Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 9

English WSL

 * It is NOT fully-pro - the clubs are subsidised by the FA. GiantSnowman 12:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe being "subsidised" by the FA matters matters to a league being fully-pro or not. I think the stand out fact in this article is that it states there is a mix of professional and semi-professional players with only 4 players on each club receiving a salary above 20,000 pounds excluding England NT players.Borgarde (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Moldova
The national federation states in Romanian and in Russian that the National Division is fully professional. I suggest to add it to the list of fully professional leagues.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be precise, it is about the 2012/2013 season, I do not easily find any evidence for other seasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't read Romanian or Russian but have added it with your references provided. I'm sure if anyone objects they will change it, but it's been a week with no response.Borgarde (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted - please can you provide a direct translation? GiantSnowman 13:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A rough translation from Russian of the relevant part of the Championship rules published by the Moldovan Football Federation: "National Football Championship of Moldova (adults) in 2012/2013 will be held in three categories: National Division - Category 1 - professionals; National Division A - Category 2 - semi-professionals; National Division B - Category 3 - amateurs." "4.3 A non-amateur is a football player on a contract (details of the contract). All other players are classified as amateurs... Clubs playing in the National Division have to take their players on contracts."--Ymblanter (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A contract does not make somebody a professional. GiantSnowman 08:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know - I have a full-time contract with my university which I believe makes me professional. What do you want to see as a proof? I can see whether the file contains that position.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I put it through Google translate and got the following, "As a football player. FC must contract with a professional player labor agreement, while keeping with the provisions of Article 5, Article 6, Article 7 and Article 47 Labour Code of the Republic of Moldova and the minimum requirements League set for such a treaty, whereby the club guarantees the player a monthly salary, which can not be lower the average wage in the country as the Republic of Moldova, is set every relevant legal acts adopted by the competent national governments. All other players that do not meet the criteria listed above, considered "amateur"" From that paragraph I would state the top league is fully professional.Borgarde (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter - I deliberately said "contract", not "full-time contract" - you can get semi-pro contracts in football.
 * Borgarde - yes, based on that I would agree the league is fully-professional. GiantSnowman 16:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like all of us agree that Moldova can be added to the list. If there are no objections in a week, I am going to add it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done it for you now. Borgarde (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nigeria
The ref doesn't say that the Nigerian league is fully pro, just that minimum pay had been introduced. Are there any other refs showing that it is fully pro? Hack (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 35. Unfortunately the link to the NPL website is now dead, but it seemed acceptable at the time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From the source in the current list, "All players... will now earn a minimum monthly wage fixed at $200." If all players earn a monthly wage, they are professional, no? Dricherby (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought when it was first added back in 2009, but a minimum wage actually has no impact on professionalism. Earning $200 per month does not mean I am a professional. I may still have to have a 2nd job to support myself/my family. GiantSnowman 09:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As GS says, the complication lies in the definition of fully professional, which conventionally means that all players are not just paid for playing football, but that football is a full-time job for the players and they are paid enough that they don't need another job to supplement their earnings. I'd guess that a very small number of entries on this list have references that truly verify their being fully professional... However, according to this very recent news report, the minimum wage for footballers in the NPL is 150,000 Naira, as of this season. The national minimum wage for all workers was set at 18,000 Naira in 2011, so the 150,000N figure would seem to satisfy the fully pro criterion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Unicef says that, in 2006, 70.8% of Nigerians lived on less than a dollar a day and 92.4% on less than $2 a day. That suggests that $200 a month (about $7 a day) in 2002, as reported by the BBC in the source quoted, is not going to require a second job to make ends meet. Dricherby (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Albania
The ref provided says that a player must be a professional but doesn't explicitly say they had to be full time professional. Is there a better source for the fully professional status? Hack (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Bosnia
I've just updated the reference for Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina which is an updated version of the previous PDF reference. My Bosnian is limited to google translate but it appears to state that the "The applicant for a license to run in a professional manner;" and "Applicants for a license to have access to well-educated, qualified and capable professionals with specific know-how and experience;" this also appears to imply that the league is professional. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 19:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The player notability of the Scottish Professional Football League.
