Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 17

All six leagues from Ex-Yugoslavia are professional
Statutes and Regulations in all six FA, in six countries emerged from Ex-Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia), are the same to the letter !

All six FA retained the same Statute and Regulations, which they all inherited from their once common organization "FSJ", or as it was called Ex-Yugoslav FA, and only those changes which FIFA/UEFA specifically initiated and ordered since then are today in place in every of these organizations, respectively.

Those of you who are able to read Serbo-Croatian should visit following links and find and read specific articles, regarding this issue, in documents given in pdf. You will notice that all these leagues are based on the same Statute and regulations, almost identical in language and formulations - which, basically, brings us to the following dilemma: are these leagues, all six of them, all professional leagues or not, and if one of them is "voted" here in discussion as "not-so-professional", then non of them is !


 * Croatia
 * Bosnia
 * Serbia
 * Serbia
 * Montenegro--Santasa99 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * From what I see, your goal is to prove that Bosnian Premier League is professional, so you should dive into the documents and find where it says something about it. People dived and found it for the leagues which are listed in the list.  Regarding Yugoslavia, Yugoslav First League became semi-professional as early as the 1930s, and fully professional in 1968 ( see "Moving with the Ball: The Migration of Professional Footballers" by Pierre Lanfranchi and Matthew Taylor, page 119 ).  In the early 1990s countries were leaving Yugoslavia and its league, and formed their own ones.  Ever since 1968, the first league of Yugoslavia, then FR Yugoslavia, then Serbia and Montenegro, and finaly Serbia, are fully professional.  Nowadays, all players in the Serbian SuperLiga have professional contracts.  From what I remember, some years ago that was not the case of some leagues of neighbouring countries which were semi-professional, but I don't know what is the current situation in Bosnian PL, you have to dive and search for the information.  FkpCascais (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I already did, dived in these documents, hanged on each FA website, respectively. I also know that Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian statute and regulations are identical. They all inherited the old statute and the old regulations, which gave "Prva Savezna Liga Jugoslavije" professional status - they all inherited same regulations, not just Serbian FA.

That create problem here - if these leagues are all professional, as their documents show, then they must be, since they are bound by UEFA regulations, and they have to meet them in full, not as they chose.

But as always, what's important here is consensus, and in such manner that number of votes supersede fact(s). This is Wikipedia, after all.

Nonetheless, some of these editors, and that is painfully obvious, confusing economical prowess and financial strength of these smaller leagues with professionalism. Instead of drawing conclusions from the facts and informations, or any kind of sources, they vote if league is professional or not. Not to mention that it's generally accepted that if four or five people show up to vote and reach consensus, it's considered enough, as if that's somehow representative of general public - mention of facts is pointless at this point. Anyway, this gives them impression that they are doing something absolutely correctly, and that decision reached on the basis of personal preferences, personal opinion and hunch is still OK, as long as it's resulting in consensus.

However, these leagues exists and operate as professional under UEFA umbrella, they are bound by FIFA/UEFA regulations, which gives them credibility.

And yes, froward removal of Bosnian league from the list, as it is completely baseless, seems to me troubling--Santasa99 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked Sir Sputnik following:

"Help me to understand - are you saying that you derived your conclusions from the facts, and reached consensus by deliberation, as you dwell upon the documents or other source of facts and informations for some period of time ? Or you are simply confirming that you reached the decision by vote, indeed, based on a hunch and your personal preference ? Are you saying that I have to outmuscle you with more votes ? Despite the fact that I know the league is professional, that it's based on identical statute and regulations as Serbian, Croatian and Montenegrin, and that, most importantly, you can read it for yourself in the documents given in refs ?"

Hopefully, facts still matter more to encyclopedia then bunch of votes --Santasa99 (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you are right when you say that all leagues of former Yugoslavia inherited the statute and regulations from the old Yugoslav ones. A few years ago Montenegrin regulations allowed clubs with players without professional contracts to play in the Montenegrin First League; and they were not talking about youth underage players called "stipendisti" but actually senior amateur players. That situation was clearly different from the one in the former Yugoslav First League where the amateurs were not allowed since 1968, or from the Serbian SuperLiga ones.  So just by that we can already see that the statutes and regulations are not identical neither with the old Yugoslav ones, neither between the different present-day leagues.


