Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Azerbaijan First Division

Please discuss objections to the inclusion of the Azerbaijan First Division etc. here. 94.2.38.154 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Azerbaijan manager Berti Vogts confirmed to FourFourTwo magazine in June of this year that: "If you look at the clubs here, the players only train for one-and-a-half days" [1]. So I think the First Division should be deleted and the Premier League moved to the section on non-professional top level leagues. Deserter1 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
As a starting point I've removed the 2nd level as it was unsourced anyway. On the face of it the source would seem to suggest the league is not fully pro, although we need to be careful about using what may have been made as a throwaway comment by Vogts, possibly helping him make a point. Technically the number of days players train for does not actually indicate whether they are 'fully pro' or not, although a link is reasonable. Presumably players don't train every day at definitely pro clubs. Won't they have 1 or 2 days off, depending on if they have a match?Eldumpo (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Having 4-5 days off instead of the more usual 1-2 strongly suggests, to me, the players at these clubs need part-time jobs. I recall Vogts said, not long after taking the role in 2008, that he only had 12 full-timers to pick from, but I can't find a reference for that. If attendances can be taken into account as another indicator, in 2009-10, the Azeri Premier League had a lower attendance than the Conference (1871 [2] compared to 2028 [3]). Deserter1 15:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd certainly be happy if any new guidelines we can come up with factored in attendances. Eldumpo (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

I will move it to the proffesional section. Although their is that act which reffers to amateur players, if you just read the first page at the Croatian act, you will find almost the indetical sentence. It doesn't reffer to a club being not proffesional, as matter of fact, all are, it's just that players can be also amateurs and not only proffesionals. AnelZukic (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have a source to support that the league is fully professional, this edit will unfortunately be inappropriate. That being said, the matter should definitely be looked into. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Soccer League

This source is self-published and does not state "fully professional", thus I doubt the reliability of it. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It should not be listed as fully professional. As self published, the source should not be considered reliable, and it does not state the league is fully professional. However, for me the key point is that I lived in a city with a CSL club for several years, and did not find out they existed until I got involved in Wikipedia. This is the definition of non-notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't "professional" mean "fully professional"? However I agree that self-published sources are not 100% reliable. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Sputnik - I agree, I lived in Vancouver for 5 months, and there was no talk of the Whitecaps, who play in the MLS, let alone lower league teams! GiantSnowman 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that very few of the sources in this list actually state 'fully professional', whatever that means. And many of the sources in the list are 'self-published', although that often means the regulations of the leagues concerned, which can potentially be very good sources. Eldumpo (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Moroccan league

The Moroccan league is fully professional since the start of this season.

Source:

--Tachfin (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Rules

I'm sorry for bothering everyone, but I'm struggling to find a list of requirements for a Fully professional league. What are the actual requirements a football league must satisfy to be considered Fully Professional? Or who must declare it Fully Professional? Or in what list must it be included to be considered Fully Professional? Or what is the number of pro players it must have? Excuze me if I intruded, i'm new to the whole wiki thing. Katz191 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no list of requirements as such. For a league to be included on the Fully pro list there needs to be a reliable source indicating the league is 'fully professional', or in reality 'professional', as most of the sources are included on the basis of that word. One of the problems is that we have no agreed definitions for the terms being discussed. Eldumpo (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

EPFL - Are we missing a trick?

