so why is it there? Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• From reading the source that was used, it appears that they define "professional" like how user:Eldumpo is proposing below, which would include players on very low (part-time) wages. One of the teams in the league appears to be a Toronto F.C. reserve team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If and when

I have two questions with regards this technicalities of this issue. Let see if some of the tossers stalwarts from the "footy project elite" can answer them.

• A. What constitutes a fully professional league.
• B. If one club has one semi professional player does that make all players in that league semi professional?
• C. If a league is fully professional in say season 2005 and semi professional in season 1999 do the players that participated in the 2005 season pass notability and those from 1999 not? --Vintagekits (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placing insults to one side....

• A. a fully professional league is where the vast majority (ie 99%+) of players have their primary job as a football player, which is their career. Fully professional players aren't butchers, bricklayers or candlestick makers who also play football on the side to supplement their income;
• B. no, most youth players at professional clubs continue to study while they train with a club. eg from back in the day, Billy McNeill played for Celtic at 18, but didn't become a full professional until he was 21;
• C. yes, that would be correct. Same applies if a league restructures - the Scottish First Division has recently been fully professional, but the second level of Scottish football wasn't fully professional when there were only two leagues in the Scottish Football League, and all the professional clubs were in the top division. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A. So is that 99%+ ruling something you have come up with or something that is a little more concrete? Is that something you have implamented elsewhere or just reserved for Irish leagues?
• B. Again, although it is alighed to point A, if one club, say a newly promoted club, have five or six players out of a squad of fifteen players which were semi pro would that make the players in the whole league non notable on that basis?
• C. So we are agreed that a league can be acknowledged as fully pro and then semi pro on a season by season basis?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A: "Ruling"? I'm not a judge, we are trying to reach some sort of consensus - there is nothing more concrete. The guideline says that for an athlete to be notable they have to participated in a fully professional competition. Now, this is easy for individual sports like tennis or golf - if you take part in a major tour (eg PGA Tour), you're professional. Same goes for even the liks of cricket or rugby, there is a pretty clear division between what is fully professional (eg Magners League) and what isn't (eg1 Scottish club rugby outside the two pro teams, eg2 Irish club rugby outside the provincial teams).

The League of Ireland is an unusual situation. For most of its history it clearly wasn't fully professional, eg Bohemians were amateur until the 1960s and were semi-pro for a while after then, but more recently money has come into the game and it has for the most part gone professional (although it seems to be toiling now). I think there is a danger of recentism and accepting articles from earlier periods because the league was (briefly?) professional in recent times. To answer the second point, I have frequently nominated Scottish players for deletion because they haven't played at a professional level (eg1 Daniel Galbraith (footballer) or eg2 Jordan Cropley right now). It is much easier to prove whether this is the case or not.

• B: I would tend to accept that case, but we would need some sort of consensus on that. In that situation it is clear that the club is intending most (or all) of its first team to be professionals, while supplementing the squad with part-timers.
• C: Of course I agree with that. It looks very likely that the Scottish First Division will go largely part-time soon, many of the clubs don't have the crowds (and resulting revenue) needed to sustain professional football. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no existing Wiki definition of what a 'fully professional league' is, although note that the term used at WP:ATH uses the slightly different wording - 'competed at the fully professional level of a sport'. My preference (given the current wording) is to adopt an approach whereby all clubs in the league have to pay some of their players i.e. this conforms to the wording as it's fully professional - all clubs are playing some money to the players. Your points B & C on one semi-pro and historical issues illustrate to me why the approach at present is not practical or fair. Eldumpo (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work. To give an extreme example, East Stirlingshire F.C. gained some notoriety a few years ago for paying their (part-time) players £10 per week. By your definition they would have been professional! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it wouldn't work though, do you just mean that too many 'non-notable' players would be added? ATH is just a guideline though and so any entries would still need to have some notability and references. Occasionally a really low-ranked player might slip through, but wouldn't that be better than all these discussions? Eldumpo (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? In Italy all teams pay money to their players, even in Terza Categoria. It is called "rimborso spese" (expense reimbursement) in Italian language, and it is money being paid by the clubs. Are therefore all teams affiliated to the Italian federation professional? I doubt it. --Angelo (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only expenses reimbursement that's not the same as 'getting paid', but I take your point. Is an another approach to say that if an individual is paid to play then it's acceptable, rather than basing it on the league? Eldumpo (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They call it 'reimbursement', but actually it is not a reimbursement - surely not for Serie D clubs, where some of their players receive 'reimbursements' even higher than salaries of several Lega Pro Seconda Divisione players. The fact individuals are paid is irrelevant; the kind of agreement they have with the club (as a full-time job or not) is. --Angelo (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys this is an emotive subject and I can see why. There are alot of ppl trying to create articles for the wiki on individual players. This takes time and effort and is very frustrating to see them getting deleted on what I perceive to be a technicality. For the likes of Derry, Bohemians, Cork City, and in the past Sligo Rovers, Galway United, Shelbourne etc. these have been fully professional football teams and a full time pro that played for any of those sides at those times was obviously "playing at the fully professional level of their sport". This "technicality" that every player of every team must be proven to be fully professional is ridiculous. (By the way Dundalk went fully pro when they were promoted - ppl can hold down two jobs).

