Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 25

Players who not played in a FPL but may meet the GNG criteria
What do you mean here, what kind of criteries should have a non-FPL player to meet GNG. Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG is pretty clear, it says: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This has always been the case. Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but please can you give me an example, an article that it's about a non-FPL player but has this criteria. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure Ryan-Zico Black is a good example, a player who never played at a high level but who nevertheless received substantial coverage during his career thanks to early forecasts that he would develop into and exceptional player. As you'll see, in this article, the sources are not concentrated on primary sources such as club or FA websites, nor dependent on stat sites such as RSSSF or Soccerway, but in instead focus on independent news sources and interviews with the player and general articles about his career. Fenix down (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also this AfD gives a useful insight into similar female players as it deals with a number of players, most of whom failed NFOOTY, but some of whom were shown to pass GNG. This gives a good indication of the sort of sources that make NFOOTY irrelevant. Fenix down (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey - I didn't realize you answer to the name Hmlarson now. Is that a new development?  - here are a few more examples: Jenna Fife and Brogan Hay of Scotland's top-division SWPL,  Madalyn Schiffel at the time of Norway's top-division Toppserien, and Jessica Humble, Georgia Plessas of Australia's top-division W-League. There are plenty more. Hmlarson (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC) See also Josh Sargent. Hmlarson (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just trying to be helpful. I'd note that there was no consensus to keep any of those articles, indeed one f them was closed as delete. Think renoms are needed for a number of those two to establish proper consensus as I'm not seeing any significant additions to the articles to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

American Soccer League(s)
Upon review of the American Soccer League(s), there are three currently listed within the scope of this project (with a fourth, most newest version not). I attempted to find any sort of discussion as to how the level of professionalism was determined, but was unable to within the Archives of this project. It appears as though American Soccer League (1921–33) is considered professional because of this source and American Soccer League (1988–89) is considered professional because of this source, however American Soccer League (1933–83) is not considered professional because of this source. " My questions would be where/how was this determined, and by who? If we are taking the sourcing all at face value (as they come from the same place), why is one not professional while the others are? The "non-professional" league has the source state "But this also is the longest running professional league in U. S. history," which seems that it should be considered as professional.