On 24 July 2013 it was announced that there would be a brand new structure to the Scottish football league system which would include four different leagues (the Scottish Premiership, Scottish Championship, Scottish League One, and Scottish League Two). Now, with these new leagues, come the need to decide which ones are professional and which ones are semi-professional or amateur. Currently WP:FPL still includes the former Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League but of course that is going to need to change now that there is a change in structure in Scotland. So to make this short: Which of the four leagues are to be included in WP:FPL and which ones are not (perhaps all would count)? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No real change necessary here - while there have been changes to the organising bodies and a rebranding of the leagues' names, the make up of the divisions themselves remains unchanged, with only the top two tiers being largely full time professional. Jellyman (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, only the names have changed, so the divisions should not be treated any differently -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also agreed - the Premiership and Championship are considered FPL, League One and League Two are not. GiantSnowman 08:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, from the looks of it, it does seem that way. So I am guessing we have all reached consensus that it is the 1st and 2nd tiers which are fully-pro and that it can be changed now? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we'd need a much better source to support the inclusion of the second tier. The statement "More money will flow into the second tier, enabling clubs to run a full-time operation should they wish to.", as well as being speculative, suggests A) They are not full-time at present and B) some or all may not wish to turn full-time. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We know that the second tier is not 100% professional; that's largely irrelevant. For the purpose of WP:NFOOTBALL, we consider the second tier a FPL due to the amount of coverage it receives. GiantSnowman 14:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I won't be the only editor to find that slightly troublesome - Nice use of the Royal we though. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the Royal we - the Wikipedia we. GiantSnowman 14:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So... can you prove that each/most player(s) in the now Scottish Championship would pass WP:GNG? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of a fully professional league then if you can just change the interpretation at will?
 * The SLF Div1 gets as much coverage as the SFL div 3 at the moment (in my experience at least). using your method all the divisions would be considered FP.
 * Is there enough information on status of clubs in the new SPFL Championship to determine whether they will be all fully professional? is it 80%, 90% or 100% FP? =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 19:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently in some cases it's irrelevant whether they're professional or not!? Yes, I'm confused too... Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, we are applying the same WP:COMMONSENSE that has seen the Finnish top league included even though it is not absolutely, 100% fully professional. GiantSnowman 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well from what I can research, it just seems that this is just a renaming, in simple terms, of the other Scottish leagues. So basically I would go with GS here and say that the Prem and Championship are both fully-pro while League One and Two are semi-pro. We just need to source it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this page is entitled 'fully professional leagues' but it very rarely possible to determine whether a league is fully professional let alone to find reliable sources to confirm that status. I still think that there needs to be more guidance on what we consider to be a fully professional league.
 * Very few leagues place a requirement on their member clubs to be 'professional' either because A) they consist of all professional clubs and they are fed by leagues which are mainly or fully professional or B) they do not want to force clubs to be professional when they cannot sustain it financially.
 * If you look at the reference for the English leagues it's an indirect reference to the fact that one player is 'semi professional'. If we cannot find a better reference for one of Europes biggest professional leagues than that what hope is there for finding reliable sources for the smaller leagues?
 * What we need is a better guide to notability than whether a league is fully professional. How notable is Ryan Clarke say or would Jimmy Glass truly be notable if not for that last minute goal? =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 19:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What would be a better guide? In the seven years I've been following this discussion, no-one has ever proposed a workable alternative. The best I've heard is that we compile a "list of notable leagues", which is a nonsense by itself. The only realistic alternative I can think of is to set an attendance threshold. My experience of following leagues around Europe is that an average attendance of 1,000 is generally the threshold for professionalism. These figures are easily available from a number of sources, so we would have little problem with actually working out which leagues pass the threshold or not. Number   5  7  20:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a discussion that needs to be had but your suggestion is a clear statistic that can be easily found for most leagues. wrt the SPFLChampionship this would mean that 80% of the league would not be considered professional. =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how 7 of the 10 clubs having attendances over 1,000 equals 80% below 1,000? And I actually meant the average attendance of the league as a whole. Number   5  7  21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Attendances? If that was the case then you have a bunch of leagues in India which are FULLY AMATEUR would be considered fully-pro. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That source doesn't mention professionalism at all - where are you getting your 80% figure from? Let me guess, OR based on match attendances? GiantSnowman 21:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok the 80% should have been 70% (7 out of 10) but is was a response to the suggestion of an attendance threshold (and misunderstanding the suggestion at that). A thought that crossed my mind was a league could be considered notable if there was regular (at least once per matchday) televised matches in the country which holds the league plus at least one other.  =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 12:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's workable - I'm sure there are examples of lower leagues being televised more frequently than leagues above them (I think at one stage the Football Conference had a weekly televised game whilst Leagues One and Two didn't). Number   5  7  12:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That was why I said 'at least one other' ie it would be notable outside the country in which the the matches take place. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be overly restrictive I think, as well as favouring countries that had regional or shared broadcasters. Number   5  7  12:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

update suggestion
It's difficult to see where there are missing entries to the list. I'm going to create this table in my sandbox unless anyone has a particular opposition to it.

=> Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with a table format, but think it's better to break it down per nation into 'Fully-professional', 'Not fully professional' and 'unknown' - also we should add a date column i.e. League X became fully-pro in 1999. GiantSnowman 19:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My first attempt can be found in here, the other thing I've done is remove the defunct leagues into a separate section (makes more sense with the tables) => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I still tgink it is more important/useful to break down by professional status rather than gender. GiantSnowman 20:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All I've attempted to do so far is to capture all the currently presented information in a clearer manner. As each country is listed in either the professional or non-professional sections in the current article. Are you suggesting having a separate columns for the three categories?  I hope you aren't opening up the possibility of someone adding all of the football pyramid.  =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not, if Level X in a country is not fully-professional then a lower division certainly won't be! Something like this would be better:

Apologies for the less-than-perfect formatting but it's just a quick idea! GiantSnowman 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How many countries will use more than one of the columns? I know for the main European countries we'd know the FTP and non-FTP but for most others there will only be one entry (if that).  I see no value in the extra complexity that it gives over the other suggestion which also combines all of the page into one table (barring the defunct leagues)=>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 16:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is to colour-code it, which makes no sense, and is probably also a readibility issue for the visually impaired who use screen readers. Splitting into male and female makes no sense, that's not what this page is concerned with - it is concerned with whether a league is fully-professional or not, and therefore we should tell them whether it is fully-professional or not. GiantSnowman 16:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How about

with separate tables for Men & Women => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've updated my copy of the table to include as many leagues as possible (to fill out the men's leagues) and If there is no objection to this I'm going to copy it into the actual page. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold off for now, I suggest posting a notice at WT:FOOTBALL to make people aware of this discussion and see if there are any further comments/suggestions before making it live. GiantSnowman 09:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you clearly set out the main things you are trying to change, and your rationale. In the longer term there may be an agreement to move away from this 'fully pro' yardstick, but if we keep it we should be tracking years from when a league was/wasn't fully pro. I see the Confederation as an extra column that is not really needed. Eldumpo (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to improve what is an incomplete list by providing the structure which will enable the list to be understood by people that will use it. wrt the confederation, it's for those whose geography isn't very good.  The list as it stands provides little more information than was there previously (apart from the leagues that have been added as 'unknown'.  the updated list will also provide editors with the impetus to do the research to understand which leagues are professional.  The new list also shows just how incomplete the current list actually is =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be easier to have sub-sections of the table, according to continent/confederation, and then you would save a column. Also, why include an Unknown entry. Just have a statement saying that there is no info for some leagues, and they will be assumed to be non-professional. I don't see the benefit of adding a large number of (clearly non-notable) leagues to the list. Also, the wording for Pro should state 'Fully Professional'. Eldumpo (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. The current solution is sortable which allows users of the table to get the information out that they may need.
 * 2. Take a look at the current page, there is already a number of 'non-notable' leagues. My update only makes sure that all of the top leagues in the world are included in the list.  How can the top league of a FIFA member country not be notable enough to be included on the list, even if it is not fully professional?
 * 3. Be very careful about making assumptions about which leagues are fully or not fully professional. We need to make all information included on wikipedia based on evidence rather than assumptions.  Stating that the status of the league is 'unknown' provides a method to a) stimulate research and b) a clear description of the status of the league (i.e. it is not currently known)
 * => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 10:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the 'top leagues' of Nepal, Micronesia and Djibouti are fully professional or anything close. If there's documented evidence they are not then include them, but else the list is going to be unnecessarily long with a large number of Unknown entries. If there is no evidence a league is 'fully pro' then for the purposes of our notability guidance it will be assumed to be not professional, though this is not currently written, only those entries with sources confirming they are not professional. Eldumpo (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the list should be complete and that for it to be complete it should include all top divisions from all FIFA member countries (something that makes the leagues themselves notable if not the players who play in them) and then state their current known professional status.  For the list to be complete (as it currently is structured) it would be very long and not very usable.  I'd take a look at WP:Tables and make your own mind up as to whether it should be a table or a list.  When I read it I was convinced that a table would provide the information in a clearer fashion than currently exists.=>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 11:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to change the professional status column to be called 'fully professional' with, or. any comments?=> Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 14:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As and when the new-format table goes back in, please would you use plain-text Y, N and ? rather than the templated images. Manual of Style says why. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to use both as the templates are a good visual cue as to which are professional Like so.


 * => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 17:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Implementation of new style being used to cover up controversial changes
I have reverted the recent changes to the format of the list, as it was seemingly being used to cover up some very controversial changes, most notably changing listing the Scottish First Division as not fully-professional - see before and after (another one I spotted was listing Liga Leumit as fully-professional - I'd love to know how they achieve that on crowds of under 200). I have no objections to the new format, but implementing it in this way is rather underhand. Number  5  7  11:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, I didn't even notice that - the new format is better but should be implemented with NO changes to actual content. GiantSnowman 11:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an honest attempt at an improvement to the structure of the page to which I attempted to get as much buy-in from the people who take notice of this page. I actually got some input from some people which I attempted to incorporate to the best of my ability.  If there are mistakes then they were honest ones and not a malicious attempt to ruin the existing information.


 * This page even when I updated has some significant issues.
 * There is not a clear and objective definition of what a 'fully professional league' actually. One needs to be incorporated into the intro of the page to guide both readers and editors.
 * It is not clear what constitutes evidence of a league being fully professional (a subtle difference)


 * If you actually agree with the change in structure but disagree with some of the content why not change what is there rather than blindly reverting what must be clear to anyone is a significant amount of work by a fellow editor. It's these kinds of reversions that make new editors leave wikipedia.
 * If you didn't agree with the changes I made where were you when I was ASKING FOR INPUT????
 * => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 16:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Missing the point completely. I have no objection to the format changes, but it is unacceptable to change the content. I do not have the time to compare the data from one version to the next. The impetus is on you to transpose it correctly. Number   5  7  17:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you do not have the time to compare the data how do you know that it doesn't now match? What else have I got wrong? I can't see anything.=>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WRT Liga Leumit I read the existing page and wasn't clear whether the reference was relevant up to 2009. It was listed in the professional section, how on earth am I supposed to know that it is not fully professional when it is listed in the fully professional section????????? =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The little note next to it saying (only until 2008/09 season – further sources required) might have been a hint. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was unclear (even with the note). In fact the note is so vague it actually caused my misunderstanding in the first place. The request for further sources in conjunction with the fact it was in the FP section implied that it was still the case.
 * If the league is not fully professional it does not belong in that section.=> Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 17:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reverted again because it still differs from what was there before. Only reinstate the new version when it matches exactly what the old version said. Thanks, Number   5  7  17:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read my response or just ignore it as seems to be the case? The updated page provide clearer and more useful information than existed previously.  As can be shown from above the information in the old format is so poorly constructed it is impossible to determine what is actually the case.=>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 17:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