 * I gave a quick look at some past threads, and I think Sir Sputnik was probably referring to something he already commented here (3 threads above) which is that, citing him, "the Bosnian league guidelines explicitly allow the registration of amateurs." He is one of the finest editors English Wikipedia has and he is careful about sources and verifiability, so if you know something new or something he was not aware of, please let him know.


 * Regarding the economical facts, I agree with you. Seems that some author wrote a critical article about the current state of Macedonian football, and some editors used it as reason to exclude Macedonia from the list.  But that looks too subjective to me, since editors are probably unaware that it is usual to make such critics generally in all former Yugoslavia, because authors remember the quality of the league back then and have the tendency to compare it with the leagues now, so the auto-criticism is huge.  I agree that we should be careful with those personal analysis and take into consideration first and foremost what the statutes and regulations say. FkpCascais (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this seems to be part of the issue here, let me begin with an explanation of the interplay between fact and consensus for this list. Obviously, the inclusion of a particular league should be based on facts as confirmed in reliable sources. However, most sources, especially ones as dense and difficult to understand as league regulations, are not always clear on the issue, so some interpretation as to whether or not the source is clear enough to confirm full professionalism, or the absence thereof, within the meaning of WP:NFOOTBALL is almost always required. It's that interpretation that is subject to consensus. Consensus can change and the introduction of new, sufficiently different sources will completely invalidate the previous consensus, but neither appears to be the case here.
 * As for the issue of sameness of regulations, I too doubt that this is in fact the case for the reasons FkpCascais spelled out above. However, if it is the case, it would simply invalidate the regulations as a usable source for this list considering that full professionalism in Serbia, and the absence of full professionalism in Montenegro and Macedonia is confirmed independently of league regulations.
 * Finally, a quick aside regarding Macedonia specifically. The article cited specifically says that several clubs didn't have a single registered professional. If we're doubting the author's objectivity to the point where we're doubting the objective facts he lays out in the article, then the source should be considered unreliable, but barring that, this is about a clear cut as it gets for non-fully-pro leagues. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Benin Premier League
I need a clarification on the above subject. I want to know if Benin Premier League is a fully professional league. Am aware that Nigeria Premier League is a fully professional League and was listed at WP:FPL but Benin Premier League was not listed. Could it be as a result of the fact that the league is not a fully professional league or the article about the league was created lately because am aware that both league are equivalent. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 01:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "both leagues are equivalent"? We have NO RS which indicates BPL is fully-pro. GiantSnowman 08:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Benin Premier League is not fully professional. Its results are not updated frequently, information about this league is very little. JackHoang (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Liga II (Romania)
Why is this not considered fully professional? See or search for LPF2 on google--109.100.41.154 (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Armenia
Armenia is not listed anywhere (not as fully pro or as "not fully pro") so I wanted to open a discussion on where to put them.

The information I can find is that on the homepage at the football associations, under section "regulations", it says 2014-2015 RA professional football clubs tournaments regulations (note the word "Professional"). Under section licensing it says Starting from 2002 the Football Federation of Armenia has been implementing the requirements of the UEFA club licensing system... which is a sign that they are professional?

