Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

American indoor leagues

I recently added a list of professional American indoor leagues to the USA entry, giving a source for each one. This list was deleted with the flippant, "Sources do not confirm the leagues as fully pro." However, the sources were respected soccer historians who characterized the leagues as "professional". Since I did not understand the dismissal of Colin Jose^[1], David Litterer^[2], Roger Allaway^[3] and Steve Holroyd as unreliable sources, I asked another editor what sources I should provide. According to him, sources should speak to "player registration regulations". That will be difficult, in fact impossible for most American professional leagues because "player registration regulations" are non-entities in the American sports scene. However, this other editor also said, "Other types of sources are usually articles that look at football clubs from a business point of view." So, here they are:

This is a book about sports careers. See p. 133 for the entry on the MISL II, it comes right after the entries on FIFA and the World Cup.^[4]
1980 New York Times article about the Cosmos, at the height of their glory, wanting to play in the MISL.^[5]
1982 New York Times article regarding MISL player contracts. According to the Times, the league agreed that "club owners will retain television revenues and the players will receive higher salaries, per diem, termination pay and playoff revenues. Minimum salaries were increased to $2,000 a month."^[6]
1984 New York Times article about the Phoenix Pride selling the contracts of the last nine players on the team after losing $2.2 million the previous year.^[7]
1984 New York Times article on NASL teams moving to MISL, which required the NASL teams to post a "$400,000 entry fee and a $250,000 letter of credit."^[8]
1986 New York Times article about MISL teams refusing to release players for the World Cup. According to the Times, "The M.I.S,L. team owners contend that the players have contracts and that their first duty is to their teams."^[9]
1986 New York Times article about team-owner rebellion against league commissioner. One team owner said, "He had done his part in cutting back on high-priced players."^[10]
1986 Chicago Tribune article about an MISL player making $80,000-$90,000 a season.^[11]
1987 New York Times article profiling a "professional soccer player" in the MISL.^[12]
1987 New York Times article on failure of the New York Express. The team had planned to go public (sell stock like Manchester United just did).^[13]
According to this 1988 LA Times article, MISL teams had a $1.275 million salary cap.^[14]
1988 article about the struggle for amateur players when it comes to giving up a good paying job to pursue an uncertain career as a professional indoor soccer player.^[15]
1989 LA Times article about the collapse of the Los Angeles Lazers. According to the article, "Lazer (and LA Lakers) owner Jerry Buss, who has reportedly lost more than $7 million on the franchise since its inception." ^[16]
1990 article regarding expansion of the American Indoor Soccer Association. Note the comparisons between the AISA and MISL.^[17]
According to the Baltimore Sun in 1991, "Hale said he wants to invite all nine members of the NPSL into the MISL. "We would be the largest professional soccer league in the country if all nine teams came in," he said. However, Hale said he doesn't expect all nine NPSL teams to meet the "requirements" of the MSL. One of the main stumbling blocks to a consolidation of NPSL teams with the MSL is the difference in salary caps between the two leagues. The MSL has a team salary cap of $755,000; the NPSL cap is about $300,000. MSL players have been asked to take sizable pay cuts over the past three years and probably would protest further reductions." ^[18]
1995 lawsuit^[19]
1997 LA Times article regarding back-pay owed a Continental Indoor Soccer League team’s players.^[20]
2000 Baltimore Business Journal article about the National Professional Soccer League.^[21]
2001 Yale University article about an amateur player turning professional with an MISL II team.^[22]
2002 New York Times business section article on the MISL II^[23]
2003 Research Paper on small professional sports team using two NPSL teams as the basis for the study.^[24]
This one is not online: International Sports Law and Business, Volume 1 by Wise and Meyer. There is a whole section on the various American professional leagues of the time, including MLS, A-League, NPSL, CISL, etc.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you all need more sources looking at clubs from a business point of view. Mohrflies (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

- Do you have any sources which confirm the league as fully-professional? GiantSnowman 08:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  - I haven't read all of these yet, but the New York Times article from 1982 suggests that the league was fully pro then. It says that players were to be payed a minimum of 2000 dollars a month. Adjusted for inflation that's an annual salary of about 60,000 dollars, which is nothing compared to how much most European based players make nowadays, but its certainly a livable wage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the 1982 New York Times article mentioned above, every player in the Major Indoor Soccer League (1978-1992) made a minimum of $2,000 per month. Using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ^[25], that gives us a monthly minimum salary equivalent to $4,800 today for every player in the league. That comes to an equivalent $57,600 per year, minimum salary. How does this compare to Major League Soccer, the current "fully" professional American outdoor league? In 2007, "the real minimum was $12,900, a rather embarrassing salary being paid to 50 players."^[26] If the definition of "fully professional", per the discussion below, is "any league in which all footballers are paid, and are paid enough to not require other jobs support themselves" then in 2007, Major League Soccer was not a fully professional league. Last year (2012), MLS players recieved a minimum of $33,750 per year,^[27] or $2,800 per month. So, if an indoor league pays nearly twice what Major League Soccer does, how does that make the indoor league non-professional? Mohrflies (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Swedish Womens Soccer - Damallsvenskan