The other point that I want to make is that WP:ATH is a guideline. WP:SPIRIT is another guideline too, that is all too often forgotten. I feel that the spirit of WP:ATH is to prevent non-constructive wiki-ing. It prevents ppl slagging off their team mates in their local junior team, or putting up self praise articles about themselves after they get a hat-trick in the U12's local highschool league. It should not be used to prevent the creation of a knowledge base on Irish football players which on all evidence would be and is very useful! I have seen many of the articles that I have written used in match day programs and player profiles before they got deleted off the wiki. DavidDublin (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPIRIT is an essay, actually. What you define a "technicality" is actually a rule of thumb that is described by WP:ATHLETE. In addition, the fact matchday programs have to rely on Wikipedia articles is not an argument against deletion; Wikipedia is not a primary source, as you probably know, and I might also claim they are using Wikipedia because they fail to find any other more reliable source elsewhere (it is just my opinion, of course, but it might be quite true as far as I know). --Angelo (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what WP:ATH states: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which the vast majority of Premier League of Ireland players would satisfy. There is no stipulation that every player in the League that they play in should be professional. DavidDublin (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they wouldn't. "level" refers to the division or league a club is in, not the club itself. For instance, there may be a club in the Conference North that remains fully-professional; however, the level at which the club plays (6th tier) is not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can get into semantics over the definition of "level" if you want. But at the end of the day WP:ATH is a guideline see WP:GUIDELINES. You're taking an extremely inflexible interpretation of the WP:ATH guideline. I'm not saying to ignore the guideline but I believe that many Irish Football players have reached a "level" that merit a wiki page for ATHELETIC notability (not general notability, after all they are athletes and notable for nothing other than that). I believe the interpretation taken on Athletic notability is too inflexible, when you consider that most of the players in the League of Ireland that survive AfD it's for General Notability but not Athletic Notability when generally they are only notable for being athletes. This to me indicates that there has been a fair bit of harshness in the interpretation of WP:ATH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is WP:ATHLETE based on though? The point about professional level is that the player himself not only has to be professional, but his competitors also need to be professional. For instance, a golf club teaching professional would not be notable, but a golfer competing on the PGA Tour would be notable. Therefore we need to establish that the competition as a whole is professional, not just that one player or his club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take the example of the PGA Golfer. He also competes frequently in lesser competitions for example the Irish Open which is open to amateur golfers too, indeed an amateur golfer won it this year! Does that mean the example PGA golfer's level is no longer fully pro anymore ? There is no doubt that a player for Bohemians will play in several contests between fully professional teams this season, including their match coming up against Red Bull Salzburg. On the face of it, they are playing at a fully professional level. It's just my opinion that the inflexible application of WP:ATH is going against the spirit of the guideline. I've made my point now and that's all I will say. I'm aware the more I type, the ppl opposing me will begin to stick their heals in more and instead of changing opinions I'll force them to be more set in their ways and to defend their side more staunchly. Basically, I'm not going to change minds that are already made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a case where we apply common sense. Everyone knows that the Open Championship is a notable professional event, but the organisers so happen to reserve spaces for amateur champions and qualifying places. But in the Irish League it is fairly clear that there are semi-professional clubs regularly participating. We do have to draw the line somewhere. In the case that you're talking about where Bohemians will soon play a European match against another professional side, then the players in that match would pass WP:ATHLETE, in the same way that a player with a Scottish or English club who hadn't played a league match would become notable (eg Darren Fletcher made his Man Utd debut in the Champions League). It would be up to whoever was contributing to the article to reference that appearance, then the article would not be in dispute. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reasonable reply Jmorrison. I can agree with that. DavidDublin (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David - thanks for the above input. I agree with what you say and it gets to the heart of the issue. However I would hope that you do contribute further to the debate and to individual AfD's (as you feel appropriate). I would like to clarify though that 'competed at the fully professional level' is not the same as saying the player has to be solely paid by his club and not be able to accept other paid work (this is not proveable for all players in any league anyway). There also has to be some reasonableness as to when a league (or indeed a cup) is effectively fully-pro bar a small number of clubs say.Eldumpo (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

• These sources and others above seems to discuss the level of professionalism within the league - amateur administration will not be tolerated in what is now a largely professional league - RTE, A few years ago the aim was to have a full-time professional league, but this season only Bohemians, Dundalk, Derry City and Sligo Rovers can be considered full-time, while Cork and St Patrick's Athletic will have a mix of professionals and part-timers - World Soccer. At this juncture last year, we were speaking of a league where the part-time clubs were about to be left behind. For Shamrock Rovers, Bray, UCD and Cobh it would be a struggle in a league where everyone else was doing it for a living. - The Irish Independent and the Premier Division has embraced a largely professional ethos and the majority of leading players are no longer rushing from offices, factories and appointments to make training and kick-offs, the First is not so lucky. - RTE

• From the discussion above it looks like we have come to some sort of an agreement that the FAI Premier Division is not fully professional this season but that over that past few years that it was and that it slips in and out fo full professional, mostly professional and part time dependant on the particular season, the ecomonic climate and the teams that have been promoted or relegated. Would we all agree that that is fair to say?

