Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 41

South African NFL
Does anybody know if the National Football League (South Africa) was fully-professional? Attracted lots of English/Brazilian players in the 1960s, and article claims to be "professional", but I'm struggling to find sources to support... GiantSnowman 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pages 34 and 35 of ISBN 978-1-3179-6818-4 would suggest that it was professional, though I only looked at the preview on google books. I think the National Professional Soccer League (South Africa) was professional too, with page 43 of ISBN 978-0-9814-3982-2 describing it as 'a truly professional league'. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this looks like it might help if anyone has access to it. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Norway
I have started some research on User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Norwegian football here. What date do people think is a sensible "fully pro" start date for the top men's league in Norway? On this evidence we must be talking well into the 2000s? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1991. GiantSnowman 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "On this evidence" - Look, I know next to nothing about Norwegian football but I think we're going to need better evidence than the mindless ranting of some nobody in the Mirror who was just a bit miffed that his team drew. BigDom (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sourcing is an issue. A journalist describing a team as "part-timers" - does that mean, like Marine the other week, that their entire squad has full time day jobs (teacher, trainee plumber, manager who worked for a train company etc.), or that one or two players do, or that they all have part-time jobs to supplement wages from football etc.? GiantSnowman 16:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough, thanks for your contribution and I have my doubts over that one as well. But at the same time venturing 1991 as the "fully professional" date seems to me like a fairly committed feat of POV-pushing, since it necessitates ignoring all the other sources there which do go into much more detail. The Irish Independent source gives a detailed breakdown of the makeup of the Rosenborg squad in 2000, and Kevin Twaddle explained how it worked when he was at Lyn the year before. Clearly – like the Linfield manager said – they had a sort of culture where the clubs got them fixed up in agreeable jobs and the players did their training around that. Brattbakk goes into detail about how he worked five days a week in an office before coming in to train with Rosenborg and about how that was the norm. If you have any evidence of your own to add I'd obviously be interested to see it. Thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: the year 2000 as a tentative cut-off date for 'fully professionalism' in the top Norwegian men's football league
In 2000 Tippeligaen Rosenborg won their tenth consecutive national title with only five full-time professionals in their squad. Therefore it seems improbable that the rest of the teams in the league had "virtually all adult players" full-time during this period? The other leading clubs were invariably described as part-time when they competed in European competitions throughout the 90s (and beyond). The link supposedly supporting fully professionalism is dead. Does anyone have any other evidence? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In which case I would say 'from 2001 season' for fully professional. GiantSnowman 12:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with adding 'from 2001 season' Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Has this issue been raised with anyone that knows Norwegian football? It's kinda harsh to be met with a ton of deletion discussion where the claim is that the Norwegian league was not fully pro at the time. Starting from the 2001-season is arbitrary, the 1991-season with the introduction of "Tippeligaen" has always been considered as the cut-off point for professionalism in Norwegian football. It wasn't allowed to be paid as a Norwegian footballer until 1984 source, and Norwegian footballers that went abroad wasn't allowed to play for the national team. But when the Tippeligaen was founded in the early 90's, we had the similar escalation as what happened in England (just not in the same scale) with TV-deals and professionalism. I can't find a source for that right now. Though by defination, the Norwegian league isn't fully pro even today, as you still have people that choose to study or choose to have a part-time job besides being a footballer. They do however get enough coverage to pass GNG. We shouldn't start a douzen of deletion-discussions because some English paper called a Norwegian team "part-time", that's just a technicality. We have this guideline because the footballers that play at the top level of Norwegian football are presumed to pass GNG on the basis that they played in that league.
