Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Costa Rica

I was searching to see if Costa Rica is fully professional and I came across this site. Is this enough to add it to the list of FPLs? JMHamo (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, reading it again, it only says professional, which is not the same as "fully professional".. not entirely sure. JMHamo (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even close, on its own. It says "professional", which still falls into the "is it semi or fully pro?" question/trap. It also doesn't provide anything to back up its claims (hell, it doesn't even name the league!) This forum thread indicates that there was a move towards something that would count as fully-pro, and [1] says the minimum wage was enforced. So, the next question; is that wage enough to sustain someone in Costa Rica (and we should debate the Segunda Division as well, since it's only $100 less) on its own? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nfitz (talk · contribs) had reverted an edit claiming that his Spanish source proves the league is fully professional. Can we get this verified by someone fluent in Spanish? JMHamo (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not a Spanish source, that's a leading newspaper in Costa Rica. Not sure why translation is an issue. Just right-click and translate on a browser. Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I mean it's Spanish language, which needs to be read by somebody fluent in Spanish to verify the content. It could say anything. JMHamo (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not simply right-click on the page and translate? It's easy enough to understand, especially if one has any familiarity with any other Latin or Germanic language. Nfitz (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some chatter of some pretty large salaries in Costa Rican soccer. Has someone got some data on salary and attendance figures? That should be pretty telling. Also pretty telling is their Champions League performance in recent years. Alajuelense knocked out a Mexican team this year to make it to the quarter finals. Last year Herediano knocked out Real Salt Lake. Two years before that Saprissa took out the Sounders. That doesn't speak to the entire league, but the top teams look very professional. Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Nfitz, could you please familarise yourself with WP:V.. saying "the top teams look very professional" is your opinion and not fact backed up by a reliable source. JMHamo (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should I? Even if the top teams are very professional it doesn't speak to the bottom teams, and I made that clear when I said it. I'm simply stating a personal observation from what I've observed watching teams in this league play; not making a case. Perhaps you could tell us what you've observed from your experience? Perhaps you've seen something different than I? Nfitz (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nfitz, you've misinterpreted what JMHamo was saying. What he was saying is that observations from members count for nothing; it's what reliable sources say that counts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Observations from members are important. If someone was to come here, and say "I've seen the bottom 5 teams in this league play ... and there's never more than 50 people in the stands, and they can't practice in the daytime because they have other jobs" then there's no point in digging any further, but if they say that they saw them beat Arsenal in the Club World Cup, then we'd say ... but that's Arsenal ... I mean we'd say that then we should be able to find evidence they are professional, and keep looking. Obviously it doesn't count in terms of whether they meet WP:FPL - obviously we need solid references. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss. I've made similar comments about the (current) CSL, which some claimed was fully professional ... which was BS given I've sat watching CSL games, and I don't think there is anything other than a few friends and family at most games. (and why was I watching ... because my beer league was waiting for them to get off the pitch so we could play - which I think outnumbered the "fans".) Simply because something doesn't count as evidence, doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss, to understand the flavour. Besides, we do have a source, that no one has refuted. Nfitz (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is but we need sources as well. Simple as that, not complicated. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little displeased that no-one seems to have noted the source I provided about the minimum wage. The question that remains is; is $590 US enough to live on in Costa Rica? Everything I look up only points to ex-pat retirees and their living costs, which is rather unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- You can find the minimum wage for every class of worker in Costa Rica here (just click on the link to the pdf). The minimum wage for Primera División footballers is fairly average (slightly higher than carpenters, florists or shoemakers, but significantly less than skilled positions like engineering draftsmen or university professors). I would guess that a person can live on the footballer's minimum wage, but it would be a struggle. I found another article that indicates other than five Primera clubs, the player's union is constantly representing players who have salary or bonus payments in arrears. I don't think this says much for the level of professionalism in the league. Jogurney (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure that a minimum wage itself is important. Some jurisdictions have effectively removed a minimum wage. Does that mean people get paid nothing? No. The issue isn't what is the minimum wage. But what do the clubs actually pay. Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
So many weeks have gone by, no one has refuted the source provided. Time to add? Nfitz (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Azerbaijan league is not confirmed as fully pro. In fact, the source just implies that the league is in the "Azerbaijan Professional Football League", which seems to be insufficient proof required by the high standards here. Thoughts? Thanks, C 679 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The link listed is clearly insufficient. However, a discussion from four years ago included these links apparently confirming professionalism club by club: Inter Baku, AZAL Baku, FK Bakı, Gäncä, Khazar Lankaran, MOIK Baku, Mughan Salyan, Neftchi Baku, Gabala, Simurq Zaqatala, Turan Tovuz. I have my doubts as to whether they confirm full professionalism either, but they should definitely be part of the discussion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Those links are insufficient in my opinion. Some of them are self-published, some of them do not assert full professionalism. Furthermore they refer to teams which no longer play in the league, and omit some which do. Let's allow a week for an acceptable source to confirm the league's status, or it will be removed from this list. C 679 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cloudz with this one and I believe a week is perfectly fine in this instance before removing the league. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. Azerbaijan Premier League is a member of European Professional Football Leagues as per [2]. Looking through the list, aren't all the other ones fully professional? Are we sure that Azerbaijan isn't fully professional? Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be odd if it weren't but I can't see anything on the EPFL site regarding criteria for membership, nor can I find much discussing the level of professionalism in the league. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The name 'professional' is irrelevant for an organization - look at Scottish Professional Football League, for example, which only has two fully-professional leagues our of four. Giant Snowman 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, looking into the website they report on tiers within the various members' leagues that are definitely not fully pro. At the moment, I am of the opinion that this is at best no longer a fully professional league until it cant be proved otherwise. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The name isn't the issue. What is the membership criteria? When I look at the list of full members, as far as I know, everyone other one has leagues that are fully professional. They haven't previously accepted a member that doesn't have fully professional leagues. Can someone point to the membership criteria?