• Also we seem to agree that players who played in Eurpoean competition achieve professional status - is that fair to say. Would that also apply to those who have participated in the Setanta Cup? Thoughts and comments please.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the solution would be to try and bring WP:FOOTYN round for debate again. This would have meant that any player playing for a fully-professional club was notable, regardless of its league. I was supportive of this guideline, but it was not accepted by the wider community, hence being forced to stick with WP:ATHLETE
  • Regarding playing in Europe as conferring notability, I think we would be opening a can of worms - some editors have tried to use this for justifying keeping articles on players from semi-professional clubs (such as ones from the Faroes). пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think playing in Europe is okay as long as the match is clearly between two professional clubs, it's the same principle as saying a match between two professional clubs in a domestic cup is enough for WP:ATHLETE. I don't think the Setanta Cup would help as you are talking there about a mixture of clubs - from memory, Linfield are the only fully pro team in the north. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think all players who have competed in Champions Lge/Europa Lge should be included, but in any case I would expect all of these teams to pay their players. Eldumpo (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can all agree there is a world of difference between a semi-professional team from the Faroes, and a part-time fully-professional team from Ireland. Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "part-time fully-professional", I'm sorry, that's nonsense. If a club is part-time, which means that their players only train twice a week and they hold down regular jobs, they are a semi-professional club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, "fully professional" is a synonym for "full-time footballer" and there is clearly no such thing as a part-time full-time footballer. There clearly isn't a world of difference between players from the Faroes who hold down day jobs and train a few evenings a week and players from Northern Ireland who hold down day jobs and train a few evenings a week, or at least if there is then I'm really struggling to see it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, never heard of a part-time fully-professional player or team. I think I know what you are trying to say - i.e. the club has a full time set up with full time paid groundsmen, chairman, secretary, managers etc - but with some/all of the players on semi pro contracts.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is, of course, what "semi-professional" already means.

The simple fact is that when it comes to semi-pro teams and players, we're far better going by the GNG than by trying to draw a firm line. If we can find multiple, independent reliable secondary sources then we can cover things, and if we can't then we can't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're on the right lines there except it would need an agreed term for 'semi-pro' etc, although I guess it's academic unless ATH changes. Eldumpo (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • I reference you back to the question I asked above in then, that no one could answer. Nfitz (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which question? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The last entry in WT:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Definition of Fully Pro League. Surely a team is either professional or amateur. If some players are professional and some are amateur it is semi-pro. If all players are professional it is fully-professional. Full-time and part-time are a different issues ... and for an individual player, he is either professional or not ... surely for an individual (rather than a team) to be partly professional is as impossible as being partly pregnant! Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is getting ridiculous comparing professional football to some thing with no relevance what so ever - it's not all black and white, which is what why we're discussing the grey areas. The long and short of it is, not paid = amateur (Sunday league/park football), paid on part-time basis = semi-professional, paid on a full-time basis = fully-professional. I'm not getting involved with this farcical discussion from here on. --Jimbo^[online] 23:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't agree with that. If someone is holding down a normal 9-5 job and then trains on weeknights and plays a match on a weekend, he/she is not a full professional at their sport. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (to Jmorrison post) - what about clubs which have some 'full-time' players, or indeed those that have one player who is not 'fully pro'. What if there is only one such player in the whole of the league! (not that there would be sources for this). Eldumpo (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I answered that earlier. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't see where you've answered the 'full-time' question? Your post that I was responding to was about 'part-time' clubs, where players only train a few times a week (with the implication that they also need another job). But what about 'semi-pro' clubs where some players are 'fully-pro'. Eldumpo (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • A player is not fully-pro or semi-pro. What does that mean? If you are contracted with an employer, you can have either a full-time or a part-time contract. Full professional is something that can apply to the club (when all of their senior footballers are contracted in a full-time basis), or leagues (where all of the composing teams are fully professional). Period. --Angelo (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • In my posts above I am generally using quote marks to indicate that the terms are not fully defined or sourced and are up for interpretation so I don't see how you can realistically add 'Period' at the end of your post? In English football the general terms full and semi-pro are often used, but clearly to pin down definitions is difficult (and goes to the heart of my concerns with the wording). What is the perceived definition of full and part time contracts? Do all clubs stipulate weekly hours on their player contracts or are some effectively time-charge? What if a player is paid for what is deemed to be a 'full time' contract but the wages are quite low and he supplements it by other means? Eldumpo (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of England, I always thought that European countries only had one or two professional leagues and the rest were semi-professional or amateure and normally, they are a national leagues (as oppose to being regional). In Spain, the Primera División and Segunda División were professional, the Segunda División B and the Tercera División were semi-professional and all leagues below the Tercera were amateure. the Italian Serie A & B were pro, Serie C1 & C2 were semi-pro, and Serie D and below were amateure. Guerin Sportivo and a few of the Italian sports papers had always called Serie C amateure. I think European countries do not have non-EU players below the professional leagues. Spain & Italy had similiar rules that clubs relegated from the 2nd level were allow to have one non-EU player for one season.