Fully pro or not? Qed237&#160;(talk) 15:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's certainly indication that there is some degree of professionalism in the league, but these sources do actually confirm full professionalism. The UEFA licensing applies to semi-pro and even amateur clubs as well (the Gibralar top flight is a good example of this), and the use of the word "professional", unqualified and without explanation as to what it means in this context, is too ambiguous to confirm anything for the purposes of this list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Division 1 Féminine full professional?
Division 1 Féminine is listed as semi-professional at WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues yet I have some doubts about this. This article describes how forward Lindsey Horan is making a hefty wage, while here Laure Boulleau & Amandine Henry are shown to make a respectable income as well. Granted all the players mentioned play for the top two clubs and are the star performers of their teams, but is it time to reconsider Division 1 Féminine's place in WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues? Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the wages of the top earning players tells us very little about the league as a whole, these sources do not confirm full professionalism. The only time a source about a specific player can actually confirm that a league is fully-pro is if the player in question is the lowest earner in the league. (Something like this). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Salvadoran Primera División
What is the status of the Salvadoran Primera División? I don't see it listed here.Joeykai (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not listed because it's status currently is unconfirmed in reliable sources. For notability purposes, this means playing in this league does confer notability per WP:NSPORT as point two will necessarily be unverified. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian Série C is also professional?
Hi,

According to CBF: Somente poderão participar do Campeonato os atletas que tenham sido registrados na DRT e cujos nomes constem do BID publicado até o último dia útil que anteceder a cada partida. (art. 5)

Which means that every player who appears in Série C needs to be registered professionally. Also, this was mentioned in art. 22 ([...] a atleta profissional registrado, ficará sujeito à perda de 03 (três) pontos por partida a ser disputada, depois de reconhecida a mora e o inadimplemento por decisão do Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva (STJD).).

What do you guys think?

Cheers, MYS  77  ✉ 02:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added it in. Any ideas about Serie D?Abcmaxx (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Does that quote above just indicate that they must be registered rather than saying they must be fully professional? Eldumpo (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If all your players, coaches, management have to be professional, then there is no element that's left that's amateur is there? Can we please stop challenging every addition/source that's added in, especially the ones that say "in order to obtain a licence the club must be professional".


 * I fail to see how State Championships can be professional but Serie C is somehow not, despite nearly all the clubs in that league played in Serie A or at least Serie B in the recent past. There's a quote and reliable source, just let it go.