Hi

After UEFA Women's Euro 2013 I saw that the Swedish highest soccer league for women, Damallsvenskan was not on the list of football leagues at all, even if they have/had players like Marta, Hope Solo, Anja Mittag, Nadine Angerer and so on. It is a high ranked women league in Europe with 2 wins in UEFA Women's Champions League (2003 and 2004), and 4 second place finishes (2002,2005,2007,2008). The Swedish national team is ranked 2nd in Europe.

I suggest it should be inserted in "Top level leagues which are not fully professional" - Womens leagues, since it is not fully proffesional according to this link [28] that states "The Swedish Damallsvenskan is respected as one of the top-three women's professional soccer leagues in the world along with the American-based WPS and German Bundesliga. Yet despite its quality, the league is not actually fully professional. Across the board, players are either in school or have part- or full-time jobs in addition to soccer careers. Whether as teachers, psychologists, radio talk show hosts or administrative assistants, most of these players have to make their living off the pitch."

What does everyone else think? Is it okay to insert this league among Non-proffesional womens leagues? QED237 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If a source is as explicit about the pro status of a league as the one provided, I don't really think a discussion is necessary. I have added it to the list as requested. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! I didnt know if I where allowed to do that, so I felt better writing here first. I'm glad that you did put it in the list. Thanks for the fast answer! QED237 (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A more recent article from 2013 notes Sweden's Damallsvenskan as "a full-time professional league that attracts some of the biggest stars in the global game, including Brazil's five-times world player of the year Marta, and enjoying good media coverage with live games broadcast on Swedish television each week – the former Arsenal player is familiar with many of the key opponents that England will face next week." Hmlarson (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it should be added to the FPL list. Number 5 7 21:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What IS "fully professional"?

I cannot find this term on FIFA, UEFA, or really anywhere on the internet. The criteria is for a league to be called "fully professional", without actually explaining what that is. It's basically Wikipedia's made-up term. Shouldn't a definition be given? I'm personally under the impression the definition means a league contains no reserve teams, as that's really the only possible thing it could be. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the term fully professional was used in WP:NFOOTBALL to contrast it to semi-professionalism. In other words, any league in which all footballers are paid, and are paid enough to not require other jobs support themselves are fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes me wonder why India is on here (well, not now, but before 2013). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty complicated requirement, since the player's lifestyle can play a big role in if they make enough money to not need a normal job. How can we tell what leagues do and don't? Would you say all of the ones participating in the Champions League do? TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It just so happens that all the non-professional teams tend to get knocked out in the qualifying stages of competitions like the Champions League and Europa League every season (I certainly can't think of any recent ones who have got through to the group stage) so we've never had to worry about that. I think most people know that FPL is a frankly shit way of determining who's notable and who isn't but hardly anyone seems to want to do anything about it; in the past I and others have suggested ranking leagues in order of the amount of press coverage they (and therefore the players) receive but nobody can ever agree because it's too much like hard work. BigDom (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Hard work" isn't the problem - it's just a rubbish idea. How on earth do you even begin to score press coverage, let alone rank it. Not to mention the fact that some countries rely more on printed press than online news. This is before we even mention things like original research. Fully-professional league may not be a perfect criteria, but at least it's a real concept and not something we've just made up. Number 5 7 08:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the term (not concept) "fully-professional" something made up by Wikipedia? Partly yes, but to serve a purpose. We have had numerous discussions about how to change it/word it and we have never, ever reached agreement - and I doubt we ever will. So this seems to be the best solution for now... Giant Snowman 08:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Number57: original research has nothing to do with building guidelines and policies, it is about not inserting previously unpublished material into articles, so that's a red herring for a start. And I don't know what some countries using printed press more than the Internet has to do with anything; has anyone said that printed materials wouldn't be taken into account? Maybe it is a rubbish idea, but it can't possibly be any worse than what we've got.