Germany were very like the Netherlands, the two Bundesligen were professional and everyone else were amateure. The creation of the modern-day Regionallegen was semi-pro, a mixure of relegated pros and promoted amateures. I think there was a rule that a Regionalliga club can only field three contract amateures or professional players (in cases where the club involved was a reserve team for professional club). In the 3.Liga, the reserve teams are supposed to be amateure. Why is this league considered pro? Raul17 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Serie C, can you please provide these sources? Just in case you don't know, Serie C is now called Lega Pro (the name says it all), the league is now called Lega Italiana Calcio Professionistico, and was called Lega Professionisti Serie C until a couple of years ago (again, names say it all). Notably, Serie C is fully professional since October 14, 1980, as said by this source [6]. --Angelo (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the German leagues, the 3rd Liga article seems to indicate that this league is fully professional and the Regionalliga below it is indeed semi-pro, but it's not entirely clear. I'll see if I can find some sources to clarify this. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 06:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. According to this source, the 3.Liga is fully professional. A number of Regionalliga clubs are also fully professional, but it seems it's mostly semi-pro. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.canadiansoccerleague.ca/page.php?page_id=7741 this league is professional, but is listed here as not fully professional. What is the source for this? --Ilion2 (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd one. Canada was added to the fully-pro list back in January, but recently removed with no sources given. I've reverted this, complete with two sources stating its fully-pro status. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't get it. This league - the fifth level of Canadian Soccer - is all part-time players who have other jobs. Sure, it's fully professional; as all players are compensated for playing. But it's a league where you'd be surprised if you have 200 people watching the game. Wives and family. Yet the much more serious Irish league is removed here as being fully professional. What gives? I'm not hugely against it being listed - but in comparision to LOI? Is there some anti-Irish bent to that one being removed? Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Canadian Soccer League (2006–present) this league is level 2. --Ilion2 (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the opening paragraph, its the top-level league. FAO Nfitz: just because a player gets paid, it doesn't make them professional. English non-league players get a small game fee, but that doesn't make them professional. If they don't get paid a living wage and have a full time occupation outside of football, they are only part-time (semi professional) players. We have sources stating that the Canadian top flight is fully professional (and is therefore a fully professional league), and likewise we have sources which show that a fair proportion of Irish clubs are part-timers, therefore the LoI is not a fully pro league. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strange, in the infobox the Levels on pyramid is level 2. --Ilion2 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ??? How can it be level 2 team, when one team is an [team for a Canadian MLS team], and another is a reserve team for a Canadian USL-1 team. The quality is clearly below that of USL-2. Canadian and American soccer have a single pyramid. At best they are level 4, and with several Canadian teams in USL-PDL, I's think that they are level 5. However, Wikipedia disagrees with me Canadian soccer pyramid and places them at the third level (because there are currently not Canadian teams active in the USL-2 and they place the 7 USL-PDL teams below CSL. Either way they are certainly not at the top level on the pyramid! Either way, anyone who claims that CSL should be on the list of fully-professional teams, when the LOI games aren't, clearly haven't witnessed a CSL game! Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure USL-1 and USL-2 should be listed as being part of the Canadian system as we have have the same situation here in Wales. According to Welsh football league system article, the Welsh Premier League is listed as the top tier, but there are a few clubs (Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Merthyr) who compete at a higher level in the English leagues. The Welsh article is correct as there is no direct promotion / relegation between the Welsh Premier League and the English leagues, and unless the champions of the Canadian Premier League are directly promoted to the US leagues, the US leagues shouldn't be listed as part of the Canadian pyramid. However, regardless of whether the CSL is the top or the third level league in the country, I have just found a report by the Canadian FA which does confirm what Nfitz is saying by explicitly stating that there has been no professional league since 1992 and that there are only 3 pro clubs in the country (page 4, 3rd paragraph). Even though this contradicts wildly with the other two sources, this source does seem to be more reliable and therefore I'm happy to concede I was wrong on this matter. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • To be fair, I don't see that the Welsh situation is comparable. In Wales, the Football Association of Wales seems to always be in a state of quasi-war with the Welsh teams who play in the English leagues; and FAW don't let them play in the Welsh Cup. However, in Canada, the Canadian Soccer Association has been very supportive of the MLS and USL teams ... to the point where the top championship in Canada - the Canadian Championship - is run by CSA and only let's the MLS and USL teams play. CSA encourages Canadian teams to play in USL and MLS, while FAW discourages teams from playing in the English leagues. Nfitz (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We did have the FAW Premier Cup which was open to teams in the English league, but it didn't have any bearing on European qualification. Apart from that you're right, there has never been the cosy relationship here as there appears to be in Canada. But anyway, it kinda misses the question I was trying to ask - is there direct promotion/relegation between the Canadian league and the US league? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no direct promotion or relegation in any of the Canadian or US leagues we've been discussing. Nfitz (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriot First Division is listed here as not professional since this [7] edit. Even the Cypriot Second Division claims to be professional, so should be the first division. In fr:Championnat de Chypre de football this league is listed as professional league. --Ilion2 (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not sourced then we can't assume it's professional. We can't use other Wikipedias as proof. Spiderone (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know this. That is the reason why I start the discussion instead of adding this as professional league. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if it is not sourced how can you aasume it is not professional? --Ilion2 (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no evidence that it is professional. Spiderone (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is so easy for you? This league is listed an unprofessional, so there must be a source for this. Otherwise the status should be unknown. --Ilion2 (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this report, Anorthosis Famagusta are part-timers, or at least they were two years ago. Something to start on, I suppose. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that non professional leagues are listed on uefa.com [8], fifa.com [9] and their clubs (APOEL F.C.) playing in Europe's premier club football tournament 2009–10 UEFA Champions League? And why is the second division according to Cypriot Second Division still professional when the first division is here listed as not professional with no given source? It is not correct to say "I can not proof that this league is not professional, but I am right until someone proofs that I am wrong". --Ilion2 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About your first question, just look at Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio, that is an amateur league (some of its league teams also used to play in the Italian amateur tiers until a very few years ago), despite this the winning team of this league participated in the UEFA Champions League qualifying rounds too. Then, we have no proof confirming what the French Wikipedia states (and, as you probably know, Wikipedia is not a primary source), but we have a source above stating that Anorthosis Famagusta, probably the most successful Cypriot club in recent times, is not a fully professional club. That's all the evidence around, unless you can find actual evidence of the contrary from more reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APOEL F.C. is a professional club, Cypriot Second Division is a professional league. All according to this encyclopedia. It looks like somebody are more trying to convince me than to correct articles like Cypriot Second Division as they are sure that this league is not professional. But you should be able to proof it, otherwise the status is just unknown. According to this source [10] it looks like it is a professional league (look for "The strike was Leiwakabessy's first ever league goal in professional football."). This source is newer that above source as this player plays since 2008 for Anorthosis Famagusta. Again, it is not correct to say "I can not proof that this league is not professional, but I am right until someone proofs that I am wrong". --Ilion2 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have shown evidence in the past that it is not professional. Your referencing of one team doesn't prove that a league is professional, especially because you have very tangential references. A references to a Champions League tie would only prove that the Champions League is fully professional. It doesn't say anything about the Cypriot League. A tie in this case will go to not fully professional, as far as I'm aware. I say this as an inclusionist, too. We've discussed the Cypriot League in the past, and this is the conclusion that we reached. If you don't have any substantial evidence to the contrary, I don't see why based on a passing mention and uncited Wikipedia statements that we should reverse it. This is why we require citation. matt91486 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole paragraph in the PDF is about the Cypriot League, not the Champions League. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't download it, but the fact that it was a UEFA document with the abbreviation UCL led me to believe it would presumably be about the Champions League. matt91486 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source which indicates Anorthosis are semi-pro (although this is dated 2005). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is more conclusive - this source states "APOEL is the benchmark that all clubs in Cyprus are compared against. They are one of the few clubs who have developed into professional organisations, after many years of semi-professional status. Judging by this, it seems the majority of Cypriot teams are semi-pro. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another league which claims to be professional according to Egyptian Premier League. --Ilion2 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[11] is a source that implies that its full pro, but only in passing. I'll see if I can find something more concrete. matt91486 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article will be perhaps most valuable in figuring it out. matt91486 (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This league is professional according to fr:Championnat du Maroc de football. --Ilion2 (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, in any language, is not per se a WP:Reliable Source; however, Wikipedia, in any language, ought to cite a WP:Reliable Source. So what is the source cited on the French wiki to prove this fully professional status? Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We all should know what a reliable source is. I hope to find people who will help here. Professional status was added in 2007 with no given souce. At least it is there undoubted for 1,5 years now. --Ilion2 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for adding more leagues to the list of approved ones, but it would definitely be best to proceed with something beyond an unsourced French wikipedia statement from a couple years ago. Perhaps there is a PDF of African leagues similar to the one recently found for Asian ones. matt91486 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for starting so much parallel discussions, but there are many AfD requests for peoples from this leagues. Hong Kong First Division League is another league. This league is professional according to de:Hong Kong First Division League. Perhaps it is possible to confirm professional status by the clubs playing in this league. Convoy Sun Hei SC (Xiangxue Sun Hei) plays in this league and this club plays in the AFC Cup. Can amateur clubs play in the AFC Cup? --Ilion2 (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so since teams from the Maldives, Vietnam, Oman etc. all play in the competition Spiderone (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Camw posted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lau Nim Yat : This [12] PDF from www.the-afc.com contains a row "Number of players under professional contract in the top team of each club". According to this "Hong Kong" fulfilled the "Minimum Requirement for 2009" of at least 16 players under professional contract. --Ilion2 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This PDF from http://www.the-afc.com contains more informations for other countries too. According to this the following countries fulfilles this criterion of at least 16 players under professional contract in the top team of each club : JORDAN, SYRIA, SAUDI ARABIA, KUWAIT, QATAR, UAE, IR IRAN, UZBEKISTAN, INDIA, THAILAND, MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE, INDONESIA, AUSTRALIA, CHINA PR, KOREA Rep., HONG KONG and JAPAN. --Ilion2 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't say that about all of them. Anything with green in the box, you have counted as completed despite having no proof. It is purely a hypothetical that those would be, so, for example, Kuwait and Syria cannot be considered fully professional without an updated source. The most recent we have for them indicates clearly that they were not fully professional at the time. That said, while the report indicates that the Hong Kong league has 16 players under professional contract, its ratings in other areas suggest that the league is not fully professional despite player contracts. I would suggest the same about Malaysia. If they don't think the leagues are fit to participate in their international tournaments, it's a strong indication that their players aren't notable. I have used this source to add a couple leagues with overall high marks (notably Jordan) to the list of approved ones, as well as an additional source for all Asian leagues with high marks. matt91486 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that the Austrian Football First League is in the list of fully professional leagues, but I don't see how it can be seeing as there is a team called Austria Wien Amateure (the clue is in the name), and also FC Red Bull Salzburg's reserves play in this division. BigDom 13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is a reserve team doesn't in and of itself mean that the league couldn't be fully professional: see the Spanish 2nd Division historically for a good example. I'm personally not terribly familiar with the league, though, so hopefully we can get some definitive sources on the matter. matt91486 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reserves could be professional, it was the team that has amateur in its name that I was thinking more about because I don't know much about Austrian football either. I want to know so that if the league is professional, I can set about creating articles for the players in there. BigDom 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally it should be sourced as per most of the other entries, although presumably 'Amateure' is the traditional name of the reserves, and no longer means they are actually amateur? Eldumpo (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I go ahead and create some articles, they won't be deleted? BigDom 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point, you'd be OK, but if someone were to find a source that says it wasn't fully professional, then they would be. It might be best to wait until we get a source, but it's up to you. matt91486 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the league professional? I haven't managed to find evidence that it is yet. Spiderone (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen discussions in an appropriate archive or anywhere else that asserts what is necessary to define teams listed on this page as professional. I understand the need to limit poor articles and a flood of BIO articles. However, this page has been used in a discussion asserting notability and requirements need to be clearly defined.