 * In semi-professional clubs, paid players are an except to the rule and there are usually 2-4 of them only in the squad, even then its usually a part-time or very low wage and that's it. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Does the source explicitly state that all players/coaches/managers are professional. I would say a club can be 'professional' in terms of the way it operates etc without that automatically meaning that all players are fully professional. Just because a club was fully pro when it was in Serie A/B it does not follow it will remain fully pro at a lower level. Have you got a source for your last paragraph? Eldumpo (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The State Championships are technically a lower level than not only Serie C but also Serie D, not sure what league pyramid is formed so that the 1st, 2nd and 5th levels are proffessional, but the 3rd and 4th aren't. I'm not sure why this is being debated, there is an explicit CBF reference stating the Serie C is pro, as specifically mentioned above, so please let it go. Also if a source states explicitly that the players need to be registered professionally or the club has to obtain a professional licence, that means the club and players are registered as professionals, in the eyes of the law, the governing body and therefore everyone else. A club cannot be professional in the terms of the way it operates if it's not fully professional because no governing body would allow such phrasing which would require an ambiguous interpretation of 'professional', nor would it can operate professionally if it's not a professional club, because in terms of legal purposes, that would render tax regulations and brackets etc. completely pointless. Unless the word 'professionally' is used as an adjective, then it is more than reasonable to say that it means exactly what it says. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the source explicitly states that all players are fully professional. A number of the above statements are just your personal views e.g. the state champs being a lower level than Serie D. We'll have to agree to disagree. Eldumpo (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My personal views?!?! Err there's nothing to disagree on, it says all the players are professional in the Macedonian source, as with the Bosnian one, plus the state championships ARE lower level than Serie D, not a personal opinion, that is a FACT. In some state championships the highest level teams are not in the national divisions at all, whereas in the more populous states only a handful are and usually won by Serie A, B or C sides Abcmaxx (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of completely derailing the discussion on the original matter of the professionalism of Serie C, on which I am neutral, I have to refute the claim that there is nothing to disagree on. The source on Macedonia makes it abundantly clear that professionalism standards are not respected, while the Bosnian league guidelines explicitly allow the registration of amateurs. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No the source on Macedonia makes it clear the players were ILLEGALLY signed up as amateurs, and it's illegality stems from the fact it is a fully pro league, otherwise, why would it be illegal? It makes it clear that the players and clubs ARE pro, just the clubs have failed to obey the laws - failure to complete paperwork/dodgy dealings do not suddenly make this a different matter. As for Serie C, the re is a reliable source, in fact the same one used for Serie A and B. Also where in the Bosnian article does it say it allows registration of amateurs? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia/Macedonia/Brazilian Serie C
Due to the persistent reverting, I've locked the main page for a week. In the meantime, please try and reach a consensus on whether these three leagues should be added to the FPL list. Number  5  7  09:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Number 57 well what's your stance? Abcmaxx (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have one – I haven't looked into it. I was just sick of seeing constant reverting on the page for the last few days. Number   5  7  18:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you not have a stance?! It keeps going into an edit war because no-one is willing to discuss anything, but everyone is really happy to revert stuff. They revert it "no consensus reached", I try and reach one, no-one bothers, I decide that there's no objection, gets reverted anyway, and so it goes round in circles Abcmaxx (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The decision two and half years ago on Macedonia was that while there is clearly some degree of professionalism in the league, if the league is such obvious violation of labour laws, it cannot be considered fully pro., , , given your involvement in that discussion, your input here would be appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re Macedonia I don't see how a league can be regarded as fully professional if it's clubs (at least back in 2007) are not properly registering their players. However, I would point people to read its final section - 'No wonder that the quality of the league is so low and no wonder that our stadiums are empty and there's almost no international interest in Macedonian football. But is there any football at all in Macedonia?' Do we really want to confer automatic player notability on a league with such a write-up? I wonder how reliable the source is though? Perhaps we should add Macedonia to both lists, and then hide the entry and add a comment with a link to the source. Eldumpo (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Last time around there was no compelling evidence it is a fully professional league. Nobody seems to be putting forward a case for the league being fully pro now, so there doesn't seem to be anything further to discuss. C679 21:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am making a case now, on basis of illegality is not a sufficient reason to suddenly deem a fully pro league suddenly semi-pro, especially as 1 occurrence reported in 2007; no-one suddenly claimed Italian Serie A and B is suddenly semi-pro because teams fixed matches, i'm sure these kind of dodgy contracts are given in many a league anyway. No international interest that's hardly applicable to any more than 5-6 top leagues. There's little international interest for English League 2 outside the UK I'd say, it's still fully pro league. Can we agree at least on Serie C, given that a reliable source (same one used for Series A & B) was given? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Provide sources for the Macedonian league being fully-pro, and then we can consider it. Until then, no, WP:BURDEN is on your side of the fence and you have to provide proof for any change. For the Brazilian Serie C, giving us the exact passage of text from that source, translated into English, that says the league is fully professional, and again, then we can consider it. It's no good expecting enwiki editors to understand a Portuguese PDF, particularly as there is no quick Google Translate button. The Bosnian source is similar, and that particular quote is not convincing in the slightest; it implies professionalism, yes, but not FULL professionalism, which is the requirement. And your claims in edit summaries to have discussed everything are, frankly, bogus. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 01:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to provide reliable sources which show that the league is fully-professional. GiantSnowman 12:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what User:MYS77 has provided us with, if you care to scroll to the beginning of this conversation. Also Macedonia: it said in the source in question the players were illegally registered as amateur despite all 14 clubs and all the players are professionals. It's almost like it's next to impossible to add any league to this list, unless the phrase fully professional comes up in the front page of a British newspaper, and even then, there's always someone to pick hole in everything. Sources are there to prove facts, not the other way round Abcmaxx (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Macedonia source is from 2007 and we have had a discussion, specifically regarding that, in the mean time - linked above. Nothing since the previous discussion has changed, and you are presenting no new evidence, so there appears to be no basis for further discussion. No comment regarding the other leagues. C679 20:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Brazil Serie C

