Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Scottish Championship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done Giant Snowman 18:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, so GiantSnowman has blindly reverted and reintroduced some dubious sources which supposedly warrant the Scottish Championship's inclusion. But can anyone tell me what date this league is supposed to have been fully professional? Most of these sources seem to be for 2011-12, but it wasn't called the Scottish Championship until 2013. One source (^[1]) is not relevant as it is about a Second Division (third tier) club, while ^[2] describes Raith Rovers as being a mixture of full and part-time players. Also, ^[3] explicitly says that Ayr United are not full-time professional? I assume that the addition of this source is some some sort of mistake, instead of a deliberate attempt to introduce false information into the encyclopaedia. All the same, the page in its current state is unacceptably ambiguous, whether or not that is as a result of deliberate obfuscation. Is anyone seriously suggesting the Scottish second tier has been "fully professional" since the introduction of the four-tier setup in 1994? Or the three-tier setup in 1975? I've started a page here which should allow us to move forward on a basis of evidence. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

^ "Ross County prevail after lively second-half fightback from Cove – Sport – The Scotsman". Sport.scotsman.com. 23 January 2008. Archived from the original on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 25 August 2013.
^ "Raith Rovers boss John McGlynn delighted to retain full time status". Daily Record. 21 June 2011. Archived from the original on 15 March 2018. Retrieved 25 August 2013.
^ "Ayr United won't play the full". Ayrshire Post. 29 May 2009. Archived from the original on 19 April 2012. Retrieved 25 August 2013.

Malta

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

WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTARELIABLESOURCE. Giant Snowman 12:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Brazil's women leagues

Campeonato Brasileiro de Futebol Feminino Série A1 seem like a professional league, per: this regulation. Plus, the RGC - Regulamento Geral das Competições (Competitions' General Regulation) states that contracts should be registered in a national database (BID) before these athletes can play a match. Some of the tournament's matches are televised in a national channel (Band) and even though the players do not receive a high wage, all of the players play in a professional manner, not having another part-time jobs. MYS 77 ^✉ 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Even though I'm almost certain that the first division meets the standards to be considered a fully-pro league, I would put this from 2019 onwards, because that's when CBF obliged the professional clubs of the first division (Série A) to have a senior and at least one youth squad, and play in at least one of the professional competitions established by them (women's national or state league). When it comes to the second division (Feminino A2), however, I'm not so sure that it is professional... MYS 77 ^✉ 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Should I add to the main page, or should we wait for more consensus, then? MYS 77 ^✉ 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

[1] "Ross County prevail after lively second-half fightback from Cove – Sport – The Scotsman". Sport.scotsman.com. 23 January 2008. Archived from the original on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 25 August 2013.

[2] "Raith Rovers boss John McGlynn delighted to retain full time status". Daily Record. 21 June 2011. Archived from the original on 15 March 2018. Retrieved 25 August 2013.

[3] "Ayr United won't play the full". Ayrshire Post. 29 May 2009. Archived from the original on 19 April 2012. Retrieved 25 August 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]