According to Professional sports: Professional sports are those "in which athletes receive payment for their performance". This should be the backbone of what is required to be listed here. It can also be argued that a "living wage" (basically can the athlete make a living off participation in the sport alone) and fan base can come into play. Concerns over FIFA sanctions can also be considered (guys playing in the now defunct North American Soccer League were not ever going to be eligible for FIFA sanctioned tournaments). We need to clarify this since simply saying that country x is not professional is a disservice to this project and has been used as a crutch to delete bad articles.

What defines professional? Is it based on skill, league merit, fan base, FIFA requirments, paycheck, or whatever?Cptnono (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally in discussions here, it seems to have fallen to livable wage. That's just the criteria I see most cited by others in debates on the topic. matt91486 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're definitely looking for more than simply "the clubs pay the players some money". Clubs in the Kent League pay a small amount of money to their players, but all are only part-timers playing in front of crowds of as few as 25 or 30 fans, so it's million miles away from being considered "fully professional"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if the player's full time job is football it is professional?Cptnono (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the requirement is that all players in a league be full-time footballers, not part-timers who have other jobs but train in the evenings and play at weekends -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Owen is not a professional if you take his time at Newcastle into accouint : ) . I think my concern is certain teams in Eastern Europe and the Middle East pay their boys living wages to do nothing else but play while the lower teams in those leagues do not. I think there should be a mention that some teams are professional while others in their leagues are not. Or at the very least it would help if editors didn't use this page as a reasoning in AfDs when lack of signifigant coverage is the true concern.Cptnono (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if this league is fully-pro. There are over 250 unreferenced BLPs about Bulgarian footballers (most of whom have only played in this league), and before I spend hours sourcing them (I did the first dozen without thinking), I want to be sure they won't all be deleted because the league is not fully-pro. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone ever figure anything out in regard to this? There's a couple up for PROD right now. matt91486 (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I translated their home page...I'm inclined to go with yes. matt91486 (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that most of what's left unreferenced are B PFG players - I added a reference to as many of the A PFG players as I could find. Is there somewhere we can see what's in the PROD list now? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the two that showed up on PRODSUM. One of them I removed for being in the A PFG; the other only has B experience, so I left through. This is the one that I removed the prod for, but did not yet find a source: Yordan Penev. matt91486 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. According to pfl.bg, Penev has never played in the A PFG, but he did play in the Cup for a A PFG side against another A PFG side. I've added a reference to the article. Jogurney (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The level pf Georgia's top flight was called into question on an AfD of one of the players. I am fairly confident if sources asserting notability can be found that article should be fine but I wanted to get this end fixed as well. The only English on the Umaglesi Liga website ([13]) is "Georgian Professional League". I do know that some clubs from the league have had some success in Europe so there has historically been a decent level of play. Do we need more than their assertion and history to get it on the list or do we need to poke around for wages info?Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really some clubs, but one club, which is FC Dinamo Tbilisi (Cup Winners Cup champions in 1981, when there was no independent Georgia state, but a USSR championship). For the rest, Wikipedia is not made by assumption, but facts: a league is fully professional league if all of its clubs are composed by professional footballers. Not only Dinamo Tbilisi but also teams like FC Gagra Tbilisi (just to mention one of the other teams in the league). --Angelo (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if it comes up in an article for deletion is it OK to say "no, Dinamo is professional" or in the case of Kuwait: "No, Al Kuwait Kaifan is OK"? This looks similar to Ireland where some teams are professional and some aren't but it is hard to show notability when certain editors are saying the whole league is not professional when a few teams in said leagues are paying there guys to play ball. People point o this page when they shouldn't so is a provision going to be added that says "yes, team x in country y is professional so don't assume there is not notability to delete stubs at whim"? Cptnono (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact Dinamo won a European competitions 28 years ago does not mean it is a fully professional club as well; as a real example, the club who won the first Coppa Italia and two past Serie A winners are now playing in the amateur divisions of Italy. And, as stated earlier notability is given by the level you play, not the club you play for. --Angelo (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is all fine and dandy but everything I see points to them being professional but playing in a weak league. The league's website also says the league is professional so it seems like a safe bet. Dinamo also brings in internationals and I can't imagine anyone moving across the world without a paycheck.Cptnono (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't imagine anyone moving across the world without a paycheck". How about the Faroese carpenter who scored a goal to Italy in the Euro 2008 qualifying tournament? Or more than one half of the Sanmarinese national team (please note the Sanmarinese league is completely amateur)? --Angelo (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is talking about moving home, to play permanently, not one representative match, so your counter-examples are fairly meaningless. To Cptnono, please be aware that WP:Footy wanted a policy to include all players at Pro clubs, but that was rejected: we would rather that the classification of leagues that makes up this page were un-necessary, and moaning about it here is not helpful. Kevin McE (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done moaning about it ( had to get the Owen crack in there, though!) . I'm just trying to see if the Georgian League or any of its teams are professional.