http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/who_we_Are.htm

Hi guys. The 30 members and associate members of this organisation (European Professional Football Leagues) seem to comprise the professional football leagues in Europe. Yet there are sundry others on our list who do not seem to have reached the level necessary for EPFL membership! Is there any strong argument against reverting to only those present on the EPFL list? PorridgeGobbler (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well no, seeing as the Football League would then be discounted, and that is definitely professional. GiantSnowman 09:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The football league is at the top of the associate members list on their website. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What's the difference between a 'member' and an 'associate member'? FYI, other professional league such as the MLS are missing... GiantSnowman 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Aye, because its European. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ha, sorry, too early in the morning still! OK, European fully-pro leagues not members of EPFL - Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Hungary...need I go on? GiantSnowman 09:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Greece are members. Some of the other minor leagues you mention are only on our list on the strength of very poor sources. Presumably there is some reason(s) why they have not been invited to join EPFL? PorridgeGobbler (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure there are reasons why, but it shows that the EPFL is not a complete list, and cannot be used as one. GiantSnowman 10:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a complete list. On the other hand our current list is complete ...completely wrong! For example, the reference supposedly backing Cyprus's inclusion includes the following: There is an urgent need for better management of the football clubs and, additionally, a need for professionals to become involved in the football industry. The football industry in the country is getting too big for volunteers to run it. There is urgency for professionalism at all levels. Professionalization of the game is only happening with increasing numbers of professional players arriving from abroad; apart from this, there is no professionalization in any other respect. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The remove Cyprus, simple. GiantSnowman 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm, the source also includes the following line: Interviews were conducted with the presidents or secretaries general of all 14 footballs clubs in the first division of the national league, the professional clubs in Cyprus. – Kosm1fent 12:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, is there any reason against removing all such non-EPFL leagues? Preferably reasons based on reliable sources? It's obvious that Leagues falling below the standards necessary for EPFL membership are not "fully professional" in terms of infrastructure etc. even if some players are getting decent money. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not obvious that European leagues outside the EPFL are non-'fully pro'. They should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and there are wider 'reasonableness' arguments as well. Eldumpo (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that editors plead "common sense" when all else fails to keep their favoured Leagues on the list. That's not really WP:SOURCE though, is it? PorridgeGobbler (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
PorridgeGobbler, unless you can prove that all European professional leagues must be members of the EFPL, we cannot delete adequately sourced leagues from our list. There is no indication that the EFPL list is a complete one, and judging from the absense of the Greek Football League and Football League 2, I doupt it's even accurate. – Kosm1fent 13:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This organisation was discussed a couple of years ago, and it was noted that some members at the time were not actually fully professional (the Welsh Premier League was one of them), so I don't think it's really a terribly reliable guide. It's also fairly clear that it's not a comprehensive list, as it doesn't include the Israeli Premier League for one. Number 57 13:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really follow the rationale why this one list should suddenly become the only source we use. matt91486 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Argentina Primera B Nacional

The listed source is the same as the Spanish Wikipedia article, and therefore it looks like it could be a mirror and should be potentially be deleted, or is there another source? Eldumpo (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental definition

What does "fully professional" mean? Mooretwin (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no confirmed definition, see my post under 'Rules' thread above. Eldumpo (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Slovak Super Liga

And what about this league. Is it a fully professional league? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirEdimon (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? GiantSnowman 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Vejvančický added to the list of the fully professional leagues, with reliable sources needed.SirEdimon (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Name change for this article

There have been numerous discussions at Footy regarding changing the basis of player notability away from having played in a professional league. However, that is a longer term project which will require some discussion to reach consensus. In the interim I think we should change the name of this page to 'Professional leagues' i.e. drop the use of 'fully'. This would reflect the reality of the sources in use on the page (which mostly just refer to 'professional' anyway) and the fact that we have no definition of 'fully professional'. The current page name has a misleading title, and this has been raised a number of times recently.

As part of this proposed change i suggest the intro gets amended to say:

This page is part of the WikiProject on Football and provides a list of known professional football leagues, and also top-level leagues that are known to not be professional. As such this article can be used as an aide in considering the WP:NSPORT guideline, which states that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a professional league will generally be regarded as notable.

Leagues should only be added to the professional list if reliable sources refer to the league as being professional, without qualifying that the league is only semi-professional or mostly part-time. There may be instances that consensus dictates that some leagues should be listed in the professional list even though sources may refer to part-time players etc e.g. as there is a belief that the league meets wider notability. Similarly, the non-professional list is for leagues with a source showing the league is not professional, or only partly professional.

Obviously a few other areas on the page would need changing i.e. the sub-headings. We would also need to make follow-on amendments to the wording at NSPORT.

