Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:58, 6 July 2009

Argentina Primera B

Isn't Primera B Nacional Argentina (effectively 2nd division), also fully professional and therefore missing from the list, unless I'm mistaken? -- Alexf 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Liga Leumit, Liga Artzit

There seems to be a lot of debate going on as to the professionalism of the Israeli second tier and third tier. The leagues are being restructured at the end of this year and the Liga Artzit will no longer be a fully professional league. Let´s stop the edit wars and have a proper discussion. Second, there needs to be corrections made as to the history of Israeli football. The Premier League did not always exist, the Liga Leumit was the top tier before it. As such, players who played then should not be deleted either. SpeechFreedom (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this FIFA document (which was published in January), the top two leagues are professional. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't re-add this as a source, because there is nothing on that page about leagues being fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

54==Definition of Fully Pro League== Can anyone confirm where the wording on this article's page for defining a professional league has come from, as it has added detail to the original (master) guidance at WP:ATHLETE. Has there been a past discussion on this point? Else I would suggest the wording on this page is changed to match that at Athlete. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty standard definition of what the professional level of football is - all the players are full-time footballers, not part-timers with jobs outside football. I don't see why it would be controversial. Since you seem to disagree with it, what would you consider to be the definition of a fully professional league? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So if one footballer in a league is not paid then the league is not fully professional, and thus all players in the league would fail ATH? My comment also relates to how some people in AfD's link talk about WP:ATH to this page, whereas I would argue to do that the wording on this page should be as ATH. Also, for how many leagues is there a source that all players are fully paid? Eldumpo (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As the list stands at the moment, we have 24 sources for fully-pro leagues, plus 3 more for semi-pro leagues. Obviously this list is still in progress. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 21:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But how many of the sources confirm that 'all first team players, in all teams composing the league, are known to be contracted in a full-time basis.' Eldumpo (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not proposing any other definition. Fully professional is a reasonable shorthand for saying that the league doesn't have jobbing (sh)amateurs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition at ATH is a slightly separate matter. I'm saying that the Pro Leagues page should have the same guidance/definition, but as it stands I can't see why people say a player fails ATH as based on the current wording at Pro Lges, no one would pass it. Eldumpo (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a nonsense. For instance, the Scottish First Division has always been conveniently ignored for the purposes of WP:ATHLETE even though there is no guarantee of teams in it being fully professional. The same obvious applies to historical teams. The fact is that this is an arbitary guideline which isn't recognised outwith this particular WikiProject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris - yes, that was where I was coming from, or at least wanted to understand first if there was a previous discussion. Eldumpo (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Eldumpo, what alternative to the current guideline would you propose? From your comments at recent AfDs, you clearly regard anyone playing in the top level of any European league system as sufficiently notable, which is fair enough, but what about lower levels? England's Football League Championship is clearly a much "bigger" league than the top divisions of most other European countries, and even Football League Two is "bigger" than the top flights of countries like Iceland and Latvia...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see ATH amended to maybe say something like 'mostly professional' or if 'fully professional' remains it should be more clearly defined - as discussed, I think the requirement for every player to be pro is extreme, why not just apply it to every club? Or there should be a formal link from the main ATH guidance to where there is more detail on what exactly this means for particular sports. However, that is a bigger issue really, for the present I would like to amend the wording on the definition part of this article's page to be the same as the current ATH wording, and not the extra text that has been added. Eldumpo (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem would then be defining "mostly". This season the Conference National will probably have about six teams out of 24 who are not full-time - is 75% full-time pros enough to be considered "mostly professional"? Some would probably say yes but others no...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Having had a recent read through the ATH talk page it would seem that quite a bit of work would be needed to get a consensus on any change there. However, I have not seen within this discussion any specific disagreement to changing this article's wording in-keeping with ATH and thus this is something I am shortly intending to do. Eldumpo (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• But what does full-time fooballers mean? There are very high level leagues that have the odd player, who also has a part-time job, particularly during the off-season, to make ends meet; or who brings in a part-timer for a game or two occasionally. Yet we've always turned a blind eye to that. Surely fully professional should mean that all players are significantly compensated; not necessarily that none are moonlighting. And even then, if a league is mostly composed of fully-professional teams ...? BTW, where is this 'list' to which people refer? Nfitz (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further to my earlier posting today (see above) I have just come across the sub-page List of professional sports leagues#Football: Assocation Football which lists professional sports leagues. There seems to be no logic in having 2 separate sections essentially trying to compile the same information, and it is perhaps not surprising that the contents of both lists are not the same. However there is virtually no definition on that article at present of exactly how a 'professional sports league' is defined. Rather than having our own sub-category for football would it not actually be better to delete this Wiki Football page and concentrate on the master location where all sports are listed? Eldumpo (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed ... perhaps a redirect is in order. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FAI Premier Division - professional or not!?!