To Angelo.romano: Talking about guys playing at a club not national pride and for more than a single tournament.Cptnono (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone tried to move it to professional but that reverted. The source used asserting it is not professional is from '05 and mentions the guys make just over 17,000 (not much less than professionals elsewhere but I don't know what the cost of living is). I would be curious to see if this had changed recently, is changing, or if certain teams are professional in the top flight while others are not. Their websites and kits have plenty of sponsorship it looks like and [14] is cute. Might be time to look further into certain teams to see if "Most players are part-timers" still applies. Unless a source says otherwise it of course cannot be changed.Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[15] gives a bit more detail. One of the bigger clubs has attendance of around 4,000. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read. Wouldn't be surprised if HJK is "professional" now or in the near future. $25k/season and crowds under 5000? Sounds like the "professional" USL leagues here in the states :) .Cptnono (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland is one of the founding members of European Professional Football Leagues association [16]. --SM (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which has member leagues that are clearly not professional (eg League of Wales). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight. Are we saying that the Finnish league should be an exception to WP:ATHLETE? Would this not soon lead to Ireland, Wales, Malta, Cyprus etc. all being exceptions? Spiderone 09:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who made this arbitrary decision that "level" means League. Could just as easily be taken on a team by team basis. Or on an individual basis. Rather than League by League basis. The League thing is unworkable. Some Leagues can be fully pro one season but not the next. If an amateur team wins promotion does that suddenly make all the players in the League non-notable. If one team signs one amateur does that suddenly make all the players in the League non-notable. DavidDublin (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, is it even leagues, rather than divisions within a league, that we are trying to classify? Kevin McE (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's written from an American perspective, so it's not really accounting for relegation and larger leagues in its phrasing. matt91486 (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Algerian League is a professional league based on the definition provided in the article. None of the players have a second job and their only job is playing football. The pay is significantly higher than the rest of the population with salaries as high as €10,000/month. There is many foreign players playing in the league, with their previous clubs receiving transfer fees for them joining Algerian clubs.

The link on the FIFA website referring to the league being semi-pro and aiming to achieve professional status in 2010 refers to the league adopting FIFA regulations on professionalism which involves a number of criterion that must be fulfilled. It does not refer to the football "profession" within the league.

I'm going to move the league to the list of professional leagues, if anyone wants to discuss it feel free to reply.TonyStarks (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree with anything you say above, and appreciate you have done the right thing by stating your reasoning here, I am going to move the Algerian entry back where he was for now, until either consensus or evidence supports its move. To be listed under FPL I believe the criteria is to have a reliable source that actually supports the claim. The current source actually refutes the claim. Also, if and when it's status as a FPL is recognised, it should be appended with a qualifier showing from when it is a FPL. Fair to say some other leagues listed should have the same qualifier. --ClubOranje^T 09:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what kind of evidence you require. Anyone that follows the Algerian league will confirm what I'm saying in regards to the article's definition of professionalism. Just a quick example here: expats du foot français : le rêve algérien de Khaled Lemmouchia. In the article, it states that the French-born player signed his first professional contract with ES Setif worth 5,000 euros/month. Here is another example, this time a Cameroonian playing professionally in Algeria: Un Pro au terroir... Like I said, based on the Wikipedia definition, the Algerian league is a fully professional league and anyone that follows it will attest to that. The FIFA article refers to FIFA regulations on professionalism which many leagues listed as FPL in the article don't actually meet.TonyStarks (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that those two references only prove that the league is semi-pro. Our only reference for the league as a whole states that it is not yet fully pro, so we need a more recent reference to overrule it. matt91486 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment made by ClubOranje at the end of his reply in the recent Algerian thread points out a serious omission in the data here that I have been aware of for some time. If this page is to be a useful resource in determining which leagues provide justification under WP:ATHLETE for considering players to reach a threshhold for notability, it must state in what timescale this criteria is met. I might stumble across details of Juan Onanista who played for Deportivo Wanka in the top Peruvian league in the 1950s (I know DW weren't formed until the 2000s, but I couldn't resist the putative example) and be interested in posting an article for hime, but this list does not clarify whether hat is valid.