, there is clear opposition to your edits, if you continue to try and re-introduce the table you might be blocked for disruptive edits. Please continue with this discussion. GiantSnowman 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is being told 'you're wrong' without being told why. Constructive criticism I can take but some of the users in this discussion are being anything but that.  Tell me that you don't like the name or inclusion of a column and we can discuss it, I have done, and have made significant changes to the structure as a result of some of the comments already made.  Just telling me that "It doesn't match" isn't very helpful.  As I have said already it's this kind of discussion that makes people think "Why bother at all?" =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 17:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for review
As I am clearly not of sufficient competence to read the current consensus on the old style page can someone read the two versions and explain to me what I have missed (I've looked and can't see anything)=> Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To also respond to your comment above, you have been told what you are doing wrong, namely that when you are converting the table, you are removing entries. Your conversion should be like-for-like i.e. the exact same info contained. Why did you remove SFL1? An extremely controversial move and one that has been subject to numerous past discussions. GiantSnowman 18:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WRT the SFL1 change I have already stated that it was an honest mistake. It was actually one I didn't intend to make (I made an extra change I saw to see how modifiable the table was and forgot to remove it). I have also stated that it was always intended to be a true reflection of what currently existed and that any alterations were unintentional.  if in my day job I was given review comments like are here I would attempt to explain to the reviewer that when commenting on items that have specific issues you need to be specific in the nature of the comments rather than generalise from one error which changes something that you are particularly interested in of which I have not been involved in the discussions about.  Remember that most editors, even ones making changes such as I proposed, won't read all of the archived discussions about a subject especially if they do not think they are changing the content (as I believed).
 * I may have made some mistakes (I challenge anyone to attempt such a large change and not to) and I may have taken some of the criticism laid at me personally (which is something that is easy to do when I'm accused of deliberately making changes I had not intended to do) but that is my nature. All I have ever wanted is to improve this page such that it is clear from the casual viewer which leagues are considered professional (something that at present is not). => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 23:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've converted the list as it stands into the proposed table here. Can someone please double-check my work to make sure I didn't screw anything up. I wasn't entirely sure what to do with the Israeli Second Division so I've left it as is. I've also taken the liberty of alphabetising the mens leagues by country name rather than three letter code (I don't think most people would think to look for Saudi Arabia under K). I'll get to the womens leagues a little later. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got SFL1 as unknown whereas it's currently classified as fully-pro. Number   5  7  21:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * after looking at the differences between what you have and what I had and checking all of the moves (which I have no opinion on) you are left with the following questions
 * I had the the page for the Brunei Super League as professional because the wiki page claims the league to be " a Bruneian professional league for association football"
 * The leagues that were defunct I placed at the bottom in a separate subsection. I clearly stated that the tables were "current leagues" and had a separate section for defunct leagues (If this was an issue I would have accommodated changes as such)
 * *The uzbek league is not referenced in yours (I had " Uzbek League " as per the original page)
 * => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First, all claims not supported by reliable sources are inadmissible, and Wikipedia does not meet its own reliability standards. So regardless of what our article on the subject may say, the Brunei League should not be listed without better sourcing. Besides which, professional does not necessarily mean fully professional. Second, as far as notability goes, and that is the purpose of this list, no distinction is made between current and defunct leagues. Given that the pro/non-pro information is being moved from the section heads into the list itself, far fewer people will pay them any attention. Considering these things, it makes more sense to me to list all the relevant leagues for any given country together in one place. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with that but I'd suggest that the 'fully professional' column refers to the current status of the league and the 'established' column renamed to be "years fully professional". I still think it's important to highlight leagues which are defunct, it could be done with a † or ‡.=>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 15:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Most of the defunct leagues indicate the years they existed in the article title, but a bit of extra precision can't hurt. Since you clearly have something specific in mind, feel free to implement it in the draft version. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've updated your draft of the page to include the different columns (and removed the code column from the womens leagues). => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the proposed format change. There's going to be a long list of tiny leagues which are unknown. What's the point of that? It's going to make it too long. Also, why have the 3 letter country code? Eldumpo (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the three letter codes are pointless and should be removed. However, I think it's important that we acknowledge that for most leagues we don't know the professional status. Listing all the leagues is a very visceral way of communicating this and is more likely to lead to people actually looking for sources rather than just saying that the list is incomplete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be easy to finish off the women's section, given WUSA was "the first attempt at a fully professional league." Other than WPS and NWSL there hasn't been any others! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I am adding this in the wrong place - but I just wanted to mention something. I see League 2 is listed as FULLY professional... (http://www.albionroad.com/football-leagues/football-league-two.html). This article shows the closer truth - and being a soccer expert myself, I also know players in this league who work jobs to make it on the money they get paid. This is by far not a fully professional league, especially with that 'fully' added. If this is the case, then a player I have been recently looking up on played in 2 leagues I know very well, which are considered amature. The Portuguese 2nd div. and the German 4th division. In any circumstance, soccer people would know, if league 2 is considered X, then these other two leagues are X or greater. No where in League 2 do you see 45,000 seat stadiums and the name 'red bull' before team (this is actually reference to a 5th div team that red bull bought in Germany. My point is this list of fully pro lacks real documentation. I also have documentation from the largest news paper in Germany that the Australian 2nd. div is professional (even though many would argue against that in reality). Thanks, (Samej1902 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC))
 * But that site you linked states what everyone already knew, that League 2 is fully professional. Did you post the right link? It doesn't matter what size the stadia are or whether or not teams have been bought by Red Bull, all the clubs in League 2 (and most of the Conference) are definitely full-time. BigDom (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , please note that is trying to add the leagues he mentioned to the FPL list in order to try and save an article at AFD. GiantSnowman 08:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that. I think he's discredited himself enough now then anyway. BigDom (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you were read the wrong article - the link I provided says this "Nonetheless League Two is the traditional divider between full-time professional "league football" and semi-professional part-time "non-league football". So... Does that spell fully professional to you... maybe read it twice. It says BETWEEN full time pro and part time pro. So, again, you still believe this supports league 2 being fully pro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That article says "Football League Two is the fourth and lowest tier of full-time professional football in England". Pretty clear. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "between". BigDom (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Samej1902, I think it is you who has mis-read. It simply means that League 2 is the lowest division of the professional 'league football' system, and that leagues below that fall into semi-pro 'non-league football'. GiantSnowman 09:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)