These sources suggest that it is professional. I can vouch for 80% of the clubs but I am sure some of the newly promoted clubs have a mixture of semi pro and pro players. discuss!

• League feels the pinch and The eircom League of Ireland is the professional football league of Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this story, Drogheda have gone part-time. As for the other teams, I think most of them are fully-professional. I'll look into it more when I have the time. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 12:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just found this from the BBC - a league that over the past several years transformed itself from a semi-professional league to a fully professional one.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what I've found so far:

Although it is trying, the league is far from being fully professional at the moment. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So if these teams were fully pro last season and therefore the league was fully pro last season does that mean that players that appeared last season are notable and players that have only played this season arnt?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Dundalk, Galway, Sligo and St Pat's have been semi-pro for a while, if not always. I've recently noticed that the BBC aren't always accurate in their reporting. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats not true, Sligo Rovers are predominantly pro still and were fully pro last year. St. Pats were fully pro until very recently as were Galway. Dundalk are newly promoted.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• So now that we have got proof that the league is indeed fully professional, why are we still tryind to AfD LOI players - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David O'Connor (footballer). Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, there is no proof. Shamrock are semi-pro, and it has been pointed out that two clubs (St Pats and Galway) are also semi-pro (having been fully pro in the past). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, there is no evidence of all the FAI Premier League clubs being fully-pro, ergo the league is not fully professional in itself. --Angelo (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So what is being proposed is that Irish socer players are not notable, it is the highest standard that can be reached in soccer in Ireland which should be notable IMO. WP:ATHLETE is flawed in this case. BigDunc 14:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• The BBC Article made it clear they were fully pro. They seem more fully pro than many leagues listed. CSL players routinely hold other jobs, but they are listed as fully pro. There's a difference between a team being professional; and paying salaries that would deter people from holding other jobs. Nfitz (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What is clear is that the BBC article made a mistake, as they are prone to do from time to time (I recently wrote in to correct them after they claimed there were only 12 Arab members of the Knesset), as they clearly overlooked the fact that not all clubs are fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It all depends on how you define fully professional. If your defining CSL as fully professional, how can you possible exclude LOI? Nfitz (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • What is CSL? And Number 57 maybe you found a mistake before with the BBC but you have provided no evidence that this is in fact a mistake. BigDunc 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Shamrock Rover's website confirms that they are in fact semi-professional, so I think that is conclusive proof that the BBC is wrong. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Canadian Soccer League (2006–present) ... why are we holding Ireland to a much higher standard than many of the other leagues? Nfitz (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If and when

I have two questions with regards this technicalities of this issue. Let see if some of the tossers stalwarts from the "footy project elite" can answer them.

• A. What constitutes a fully professional league.
• B. If one club has one semi professional player does that make all players in that league semi professional?
• C. If a league is fully professional in say season 2005 and semi professional in season 1999 do the players that participated in the 2005 season pass notability and those from 1999 not? --Vintagekits (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)