At present, only 2 of the 60 nations claiming a professional set up give partial dates to that pro status. Could I suggest that if the list were a table, it would at least highlight the missing info.

So we might have something like:

etc. Any thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a rant about the hypocrisy and stupidity of this once at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 35#English managers in the Netherlands...

Gil Merrick won 23 caps for England despite training only once a week with his club because he had a full-time job as a games teacher from 1951 to 1960.[19] Ken Green retired from playing because he was finding it a strain combining football with his work as a newsagent.[20] Eddy Brown taught French and PE part-time (no online source). That's three players out of the eleven who played for a First Division club in the 1956 FA Cup Final. Many, many Football League players used to have other jobs because they couldn't live on their football wages, which I believe to be the definition of semi-professional, just as they do in the top-level not-quite-fully-pro leagues of today. Yet one appearance in the Football League in 19xx appears to guarantee notability because it's a fully-pro league 50 or 100 years later.

You're obviously correct: this page ought to clearly define over what time period a league is fully-pro and consequently can afford notability by WP:ATHLETE (as opposed to WP:GNG considerations). But good luck in finding sources. And even better luck in trying to get such an approach applied to "big" leagues in "big" countries the same way it's applied to "smaller" leagues in "smaller" countries :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the "Best of Charles Buchan's Football Monthly" book, and the articles reprinted in there make it clear that dozens of footballers, some from big-name clubs, held down second jobs in the 1950s, although I'm not sure how many worked during the season itself as opposed to having to find work during the summer when their club wages were dramatically reduced or stopped altogether..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible, we should add the time period in which the leagues were fully-pro. I have a feeling this will prove very difficult. Even for leagues like the J. League, which has probably been professional since formation, it might be difficult to find a source showing when it became fully-pro. Jogurney (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a reasonable approach adopted to what fully professional is taken to mean. As has been pointed out above, the Football League has not technically been 'fully-pro' throughout, and indeed check out the reference for England on the article page to prove this was not the case even very recently! If that's the case for the Football League, what other leagues would be left in the list. Therefore, whilst the principle of using dates might seem reasonable, you'd have to be very careful to not have arbitrary cut-off dates with no real meaning. The only time I can really see it working is for countries like Korea and Japan that have started a pro league more or less from scratch. Eldumpo (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Article 7 of this league's regulations every team in this league must have a minimum of twelve professional players. Is this enough to make this a fully professional league? Bettia (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the same applies to Primera A. Bettia (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have thought it was enough, particularly when read with Article 34, which specifies at least 7 contracted professionals in the starting eleven, which isn't very many at all. The PDF file people used to assess Asian leagues for fully-pro status sets a benchmark of 16 pros, which means that, at least in theory, a team can fill starting eleven and bench with professionals. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still struggling to see logically how the Bolivian League can be fully pro but the Chilean league cannot. matt91486 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Ukranian Football League System article, it suggests that"The first three levels of the football League system in Ukraine are the professional level competitions, the rest are the amateur and sometimes inconsistent." (no reference provided). It lists the Ukrainian Premier Reserve League in this group which is the "is the top reserve team league for the top Ukrainian football teams in the Ukrainian Premier League." Is there any reliable source that the reserves leagues should be considered fully professional? (I can see that the top three levels of the Ukranian league are professional according to the Project page and a source is provided for this) - the reason I ask is that there are loads of players here (like Maksym Hramm, Serhiy Chebotariv, Vyacheslav Turchaniv, Andriy Nelin etc. I have PROD on one Rostislav Bagdasarov but I didn't want to go down the line of doing them all without some consensus.... Steve-Ho (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reserve-team leagues are not generally deemed notable, and players who have played in only these leagues would be candidates for deletion unless they meet wider notability criteria. Eldumpo (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bagdasarov played in the Ukrainian Second League (see the source I added), but I didn't remove the PROD because I highly doubt that the third level of Ukrainian football is fully-pro. Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy played with this team in the Premier Championship for Sri Lanka. The Premier Championship (or Sri Lanka for that matter) isn't on either list. So which is it, fully professional or not? Silverseren^C 18:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong project - that guy's a cricketer. Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club plays first-class and List A cricket, so if it can be confirmed that he has played in any such matches then he would meet the cricket project's standards. Cricinfo, which is usually an excellent source for such matters, doesn't list him as having played at this level[21] (it would list statistics below the personal information if it had any, cf.[22]). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that, lost my head there and thought that all sports questions related to Fully professional leagues would go here. Thanks. I'll take a look around myself and see if I can find any information supporting he played for them. Silverseren^C 20:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Cricket Archive not reputable? Silverseren^C 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]