 * Reviving it:, all teams have to be fully professional to play in Série C and Série D, they already need this status to appear in the state leagues. Portuguesa had to turn two players (Vinicius Scorse Martins and Bruno Cesar Xavier Sislo) from amateurs to professionals, so they could play in Série C (you all can check their contracts here, and if you click in them you'll all see their contract dates - 14 May 2015 and 1 June 2015, respectively). All players who appear in Série C have a professional contract registered on BID, while all matches are professionals. Don't get it how could it not be fully-professional. , and : this source (a regulation from CBF) tells more about player contracts. Cheers,  MYS  77  ✉ 01:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The first source indicates they are contracted to the club but that doesn't mean they are fully pro. How does the BID source work - I tried to get a result for Vinicus. For the last source can you indicate the page number/section please. Eldumpo (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Liga Leumit and Liga Artzit
Sorry to bring it up again, but I've been researching the subject of professionalism in Israeli football, and found the following (most links are in Hebrew, but I'll summarize them): Having said that, according to official data (in this short Hebrew article), in 2013, 36% of the professional footballers in Israel earned less than 50,000 NIS (roughly 13,200 USD) a year, which would force them to be semi-professionals.
 * Undeclared semi-professionalism started in the 50s (article in Ma'ariv from 1957 detailing the unofficial history of hidden payments in Israeli football). The debate regarding establishing a semi- or fully-professional league wasn't settled until the early 1991, when the IFA established the Budget Control Authority and allowed importing foreign footballers.
 * Regarding the second division, I couldn't find any indication that the league was fully professional before 1999–2000, although foreign players were allowed there during the previous decade.
 * Following the establishment of the Israeli Premier League, in 1999-2000, the IFA regarded the three top divisions (Premier League, Liga Leumit and Liga Artzit) as professional, run under the supervision of the Professional league divisions department (link in English and IFA regulations, including the definition of a professional team (page 9) as a team that plays in the top three divisions).
 * Currently, most of the IFA official site details regarding the professional leagues, both in Hebrew and in English, still list Liga Artzit as a professional league, even though it was closed in 2009. The current Hebrew page of the professional league divisions department list the two top divisions and professional.
 * In 2014 the Premier League teams established the IPFL, (article from Hebrew Wikipedia). The IPFL manage the two top divisions as professional leagues.

Therefore, I would suggest amending the list so that the Israeli top division (Liga Leumit until 1999, Premier League afterwards) would count as Professional starting with 1991, Second division, starting from 1999 and onwards (updating the data beyond 2009, as it appears now), and Third Division, Liga Artzit, between 1999 and 2009, since it was regarded as professional and was treated as such by the IFA.--Eranrabl (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I very strongly disagree with listing Artzit as fully-pro. Most clubs in it were getting attendances of a few hundred or even averaging below 100 – it's just not feasible that the league was fully professional. I am very doubtful that Leumit has ever been fully professional since it became the second level - I have attended several Leumit matches with attendances as low as 50! Take 2011 as an example – not a single Leumit club had an average attendance of over 740, with two below 200 (the overall average is just 341). In English football, this would put it somewhere between levels 7 and 8, where there are no fully professional clubs (as it can't be afforded on the income).
 * I also think assuming the top flight wasn't fully pro prior to 1991 is not really a good idea. Number   5  7  17:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was talking about formal definitions. The IFA doggedly resisted defining the leagues as fully professional until 1991, but turned a blind eye to the existing professionalism (a habit going back to the late 50s or early 60s). The same definitions apply to the Leumit and Artzit. The IFA defined them as pro, and put them under the Budget Control Authority, including all regulations of the BCA.
 * regarding feasibility, most Israeli clubs, including some in the IPL, don't rely on crowd income. Sponsors, grants and donations, municipal and government money are the main sources of income for these clubs and the way they maintain professionalism. Crowds figures are quite irrelevant when dealing with this level of football in Israel.Eranrabl (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)