Can anyone else with a bit more experience chime in here as it relates to these three leagues? GauchoDude (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably because the same source also notes this about ASL II: "The league in essence took the strongest teams from the local leagues and elevated them to a new competitive and financial level, although they were at best semi-pro both players holding other jobs to make ends meet" (I think the inclusion of the word "both" is an error). That website's a fascinating read though. Cheers, Number   5  7  20:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * After doing a bit more digging, it appears a secondary source also refers to the league as semi-professional. This can be found here. ISBN 9781461716129 might also be a good resource for the League(s), but focuses moreso on the first iteration. GauchoDude (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Caribbean fully pro leagues
Would this source be good to add Jamaica and Haiti to the FPL list? --SuperJew (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been mentioned in a discussion before. This was written in the same year (2014) and states the Jamaican league is semi-pro. Number   5  7  07:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion was quite limited on it, but my feelings remain the same, this is essentially someone's blog post and I don't think we should be accepting as fully professional on the basis of a throwaway comment someone made three years ago on a post on a website about Carribbean holidays. Furthermore on Haiti, in the previous discussions, several sources were presented that indicated that, although there may be a desire for a fully professional league, there are clearly significant issues with actually getting that started. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Women's League
Just recently, added Primera División (women) to the women's top divisions which are not fully-pro list, and then  reverted it saying "Am I missing something, I can't see where in the ref it states this is not a fully pro competition." The source itself says "In line with the company's commitment to promoting gender equality, talent and the development of the role of women in society, the Women's First Division Football League has become a professional competition, officially called Iberdrola Women's First Division RFEF." which to me sounds like it's going fully-pro. Therefore I would think it should be added to the fully-pro list, no? If not, then by default it should be added to the women's top divisions which are not fully-pro list. As a general point, I don't understand why the women's top divisions which are not fully-pro list doesn't have more leagues in it and why there is a need to reference leagues on it - if a top-divison league isn't in the fully-pro list then by default it should be on this one. --SuperJew (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It means it hasn't been discussed and consensus has not been achieved that it is fully pro. We don't add leagues confirmed as not fully professional with out a reference for the same reason we don't add leagues to the fully pro list without a reference. The reference added for Spain indicated a degree of professionalism, but on its own does not provide any evidence whether the league is fully pro or not. Agree with you that this source could indicate full professionalism, but more is needed. As such it is definitely not appropriate to use as a souce confirming non-FPL status. Fenix down (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two lists exist for the same reason though. The FPL list is for leagues where we assume notability without checking WP:GNG, but the top-division not fully-pro list is for... well I'm not actually sure what it's for (and it's not explained on the page), but I assume it's so people won't be confused and assume that all top-division leagues are fully pro?
 * And again, logically if a league is not fully-pro and it is top-division why can't it be added to a top-division not fully-pro list without a reference saying it is not a fully-pro league. --SuperJew (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support adding to WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Hmlarson (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Hmlarson (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some evidence that the league is fully professional? Fenix down (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Two editors noted a reference already. I would read that to mean they support the addition. Count me third. Hmlarson (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What? One of them used it as a reference to confirm non-fully-professional status! Seriously, where is there any evidence that this is a genuinely fully professional competition? There are plenty of men's competitions which are termed professional but which are not "fully professional". Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's talking about Spain, where the men's league is undoubtedly fully-pro. --SuperJew (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what does that have to do with the level of professionalism in the women's league? Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It has to do because they are trying to close the gender gap and equalise between male and female conditions (salary/professionalism) in Spain, not in other countries. --SuperJew (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Despite the link of Iberdrola says, as far as I know, only Barcelona announced it is 100% professional. About other teams, I don't know anything, but I'm sure the vast majority of them they are not professional at all. Asturkian (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I would take with a pinch of salt a league's sponsor's opinion on the level of professionalism within the league they sponsor. I mean, it's not like they want PR out of it or anything! Fenix down (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Ahh, I see. I misunderstood. Odd that an editor would delete the referenced entry all together so it doesn't appear on either the fully professional or not fully professional lists. Do you consider it detrimental to the essay, ? I'm reviewing WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and trying to get a better understanding of this type of repeated behavior particularly when it comes to adding ANY relevant information about women's leagues to the essay. Hmlarson (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a September 2016 article. English translation per Google:
 * "The road map has been complied with as announced and the professionalization of both the players and the competition, is on course to be a fact."
 * "...signing an agreement with the Spanish Football Federation, holder of the competition, for two seasons, at two million each. LaLiga will contribute another two million per campaign. This is an economic millionaire injection that will contribute to professionalize women's football and make it more visible. The arrival of television will play a fundamental role, with the broadcast of two matches in open, by GOL, and one by beIN. This day GOL will offer one more."
 * "on course" implies not yet (as of October 2016). I'll add the league back to the essay where Asturkian had originally put it with this additional reference or do you have an issue with that ? Hmlarson (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None at all, I'm glad a little discussion has delivered a more worthwhile result than a unilaterale change. Fenix down (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi premier League
The Iraqi premier league is a fully pro league that participates(and wins) in Asian continental club competitions yet it is not listed as one.
 * Do you have evidence to back up the first statement? Number   5  7  22:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a letter from Mr Gianni Infantino addressed to Iraq FA congratulating the recent winner of the competition. A FIFA president wouldn't acknowledge a non pro league, if that is not sufficient please tell me a required proof and I will try to find it. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Firaqfa%2Fposts%2F1564072460310658&width=500
 * The required proof would be a source stating that the league is fully-professional or that it is a requirement of the league that its clubs be fully-professional. Number   5  7  22:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have official PDF document from Iraqi FA detailing all the requirements to participate in the Iraqi league ( from player contracts to infrastructure to media personnel etc) these requirements are typical of a professional league (i.e all personnel are paid, all players under official contract and registered with FIFA, all managers have "A"  coaching certificate etc) However it is in arabic and no English translation exists. Is this good enough ?Alitheboss55 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to it and indicate which section of the document outlines the requirements? Number   5  7  07:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Number 57} ifa.iq/up/lic/Licensing-ar.pdf

The entire document is about the requirements. Section 14 states that all head coaches need "A" certificate issued by the AFC, 17 states that all players need to have a contract.Alitheboss55 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Having a contract and being a player in a fully professional league are not the same thing. Fenix down (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting it through Google translate, section 17 states:
 * 1. The club must have a written contract of employment with the players of the first team and as required by the law of the International Football Federation. The status and movement of players taking into account the mandatory provisions of the laws of the State of Iraq relating to the legitimacy of contracts and laws labor, taxes and regulations of the Iraqi Federation and the international and Asian federations related to the subject.
 * 2. The required proof: The club must provide copies of contracts for the first team players.
 * This isn't evidence of being fully-professional – as Fenix down notes, part-time players also have contracts. I think you would be better off providing a few links to news websites describing the professional status of the Iraqi league (I have done a basic search but didn't find anything definitive). Number   5  7  15:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