Still, if we are talking about delisting it, we should probably try and find something definitive. Or else someone will then take it as an invitation to start prodding all sorts of players. Not adding something without conclusive evidence is one thing, but to delist something, we should find a conclusive reference (one way or another) or else it could get messy. Nfitz (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed someone has already started prodding players, despite the ongoing discussion here. And someone has also remvoed from WP:FPL already, which seems premature. I don't think we have consensus yet, so someone should revert that. Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The removal of the league is not a question of consensus but of verifiability. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. There is no consensus that sources we currently have support the claim to full professionalism, meaning the league does not belong on the list. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's consensus that we have verifiability. This league has been listed as fully professional, for 4 years. Sure, we shouldn't add anything without verifiability; but if we are going to remove a country, and then start deprodding articles on that basis, we should have some evidence that the league isn't fully professional, rather than simply references that say the league is professional, but are ambiguous or not clear on the degree of professionalism. Where are these veriable references that the league is no longer fully professional? And when do we think that it stopped being so? Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that everyone in this discussion, other than you, is arguing that the sources are insufficient, consensus that we have verifiability clearly does not exist. If the league has been on the list for four years, it's because no one has bothered to check that the source listed was actually ok until now. This is also why there are no sources indicating that the league is no longer fully pro. There are no sources indicating that it ever was in the first place. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you saying I'm the only one not arguing? This flew below the radar and only a couple of people even responded to the original discussion. There were certainly other people arguing the issue the last time it was debated here; none of which have been notified, or are probably even aware that it is being rehashed. The important point though is that we need some definitive information to delist it, or else players may be unnecessarily prodded. There's a lot of information that they are professional, a lack of information indicating that they are semi-professional, and a lack of a definitive statement that they are fully-professional. Perhaps not enough to list it in the first place; but also not enough to delist it, and create prod havoc. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have looked for new sources, the 2013 AFFA presentation mentions Azerbaijan Premier League (both main teams - Əsas heyət and reserve teams - əvəzedici heyət) and Azerbaijan First Division (I divizion) as "professional leagues" (Peşəkar liqa) and puts aside youth leagues (Yeniyetmələr liqası) other leagues that are either amateur (Həvəskarlar liqası) or student (Tələbə liqası). I could not find anything more official but some indirect sources like this one (stating that only professional teams can take part in Azerbaijan Cup) as well as club websites confirm this statement — NickK (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I was digging into media coverage, particularly in Russian, about how no First Division teams were promoted last season ... couldn't quite figure out the reasons behind it. Are there any clues in this? Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

They failed to get a license — NickK (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Any idea why not? Simple red tape, or for not fulfilling certain criteria. And if there are criteria, where is it documented? Not sure if this is worth pursuing, or a red herring. Nfitz (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Honduras

Is it me, or does the link supporting FPL status not even mention professionalism at all? Tell me if I am being blind, but I am wondering why this league is on the list at all. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The only mention of "Profesional" is in the name of the league...I suggest we remove it until such time as a definitive source can be found. Giant Snowman 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I second the removal of the league. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. League names are definitely insufficient to prove full professionalism. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a lousy reference. I've always been somewhat suspicious of this league, given that it tends to rank about the same as Panama which is well documented as not being fully professional. However given it has been listed for a long time; before we remove it, triggering a surge or article deletions, let's try to find evidence one way or another. I'm afraid I'm striking out at the moment. Nfitz (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

TFF 1.Lig-TFF 2.Lig-TFF 3.Lig

The amateur leagues begin with Turkish Regional Amateur League. [3]←This news is about status of Turkish fully professional leagues.

[4]→This is the status of TFF Third League and its first sentence tells that it is the lowest fully professional league in Turkey.

[5]←This is the status of TFF Second League and its first sentence tells that it is the third tier fully professional league in Turkey.

[6]←This is the status of TFF First League and its first sentence tells that it is the second tier fully professional league in Turkey.