@GiantSnowman: if the current system, where some people will argue to the bitter end that a player who has played one minute in the Myanmar league is notable because some (very badly referenced) list says so—and many editors would, regardless of whether or not the player passes GNG—is the best solution then we are completely fucked to be honest. BigDom (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But we're not completely f***ed though. We've been using this system for close to a decade, and whilst it causes occasional problems here and there, it's hardly caused Wikipedia to collapse. And yes, us deciding a ranking system for media coverage is original research. If we need a guideline, it needs to be based on some real world facts - professional status, attendances or something of that ilk, not a scoring system we ourselves have devised and which is completely subjective to the whims and opinions of editors. Number 5 7 09:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No one said that it's going to make Wikipedia collapse, there's no need to resort to hyperbole. What has happened though is that we have literally thousands of one-line articles (I'm as guilty as anyone of creating some of these back in the day, and I wouldn't complain at all if we got rid of them) that can never be expanded or improved because no sources exist but will never be deleted either. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a depository for the names of people who played a game of football 100 years ago. Attendances seems to me at least like a more reasonable criterion on which to judge notability; it stands to reason that the more people watch, the more coverage the games and the players will get so maybe that's the route we should go down. BigDom (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you didn't want to resort to hyperbole, then why did you say that we're "completely fucked"? But anyway, I have suggested using attendances as a guide in recent discussions - figures are easily available for the vast majority of leagues. Number 5 7 10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Touché, fair enough. Yes, I've just seen the thread further up the page, but judging by that the idea of using attendances as an indicator doesn't look too popular unfortunately. BigDom (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Also there is substantial consensus at AFD that technically meeting NFOOTBALL (i.e. 1 min in Myanmar, 2 mins in an international friendly for Guam etc.) is not enough if you fail GNG. I can dig out a list if you want? Giant Snowman 09:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow AfD much these days, but I know that when I used to be active there, there would be articles kept daily of players who had played only one or two minutes in their careers. Maybe things have changed recently, but I bet I could make a longer list of players (especially English/Scottish players) who have been kept because they've made one appearance before disappearing into the ether. BigDom (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There tends to be a period of grace, as IMHO there should be - young player makes his debut, assumed to be notable, article is created. We need time for GNG to be met - you will see some articles being kept at AFD a week after making their debut, but being deleted 2 years later when they have dropped out of professional football. Giant Snowman 09:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, well I'll take your word on that one – like I say it's been a while since I was active at AfD. Maybe over the next month or so I'll start to get involved more and see for myself; I'm planning on becoming a little more active on WP in general than I have been over the last two/three years. If that's the case nowadays then at least we have made some progress. BigDom (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Going off those, it's good to see that things have improved over the last 12 months or so then. It does show that the guidelines we currently have are rubbish though and hence the need for change so that players like these are ruled out from the off and we don't have to waste time on AfD's. A better way IMO to go about it would be to just get rid of NFOOTBALL, not just for players but clubs and leagues as well, and just leave it all up to GNG, but I know that such a proposal would never be accepted by some. BigDom (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to scrapping entirely - though I have previously suggested changes which were rejected. We need that period of grace, of assumed notability - John Smith makes his debut for Man Utd in the Premiership. Do you really think he is not notable? Do you really want to wait however long until GNG is met? What harm is there in having an article about a clearly notable person, which meets NFOOTBALL, but does not yet meet GNG? Giant Snowman 10:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head here. You say what's the harm in having an article, I say what's the harm in waiting. I guess we won't agree on that one unfortunately. (Although I think most MUFC players making their debuts would be mightily close to passing GNG already anyway). BigDom (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I still think that there is merit in my suggestion of using televised matches (at least one per matchday and preferably in more than one country). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

FA WSL

If "coverage" is a (determinative?) factor in FPL-hood, how far away is the WSL from making the hallowed list? Last night I watched a highlights programme on BBC Two and tomorrow night's Lincoln-Liverpool game is being covered live in-full on BBC Radio 5 Live Sports Extra. The league has a shiny new television deal with BT Sport (to replace the previous one with ESPN; Liverpool-Arsenal was live the other night). There is also reasonably consistent coverage in the quality and tabloid national print media, as well as She Kicks and similar. This is the same sort of situation which prevails in Sweden, I think, where Damallsvenskan matches are shown on TV4 (Sweden). Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a factor, at least as far as I'm aware. If the teams are still semi-pro, then it won't make the list. Number 5 7 21:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

One can make the sensible assumption that more coverage = more money = more professionalism, though as Number 57 says it is not guaranteed that they will be linked. Giant Snowman 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But the Scottish Championship doesn't get anything remotely like this level of media coverage. It's semi-pro too, yet it gets on the list - you said - because of its coverage? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-pro is understating it; and "coverage" refers to overall media coverage, not just a bit of telly. Giant Snowman 09:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What coverage? It's increasingly obvious that you have some sort of personal investment in keeping Scotland's second level on the list - but it's presence there is somewhat of a foible. In the nicest, most respectful kind of way I'd be interested to read what other editors think about it. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I take it you don't live in Scotland then, where coverage across all media is significant enough for it to be considered FPL for GNG reasons? And by all means we should get input from others - I mean, it's not as if we've discussed this multiple times before, and it's not like consensus has been to keep it as FPL every time... Giant Snowman 18:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a case to be made here that the players can pass WP:GNG with enough coverage. However, can anybody prove that these teams are all fully-professional as an organization (Players are full-time professional footballers, no second jobs, obviously payed, etc etc.)? If that can be proven with a reliable source(s) then I will have no problems with adding the WSL to the list of fully-pro leagues. Surely there are more than the American one. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, WSL players don't all get a liveable wage yet. But one of the reasons the FA kicked out Doncaster Belles was apparently because their wage:turnover ratio was too low! Vulgar, nouveau riche upstarts Man City will be parachuted in at their expense next season which, I imagine, will drive wages up towards NWSL levels. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so with that I think we can agree that the WSL is not there just about yet in terms of professionalism. Definitely one to keep an eye out for in the future. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