 * Lastly I want to quote a part from this piece from the national library in Norway "Likevel ble norske fotballstjerner dyrket på samme måte som i dag, forteller Sæter. Også før profesjonalismens tid var de store fotballspillerne kjendiser, og man kunne lese om dem i aviser og sportsmagasiner." which can be translated as "Regardless, Norwegian footballstars was idolized in the same way as today, Sæter says. Even before the time of professionalism the big footballers was celebreties, and you could read about them in newspapers and sports magazines." Mentoz (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can evidence that Tippeligaen players received significant coverage from 1991 onwards then I am happy to consider that the start date of 'fully professionalism' for these purposes. GiantSnowman 10:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So if I get this straight: a non-Norwegian finds four citations from the english tabloid press during the 90's that Tippeligaen was "semi-pro", but a Norwegian who is trying to correct this blatant error has to find "significant coverage"? At the same time the editor that has convinced you that the Norwegian league wasn't fully pro is leading a crusade against Norwegian footballers, putting them all up for deletion because of his own personal belief? All of these deletion discussions are leading to a keep, so it's primarly just a waste of everyones times. This is not the wikipedia I signed up for. Mentoz (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A 2001 cut-off date makes very little sense, when it leads to players like Kjell Roar Kaasa being proposed for deletion . Tippeligaen in the 1990s got massive attention in Norway's largest newspapers, try for example searching Norwegian newspaper archives for "Kjetil Roar Kaasa" from 1990–2000, and you'll find 8600 hits. You can't simply disregard these players as "not professionals, thus not notable". Regards, Kjetil_r 21:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The media coverage is irrelevant in terms of determining whether the league was fully-professional, which is what WP:NFOOTBALL requires. However, if what you say is true, then the players from that era will be notable under WP:GNG. Number   5  7  22:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. The only reason 'fully-pro' = 'notable' is because it is presumed that 'fully pro' = 'significant coverage of the league and players' and that means GNG is met. WP:NSPORT specifically says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia". There are clearly leagues on this list which are not technically 100% fully pro but which we let by because a) they are nearly there and b) they meet the GNG test. If Norway is the same then why not change it? GiantSnowman 14:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like even is uncomfortable with abandoning any semblance of objectivity. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

2001 seems a bit random to me. I think 1991 is a better year to start with. The coverage of Norwegian football was by my opinion, significant at that time so I will say that players with over 100 matches in the nineties meets GNG. --- Løken (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of this list is so that once a player makes 1 appearance, he is presumed to have passed GNG, not over 100 games. Nehme1499 22:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the problem is that this list is used in AFDs as an exclusion criteria. (and also it seems that 1 appearance is not enough for GNG, but thats another discussion). Other than that, 2001 seems a bit random year, and put another way, I agree with Mentoz in this matter. --- Løken (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These claims of 'Norwegian exceptionalism' don't carry too much weight, especially when they are completely unevidenced. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One could look at the large number of Norwegian players you have recently sent to AFD on the basis that they were "non notable" that have been kept by consensus. GiantSnowman 13:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The vast majority got deleted, because once they couldn't hide behind the farce of WP:NFOOTBALL they were found to be miles off WP:GNG. You voted delete in most of them yourself. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally Oppose these suggestions. I think the league's founding date should be the cutoff as mentioned above.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues → WikiProject Football/Preferred leagues – Recent comment at the talk page has made it clear that this list contains leagues which are/were not 'fully professional', making the current title a farce and a deception. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The list is meant to be a list of fully-professional leagues, as that is what is required by the guideline. Leagues that are not fully-professional should not be listed as such. Number   5  7  16:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But "fully professional" is an amorphous concept, without discrete boundaries. So not only is this page a logical absurdity, it also causes harm to the project. As a WP:SNG it is a backed up toilet, flooding the whole encyclopaedia with non-notable perma-stubs. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose please do not misconstrue my comment like that. This is, and always has been, a list of leagues which are (for all intents and purposes) "fully-professional". I am happy to discuss changes to the inclusion criteria for this list/wider criteria for NFOOTBALL, but this is not the way to do it. GiantSnowman 16:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 16:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose yet more WP:POINTy behaviour from . This is a list of fully professional leagues, not some list of leagues that GiantSnowman happens to like most. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * oi! GiantSnowman 16:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly there are issues around WP:OWN, WP:ADMINABUSE, WP:NPA etc. etc. from, who was admonished for that behaviour in 2019. But this isn't really the forum to discuss that. And to be fair he isn't the only one trying 'every trick in the book' to undermine the objectivity of this list, up to and including bare-faced lying. We've had tendentious editing (ignoring and removing evidence), seen WP:BURDEN stood on its head with dubious material being edit-warred back in. Now there is this circular/nonsense argument that the list is derived from WP:GNG, so being on the list equates to passing WP:GNG (?) In reality - even if we accept "fully professionalism" exists - any connection between that and notability has never been established. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, your accusations are as ludicrous as some of your recent edits. GiantSnowman 17:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not been active in many discussions on this talk page, but it seems to me that GiantSnowman has remained relatively civil and objective here, contrary to all the accusations laid against him. It would be nice if some other editors considered engaging in constructive discussion though. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * oppose this page is guideline, not a someone opinion page Hhkohh (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as MA says, usual WP:POINTY habits from Bring back Daz Sampson. Nehme1499 17:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It does seem odd to have the comment There are clearly leagues on this list which are not technically 100% fully pro but which we let by because a) they are nearly there and b) they meet the GNG test. and in response to that commenting This is, and always has been, a list of leagues which are (for all intents and purposes) "fully-professional". So are all the leagues here fully professional or not. That point aside, as we are not here to discuss a specific user, the next question is what is the point of this list? If it is to assume notability, why is the claim that a fully-professional league infers notability? As it is stated currently: A fully professional league is one in which virtually all adult players are paid a salary that they can live on and do not need additional sources of income. This salary should be a living wage in the nation where the league is based, and preferably around or above the average or median national wage. Now a salary you can live on in Australia is not the same salary you'd need in India. Neither does the salary necessarily reflect notability. In many cases in the past (especially deletion discussions of female players), it has been mentioned that the coverage is what's important, and in a few cases people mentioned that the money factor affects crowds/rating factor which affects coverage. So why not have a list by average attendance? That is surely closer to the coverage. Just a few thoughts. Anyway, bottom line, if the comment that on this list there can/should be leagues which are "not technically 100% fully pro" is consensus, we should move the page (I oppose the current destination though) as the current name is misleading. If that comment isn't consensus, then we should work on removing the leagues which are "not technically 100% fully pro". --SuperJew (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * you make some fair points but the key phrases in the statements above are 'for all intents and purposes' and 'virtually', which suggests to me there is and has always been a little bit of leeway. Also, this is a guideline rather than an encyclopaedic list so removing leagues that are "not technically 100% fully pro" would be counter-productive. However, I think average attendance is an interesting suggestion which could be explored. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (e/c) The point of this list is because WP:NFOOTY requires having played in a fully-professional league, so editors need to know which leagues these are. This list came after the guideline was created in order to try and make it easier for editors to worked out who passed or did not pass the SNG. Personally I would not be adverse to reconsidering the guideline (and one based on attendances would be make it much, much easier to get definitive answers). The issue to date has always been that no-one has come up with a workable alternative as every discussion I can remember has gone down the 'all top division players' route, or suggested simply making a list of 'notable' leagues, which is so open to interpretation as to be unworkable. If someone were to propose replacing the fully-professional requirement with one that says players in leagues with an average attendance of (e.g.) 2,000 or more are generally considered notable (subject to certain qualifiers like ignoring cases where averages being skewed by a single team, as would have happened with the Scottish lower divisions during Rangers' sojourn to them), I would probably support it due to it being far easier to source. Number   5  7  19:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is the point of the list (as I also understood it), then I do think in it's current format it should be moved. Perhaps to "leagues which are presumed notable"? And have at the beginning a proper intro which says most of the leagues are fully-professional, and that a few more are included due to them being presumed notable despite not being fully-pro with reasons in notes for each such league. And I do think an average attendance is closer to our coverage story which is closer to presumed notability (and also easier to source and a more commonly used term and statistic). We could do it with an average and a standard deviation minimum to avoid skewing. --SuperJew (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be including leagues that are 'considered notable' on this list under the current rules – this is to aid compliance with the guideline, not to extend the scope of what the guideline allows. Number   5  7  20:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to moving to "leagues which are presumed notable". And I am undecided on average attendances, though given that they can vary quite a bit by season, a rolling average could be used. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to SuperJew (and N57) - yes, there are major "fully professional" leagues that are not literally fully professional. Every so often an (amateur) youth player will play, or there will be a player who for whatever reason keeps their day job or is a university student etc. etc. As MA says, we allow leeway. The presence of these small number of outliers does NOT mean that the league should be removed from the list - and it was would be far too complex to attempt to track the presence of them. GiantSnowman 21:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When presented with evidence that certain favoured leagues were not even close to "fully professional", your response was that you were already aware they weren't but that you'll argue to keep them on the list anyway. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as we know, there are outliers in every league, including the WSL, but no one advocates for the removal of that. Fully professional is not a concept with a clear definition and therefore there can't really be a clear boundary drawn between what is and isn't fully pro. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - it's bollocks, in other words. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Care to suggest an alternative? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anything would be better than this carnival of deceitful POV-pushing. But what's wrong with just using WP:GNG? We've recently seen swathes of Norwegian articles zapped now they don't have this 'FPL' farce to hide behind, because they are simply not notable. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not POV-pushing at all. NFOOTBALL gives editors guidance on what sort of topics are likely to be notable and which ones aren't. It is not a rule or a law but it is useful, especially to newer editors that want to get stuck in creating articles. The reasoning behind it is sound as, generally speaking, footballers playing in leagues at FPL and those with full international caps, do tend to get an awful lot more coverage than those that don't but, of course, there are exceptions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The purpose of this list is to support WP:NFOOTBALL. As such, its name should reflect the language in that guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above arguments.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose to know what a fully prof. league is, you also need to list those that are not to avoid a multitude of questions about ones that aren't fully prof.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this page supports NFOOTBALL and the language used needs to be consistent with that guideline Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support or just delete WP:FPL - it's unreliable - based on numerous discussions on the related talk page. Hmlarson (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose You know we can just remove the non-professional leagues, right? KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 19:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you ever tried? The goalposts move very quickly if you try to apply the rules to any league favoured by the page's WP:OWNERs! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The list is very useful and changing the name from fully professional leagues to preferred leagues is just pointless. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 10:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose clear WP:POINTY behavior, absolutely no reason for this change and continued bad-faith and uncivil behavior from this user. WP:FPL still remains the best starting point when determining whether or not players have a presumption of notability, typically used for players new in their careers. WP:GNG can always be used on a player-by-player basis. There is absolutely no merit to this proposal. Jay eyem (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree the proposal is clearly a WP:POINTY motive. The guideline may not be perfect, but it still is the best way of determining whether or not players have a presumption of notability. Shotgun pete (talk) 2:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: a player is notable after playing in a fully-pro league and changing this title will make inexperienced editors very confused. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)