These status are writed by TFF so they're reliable sources.

Here others link:

So what ahould we do about these professional leagues?--Lglukgl (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The first source, but it does not say that TFF3 is a fully professional league, only that it is professional. The source for TFF2 does not say anything at all about the league's professional status. I'm therefore inclined to suggest that we do nothing as the evidence being provided fails to prove anything. Number 5 7 16:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As the sources state these leagues, along with the Süper Lig, are professional, that's for sure. About the "3. Lig" it says it's "the lowest professional football league of Turkey" in the first sentence. --Bobcats 23 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes but "professional" and "fully professional" are not the same thing! Giant Snowman 19:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources that are provided for many of the leagues in the list, including the one for the Süper Lig, aren't stating that they're "fully professional" either. If you look at the sources they mostly mention only about being professional. --Bobcats 23 (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

...which isn't the same as "fully-professional" and therefore they shouldn't be included until a source can be found confirming the same. Giant Snowman 19:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Then go ahead and remove all those leagues in the list, I'm out. --Bobcats 23 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So what's the difference between professional and fully pro? I don't understand.

A football league can be professional, semi professional and amateur.

For example italy

Serie A, Serie B, Lega Pro 1, Legapro 2→Professional (players play football)
Serie D, Eccellenza→Semi professional (many players just play football, some players play football and work)
Promozione, 1 Cat, 2 Cat, 3 Cat→amateur (the players receive a small reimbursement of expenses)Rimborso spese in italian

The concect fully professional doesn't exist.--Lglukgl (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The concept of "fully professional" does exist. See multiple references to it from the BBC:

In answer to your first question, it is as GiantSnowman stated above – the issue is that a some people/organisations use "professional" to cover both fully- and semi-professional football - i.e. players are described as "professional" if they receive any money at all. Number 5 7 22:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So we must remove the italian Lega Pro from this list. The fully professional team A.C. Delta Porto Tolle was trained by a worked(Fabrizio Zuccarin) who trained the professional team in his freetime. A.C. Delta Porto Tolle goalkeeper Luca Passarella is also a worker who also plays football in a fully pro league. →→http://www.tuttolegapro.com/esclusiva-ultim-ora/esclusiva-tlp-porto-tolle-mister-zuccarin-sempre-in-campo-sul-trattore-o-in-panchina-e-do-consigli-a-panucci-74784--Lglukgl (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC) A.C. Delta Porto Tolle plays in the fully pro Lega Pro . So what should we do?

It depends if the player in question is a one-off. If there is one player in the whole division who is not a full-time pro, then it would be rather silly to decide the league's status on a single player – there are occasionally such cases where a player chooses not to go full time for non-footballing reasons (such as Dave Rainford who remained part-time when Dagenham & Redbridge were promoted to League Two a few years ago as he wished to continue teaching, and was the only part-timer in the entire League). This is not really a reflection on the league's status, as the player could have been full-time if he had wished. However, if this is a common feature of Lega Pro, then it should be removed from the list. Number 5 7 23:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Use WP:COMMONSENSE - a league having a tiny handful of 'almost-but-not-quite-100%-professional' players does not negate the fact that it is an otherwise fully-professional league. The media does not stop covering the league just because of that, do they, and that is what we need to concern ourselves with. The source you have provided regarding A.C. Delta Porto Tolle confirms that every player is a full-time professional apart from one - "Loro sono tutti professionisti, ad esclusione del portiere Luca Passarella, anche lui operaio" / "They are all professionals, with the exception of the goalkeeper Luca Passarella, himself a laborer." That really does not matter. Giant Snowman 23:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian Super League

So I am not sure if you guys have heard but there is now a new franchise football league in this world and it is based in India called the Indian Super League. However it is not like MLS or the A-League but more the cricket IPL. Anyway, the league is beginning in September and ends in November so it is only 2-3 months long. The league is not eligible for Asian competition and is separate from the I-League so the teams are different. This league is going to be fully-professional, there are criterias in place for everything and information for the league is not hard at all to find so WP:GNG is no issue so what should we do when a player with no article plays in the league? This league will again be fully-pro (Example 1) but it is only a 2-3 month league so I am not sure. What is the ruling on here? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's fully-pro (as confirmed by RS) it should be added, whether the league lasts 3 months or 11 months. Giant Snowman 07:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian second division

This was added to the list earlier, and I have removed it. The League statute mentions professionalism, but I can't find any definition (e.g. minimum salaries etc). Average attendances (always a key guide) are below 500, with one club having an average of just 118 and only one above 1,000 (which is the general minimum for fully pro, as a rule of thumb). As a result, I very much doubt this is a fully professional league. Number 5 7 23:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur, there's nothing to confirm FULLY professional status and currently it looks unlikely that it is, although I accept one or more clubs may be fully pro and others may have fully professional players. Fenix down (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thirded. Giant Snowman 12:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)