SFL1 / Scottish Championship

For our purposes is it considered a FPL or not? Giant Snowman 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Alloa, Cowdenbeath and Dumbarton are definitely semi-pro. I believe that Raith are a mixture of part/time and full/time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I used the word "considered" deliberately - I'm fully aware it is not 100% professional, but should it be included nonetheless due to the amount of coverage it receives (similar to the Veikkausliiga)? Giant Snowman 18:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It gets as much coverage as the SFL3/Scottish League 2 does at the moment and that I wouldn't consider for inclusion. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think with the current number of semi-pro clubs in it, it can't really be considered to meet the criteria any more. I never thought coverage was a consideration - more than in the past there have always been 9 or 10 fully pro clubs and occasionally one semi-pro one. Currently we're well beyond that. Number 5 7 21:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Alloa are "professional", Cowdenbeath are "professional" and Raith are "full time", though it does appear that Dumbarton are only "a part-time community club". The SPFL wants to "[ensure] full-time professional football is viable at [Scottish Championship] level". Giant Snowman 17:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Alloa and Dumbarton are not pro, Cowdenbeath are a mix and i believe Raith are pro this season. So you are looking at 7 pro, 1 query and two are def not. I think with the new funding set up they are likely to start going pro again over next few seasons but for now lets leave it and see if picks up back to 8 or nine pro then we would have to look at it like in previous seasons. Coverage has come into it and i disagree with User:Spudgfsh point as it does receive more coverage than 1 or 2.Blethering Scot 22:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

When i say lets leave it i mean leave as non pro, not leave as was last season and earlier.Blethering Scot 22:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

But I have produced a source stating that Alloa and Cowdenbeath are "professional", what are you basing the "def not" conclusion on? Giant Snowman 08:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Blethering Scot. I was only stating my personal perception of the coverage of the divisions. I've not come across much more than scores and scorers for the three divisions of the SFL in the past. I'm not in scotland and cannot say what the coverage is like there (I know will be greater). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Like 99.9999% of the general population, Scottish men's lower-division football doesn't really interest me. The point is that there is a clear case of double standards here if we crowbar this division into the FPL list despite it failing the criteria. Especially since top-level leagues with much better/wider coverage are still excluded. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What double standards? Giant Snowman 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

Can someone enlighten me to the accepted position of the V-League. it's been bouncing about over the last couple of days. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources currently listed are ambiguous. They speak only of professionalism among foreign players in the V-League, while making no mention of locals. As such, it clearly does not belong on the list of fully pro leagues. However, the sources do not confirm that it is not fully pro either. Until adequate sourcing one way or the other is found, it should not be included in either list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If we must use professionalism as a measure of notability then we should assume all leagues to be not fully professional unless we can find a source that proves otherwise IMO. BigDom (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN applies here - all leagues are assumed to be non-FP until a reliable source can be found to prove they are FP. Giant Snowman 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

For notability purposes, a league that is not confirmed as fully pro should of course be assumed not to be. That being said, WP:RS applies here, meaning only those leagues that can be reliably sourced as not fully pro should be included in the list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

V-League is the highest club football league of Vietnam. This league has been professionalized. FIFA recognized it. I think it is a fully pro league. Nothing to debate. Banhtrung1 (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"I think it is a fully pro league" - what reliable sources are you basing that one? Giant Snowman 08:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is proof: here. V-League has a section on goal.com. Banhtrung1 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

For those of us who don't speak Vietnamese, do you mind pointing out where precisely it says that the league is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

From looking around the website (Google Translate on Chrome automatically puts the whole site in English) I did not find anything which proved the league to be fully-pro. However I did find this part of the website which is the "Charter Corporation Vietnam Professional Football - VPF" which I am guessing should contain details on how professional the league is. However that is in a document, a downloadable one, which means that I can't get that translated into English so ya, if someone can go there and translate that document then that would be great. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If anything, reliable sources suggest the contrary. In its assessment of Criteria for Participation in the New AFC Champions League (see here), the AFC gave the Vietnamese FA grade of C in professionalism, which means that the league was "not ensured to meet the criteria of 16 players under professional contract in the top team of each club by 1 October 2008." Now that says pretty clearly that at some point prior to 2008 (there's no publication date on the source) the league was obviously semi-pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)