Any comments on the name change and the intro wording? Eldumpo (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I see this proposal as a backdoor method for giving automatic WP admission to a whole new class of even less notable players. Any change here should be driven by a change at WP:NSPORT, not the other way around. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would much prefer to properly define "fully-pro" since some of these leagues qualify simply because the league is described in its own regulations as being professional. In order to attempt to match this list to the NSPORTS guideline, we ought to focus on leagues that garner substantial coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The purpose of this list being for use in connection with WP:NSPORT, its name should match the language used there. One could undoubtedly find sources describing leagues like Conference National or Fussball-Regionalliga as "professional", yet there is a clear consensus that playing in these leagues does not grant notability, and rightfully so the average fourth or fifth division player, even in major footballing nations like England and Germany, is not going to receive much coverage. I very much agree with Jogurney on this, it would be far more practical to instead come up with a proper definition of fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Coment: I would more than support wording that definition, but I don't see anything practical that would support the asserted rule: can you give an example of how "fully pro" could be defined? Albaniafutboll (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible to come up with a reasonable, agreed definition of 'fully pro' which can actually be sourced. My proposal was an interim one before we move towards an alternative method of measuring player GNG (I'm being optimistic now). It was not meant to be a backdoor means of loosening notability, as it mainly reflects what is happening now, although I do see how it could be viewed that way. Eldumpo (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support How many debates do we have about Leauges we all deem notable through coverage that don't fit in this list. This list is not fit for purpose in its current form as has been brought up many a time. Fully pro and GNG don't match up, there are many Leauges on that list that will never meet GNG equally ones that will that aren't. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While Edinburgh Wanderer is totally correct that fully-pro and GNG don't match up, that leagues deemed non-notable per this list can be more widely covered than some leagues appearing in it, the proposal is the wrong way about. This page is the definition page for WP:NFOOTBALL, which speaks of "fully professional leagues" as the main criterion for notability. We can't change this page to talk about something different without getting any change agreed at WT:NSPORT first. The way it's going there at the moment, anything even remotely fluffy would be shot down in flames, but that's by the by. If we want to suggest notability criteria that don't rely on the undefined "fully-pro", then good, but we can't do it by unilaterally abolishing the criteria we've got at the moment. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the probelm is with the fully-pro criteria itself rather than the naming. As I have said players should be deemed notable by how much coverage they get in reliable sources, not by whether they have a second job. Adam4267 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The reality is that NFOOTBALL is effectively used as a free pass to inclusion, even if an article is some way off reaching GNG. As has been discussed before, there are just a handful of instances where footballers meeting NFOOTBALL have been deleted at AfD. Eldumpo (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would support the deletion of a player whose only claim of notability is having played in the Gamma Ethniki with no significant media coverage. Just saying that the criteria in this list should be made stricter. – Kosm1fent 18:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Eldumpo - that's because the vast, vast majority of players who meet NFOOTBALL also meet GNG. Kosm1fent - agree. I think there are a number of fully-professional leagues that should be removed. GiantSnowman 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In my experience most footballer articles do not meet GNG. There are thousands of stubs which often just comprise of 'references' to stats/database entries. I was trying to write more on this and link to some stubs but I keep losing this message when I click away! Also, just to clarify, there are no (or very few) sourced 'fully-professional' leagues at Wp:FPL. Eldumpo (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you Eldumpo. Whether or not players actually meet GNG, huge numbers of articles do not meet it. As I have said before I think we should keep a list like this but include leagues which have been found to have a certain majority of players meeting GNG. Adam4267 (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Adam - I assume you are saying that some articles may meet GNG if a search for sources was made, but as things stand, the articles do not - hence the free pass point. This ties with the comment I make below on Kopecky. Eldumpo (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Further to my post above I looked at 3 random articles from the Czech football forwards stub list:

  • Pavel Simr does definitely not meet GNG, as the only references are to stats entries.
  • Vlastimil Kopecký's article does not meet GNG. The only working ref is a stats-type list. However, being a former Czech intl' he can almost certainly meet GNG in practice, although a future issue is whether we should continue to give a 'free pass' to all internationals.
  • Radek Drulák is also a former intl' but despite the 3 citations and 2 links they are primarily stats-type entries.

I then looked for one more as I'd picked two intl's:

Eldumpo, I understand your point, but I think these examples don't really support it. Take Kopecký, if you look at the Czech and German language versions, you can see he is mentioned in two books. I easily found the archived version of the link that wasn't working and it took information from a third book that mentions the player. He died more than 50 years ago, so I'm struggling to find online sources, but it's foolish to think that there wouldn't be significant coverage of such a major figure in Czechoslovak football in printed sources.
Simr is a better example because he's hardly played in the Czech top flight and it appears he's had a much more ordinary career. My main concern is you cannot simply look at what is cited in the article and conclude that is representative of the sources available online or elsewhere. I fully support tightening the notability guideline, but let's focus on people who have only played in lower-tier leagues (Russian and Ukrainian Second, Greek Football League 2, Chilean Primera B, etc) that are unlikely to have much coverage - not record-setting internationals of yesteryear. Jogurney (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Jo - my point in picking these random players (an admittedly small sample) was to try and get across my belief that most players with an article do not actually meet GNG based on what is referenced in their article, not that they were not capable of meeting it. See the comment I made under Kopecky. Also, for a quick check of whether they currently meet GNG it seemed reasonable to just look at the English-language version. Certainly, if any articles were being proposed for deletion you would look for other language references. Eldumpo (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Eldumpo - the point is that it is assumed these articles would meet GNG if we looked for sources - you yourself have admitted that a few player who technically meet NFOOTBALL but fail GNG have been deleted, so claims of "free pass" are wrong. GiantSnowman 08:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Only a handful that meet NFOOTBALL have been deleted, so I believe the 'free pass' comment is warranted. Having said that, one of the main drivers behind NSPORT was to come up with a set of criteria, which if met are assumed to result in GNG being met, but we have to be reasonable (and have evidence) to back up our football criteria. Eldumpo (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You aren't really providing evidence that they CAN'T meet the GNG, though, just that they haven't. This is merely a case for revising and improving those articles, not deleting them. So I'm not sure it says more than people need to do a better job of putting in the time to demonstrate that articles meet the GNG when new articles are put forth. But outside of banning stubs on Wikipedia altogether, that seems to be something likely to slide. matt91486 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think there is a fundamental disagreement here, most notable in Sir Sputnik's invocation of the Conference National as a league in which notability isn't automatic. The Conference National receives more independent media coverage (including a television deal) than some countries' top-flight leagues. There are instances of full internationals (albeit primarily for Caribbean island nations) playing at that level. There are increasingly frequent £1m transfers out of that level. The problem is that people are conditioned not to consider this on basic GNG principles because of this bogus "fully professional" label where the sole consideration for many editors is how many hours a week a player's contract stipulates he spends with a club. I don't think that simply stripping "fully" from the title of the page really addresses that properly: the issue is notability, not "professionalism". The real problem here is NFOOTBALL#2; fix that wording to say "leagues which have an established level of significant secondary coverage in reliable sources", rather than "fully professional leagues", and then we can retitle this page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I support a change to NFOOTBALL#2 along the lines you suggest, but then we're stuck having to develop a list of the leagues which qualify. Jogurney (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree as well - it should be done on league coverage, not professionalism, though it just so happens that a vast majority of the leagues will be fully-professional ones who remain. GiantSnowman 13:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I also agree (Although I'm personally sceptical about the Conference being notable) with Chris. I think what we have to look at is how to implement this. My personal preference would be to research samples of players from each league to find out what proportion meet GNG, in terms of coverage and article quality. I think we should then have a three tiered system where the top leagues basically stay as they are now. Players in them get a free pass and are assumed to be notable. A second tier where players are assumed to be likely to be notable but the articles must meet GNG loosely, (ie local/regional news) as a large minority of players from the league will not be notable. A third tier where players are assumed to not be notable unless the article strictly meets GNG (i.e national/international news). Adam4267 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
          • A good idea, but there's a vast difference betwwwn the articles which could meet GNG with some TLC, and those that actually do. It won't be a fair representation. GiantSnowman 14:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Like the idea as well of restructuring NSPORT to resemble General notability. To that end I'd like to make a suggestion on who to implement it: A select few leagues where it's patently obvious that players in that league are notable (Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A,...) will be given a free pass, but only if there is overwhelming consensus. For all other leagues that could be included in our "blessed list" we take a random sample of players (say 3 to 5 from each club) and demonstrate that they meet general notability. Any league's inclusion or exclusion may be challenged due to sampling bias (too many stars, or too many youngsters). Once we get the ball rolling, phase out FPL six to eight months later. It would take a lot of work, but I think it's doable, and it would go a long way to making our inclusion criteria a less arbitrary. Plus, we'd probably get some improved BLP's in the process. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Rather than a totally random sample we would need to focus on those players who have only made a handful of appearances in the league in question (and not played in a 'better' league) and/or players who competed in the past. If a good sample of players in these categories are shown to reach GNG then we are well on our way to having the necessary evidence to show that the given league is worthy of the free pass. Eldumpo (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
There's no need to start from scratch here, as talk of "random samples" outside of "patently obvious" leagues suggests. Contrary to that implication, the level at which we presently assume notability is not massively out of step with the GNG: it simply needs tweaked in ways which the current wording of FPL (namely, its obsession with players' contracted hours) does not neatly allow. Discussion of this sort has already been going on for several years (specifically in terms of granting exceptions to certain leagues), so all that is necessary is for that to run its course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think there are circumstances where people who do no more than play a few matches (e.g., 10-20) in some of these "fully-pro" leagues appear to generate almost coverage in reliable sources (beyond the statistics databases). I remember having a lot of difficulty finding sources on a Serbian SuperLiga player who only had about 20 matches for a bottom-half of the table type club. It has been nearly impossible to find coverage of players who have done nothing more than play in the Russian Second or the Ukrainian Second Leagues. Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think sampling several players from each club is the best way to go because that means we will definitely know whether the league meets GNG rather than just assuming it does. Also I think we should sample the big leagues so we can get some context to the smaller leagues. Say a certain league had 58% coverage from the sample, how would you know ehether that was a lot if you had nothing to compare it to. Also, the players chosen IMO - should be players who have never played in a higher league than the won being sampled. I think if you pick players who have only played in that league it makes it unfair (some leagues have much higher percentages of home grown players) and is also not a fair representation of the league. Adam4267 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues/Archive_5&oldid=1065794082"