These requirements are all from the Asian football federation, they are the ones who decide what make a professional league in their confederation. https://clas.afc-link.com/auth

You can download the PDF here in english issued by the AFC detailing all the requirements, these requirements are all typical of a fully professional league, and there is no chance that a club may meet these requirements without being fully-professional. Furthermore, any club who does not obtain the AFC Licensing certificate will not be allowed to participate in the next edition of the Iraqi premier league.Alitheboss55 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not showing any indication of full professionalism. As was observed above, you don't have to be a full time player to have a contract. Not sure I understand your comment on the AFC, there are many semi-professional top level leagues under the auspices of the AFC. any guidelines they issue are to ensure that proper administrative processes are followed by clubs, they don't provide guidelines or insistance that leagues be fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You can not participate in the Asian Champions league if you are not a fully pro league. Iraq will be allowed back into the competition starting the next(2018) edition. . Also Page 53 of the attached PDF shows that all all players must have a professional contract.
 * That is not true, there are several leagues that are not fully professional that participate in the AFC Champions League. I see nothing here that requires full professionalism as a criteria for participation in the AFC CL. It is also not relevant if all players must have a professional contract, all this means is a formal contract whereby they receive some remuneration. For consensus to be achieved that a league is fully professional, sources have to be presented that indicate that the level of remuneration is such that the players are full-time employees of the club. Fenix down (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "For consensus to be achieved that a league is fully professional, sources have to be presented that indicate that the level of remuneration is such that the players are full-time employees of the club." can you point to the discussion where this consensus originated or is this your personal opinion? Your personal interpretation seems to change from discussion to discussion here (most recently French Women's League, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Other editors can provide additional examples). Wikipedia's guideline indicates a different definition of consensus: WP:CONACHIEVE which is at odds with your statement. Hmlarson (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is merely one interpretation that is available to individual editors when making a decision. In this instance I am merely drawing the distinciton between the requirement to have a contract (which most clubs have which operate in a formal environment as it ties players to clubs and deals with obligations beyond mere remuneration) and the requirement to have a contract that guarantees remuneration sufficient that the player can be considered a full time employee. It's perfectly logical to use guaranteed / average salaries as a primary yardstick because if consensus can be achieved that they are significant then the chances are that the league is fully pro, for example the argument I used below for France: Average salary = x, average wage for the country = 2x; therefore players appear to receive sufficient to be deemed full time employees; therefore the league could be considered fully pro. I think you'll find my use of that argument is actually pretty uniform. It certainly is in the French League discussion you mention, and while I don't believe I participated in the the discussion on B&H, the attendence / club income arguments used there are also equally valid yardsticks in place of salaries as they can be used to estimate salary potential. I must say though, I'm not really happy to face random grillings on my logic in threads that haven't been touched for the best part of three weeks, and I'm really not comfortable with the encouragement to other editors to go digging around specifically to find instances where my arguments may be usefully used by yourself to undermine me. That is getting pretty close to hounding imo. With that in mind, I will not be replying to any further comment you make in this thread and would request, at least on this page, that you keep your arguments specifically to the leagues discussed and the sources presented. Fenix down (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I take that to mean there is no official consensus to determine what defines fully professional even though you might present it differently. It's vague for the purpose of a few editors controlling the essay.ref Otherwise, the select editors who "manage" the essay could be transparent without issue. This vague problem has been brought up by numerous editors in the archives over the years. In fact, if we invited them all here - there'd likely be a consensus.


 * If you are suddenly experiencing basic questions for accountability purposes as grilling and "close to hounding", I'd say that is also remarkable considering your contributions to this notability essay and I understand if you do not want to discuss further. Hmlarson (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes sense that for each discussion people decide on different factors by which to judge the league being discussed. Pick one (or more) factors by which to check all leagues on the list, have them clearly expressed on the main page, and go by them and by them only. This shouldn't be a new discussion every time with editors picking at their whim the factors they want to address to decide if the league meets the vaguely-defined term "fully-professional". --SuperJew (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. That assumes sources exist that cover set parameters in all instances when they may well not. Consensus is reached by discussing the available sources on the talk page as we do each and every time. I see no reason why editors should not be allowed to use their judgement in assessing. That is how it has been for a long time and it seems to work. I'm sorry if you disagree. Fenix down (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)