Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Status of US minor leagues

I've been working with @Levivich: on borderline NFOOTY players. However, one thing that has struck me going through lots of these bios is how these leagues aren't really fully-professional. For instance, Christopher Klotz, in parallel to playing with the Charlotte Eagles was also: "Charlotte Eagles Camp Director", "Klotz lived in Africa working with Serving in Missions (SIM), Sports Friends, and Missionary Athletes International where he created and implemented curriculum for developing and training coaches in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, and Ethiopia.", "he taught middle school and high school Biblical Studies courses while in Charlotte" - per Klotz's bio. Or Matt Langton of Pittsburgh Riverhounds SC who per his linkedIn, was an accountant in PwC concurrent to playing in the team. And these aren't isolated - basically the recurring pattern I see is players of some note in college who try out/play in the minor leagues for a season or two and concurrently work/teach/study and when they don't make the pros - leave football and do whatever else they were doing. I will further note that US minor league teams - in soccer as in baseball or hockey - generally draw small crowds and scant media attention (less than college sports, which we do not consider automatically notable) and do no roster/play based on a competitive basis but rather based on player development/farming concerns (e.g. a player not good enough to make the majors - will be cut, new players will get chances to see how they will be - even if a better player is on the roster, etc.). I would stipulate that while these US leagues in the minor all pay a salary, possibly even beyond the minimum required for sustenance, many of the players themselves are effectively Semi-professional sports#North America - and as such the leagues are not fully-professional even if they play a living salary. Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the sources establishing the USL leagues as professional - it is mainly the league saying so about itself. It definitely is professional in the sense that they pay wages to all players (so not amateur) and there is a professional paid coaching staff - however this does not prevent many players to actually play/work in a semi-professional manner. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Absent a response here - per WP:SILENCE - I will be removing several leagues in the United States. A source asserting the league is professional - particularly when said source is the league itself (not a RS) - is not sufficient for demonstrating that the players in the league aren't part-time semi-professionals - particularly when several refuting examples exist. Sources (reliable ones - not the league itself) should stipulate that a league is full professional, full-time, not merely "professional". Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If you remove the league you will be immediately reverted, thanks! GiantSnowman 07:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Great to hear that. Any actual rationale for including this semi-professional league on the list? Prior discussion in the archives shows similar concerns - I don't see a consensus to include this. The source cited for this is not reliable and furthermore doesn't support "fully professional". I furthermore have more than a handful of refuting examples that clearly show semi-pros playing in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

See all the sources for successor league USL League One. GiantSnowman 08:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources for a future league in 2019 (which is not a direct successor - USL D1 and USL D2 merged into USL Championship) do not establish the situation in 2009. The sources (some of which are USL itself or quoting USL - so not reliable for anything but an attributed statement) do not reliably establish "fully professional". A "professional" league (one playing a wage to every player and coach) need not be "fully professional" (a league whose players work full time in their clubs, without side jobs). Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are probably right about USL D2 not being fully-professional given articles like these.[1][2][3] Number 57 12:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If they're not fully-professional leagues, they should be removed from the list. This is about accuracy, not anything else. Leviv ich 17:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of any good independent sources confirming it was fully-pro I agree it should be removed. GiantSnowman 18:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. We should remove USL League One as well - as it doesn't have reliable independent sources (merely USL asserting this, and that it is "professional" as opposed to "fully proffessional") - and considering it is on the pyramid beneath the merger of USL D1 and USL D2 - there is little reason to expect it will be different. A number of other US minors seem to be based on sketchy sourcing (particularly NASL 2011-2017, which was also a D2 league).Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting that even MLS players often have side jobs - Russell Canouse just got licensed as a realtor and will apparently be working as one in the offseason. And he's making six figures as an MLS player, an obviously fully-professional salary. Some guys just like earning a little extra money. MLS isn't like some other leagues where you earn enough money as a player to be set for life, so some players like to be prepared for their inevitable retirement, I suppoose is part of it as well. Whether that's the case in USL, I don't know. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Interestingly, [4] from 2014 does not mention the professionalism of any of the players involved in divisional sanctioning, not even at the Division I level, but the staff must be fully professional down to Division II. What we really need are the league guidelines, which aren't readily available anywhere. You also have [5], which says there is no salary cap and salaries are not made public, so it's anyone's guess as to whether it's fully professional. That being said, I know if removed this will give license to a few deletionists, but looking through old season articles many of the players on more notable teams easily pass WP:GNG if not WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Object to "deletionist"; I prefer the term improvementarian. USL should be removed altogether in my opinion; and "full-professional" should be re-examined as a predictor of GNG. I don't think it's within the keeping of the mission of the encyclopedia that we include American minor league players but do not similarly include Cambodian top-league players (for example). Obviously, in Cambodia, people are going to be paying attention to the top tier league, whether it's fully professional or not. Conversely, in the US, nobody pays attention to minor league soccer players, and it doesn't even really matter if they're part time or full time. I bet the only reason we have trouble finding SIGCOV of Cambodians is because of the language. That situation, to me, is what NFooty is for: to equalize things and let us get Cambodian players in, not to get minor league American athletes in. "Top tier" is the boundary line that would include C League and exclude USL. 2¢ from Leviv ich 00:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Number 57:, your first link above clearly says Semi-pro, but the others only talk about youth players signing contracts and joining on part time basis until study finished. Not wanting to argue for this league as I haven't looked into it and as likely to side with Lev's minor-league vs Cambodia example above (or at least with a minor league vs League of Ireland argument), but such an arrangement doesn't make a league not-fully-pro. Liberato Cacace and Keegan Smith were both still in high school when they signed for Wellington Phoenix. Plenty of simiłar examples in most pro leagues. Not sure 16 year olds are even allowed to sign pro contracts some places. ClubOranje^T 11:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  No - not youth players in the US. Specifically - College players stay clear of USL to maintain their college eligibility. USL signs many players right after college (so typically - 21-24 year old players). This revolving door of college players is to a large extent the purpose of USL - it isn't a competitive league - it exists so MLS clubs can assess whether post-college prospects can make it in the MLS. The USL leagues receives less coverage in RSes than many college leagues. These post-college tryouts / interim players often stick around for a single season (or part of a season) while figuring out what to do with their non-football career (often working in parallel to playing). Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thai League 4?

Could somebody please take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 19#Thonburi University F.C.. The key issue seems to be whether Thai League 4 satisfies WP:FOOTYN and we need a SME to comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: This is not relevant here; leagues' professional status is only relevant to the notability of players, not clubs. Number 57 21:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Clear and Objective definition

Can we please get a clear definition for what it means to be a "fully-professional" league with objective criteria somewhere on the actual page itself rather than lost in the archives somewhere? It is very tiring of searching through archives to cobble together the definition when it should be readily clear what it means to be fully professional on the page itself. USL League One is an excellent example, as it has been listed as fully-professional, but the rationale was never explained, and while I agree that the sourcing is inadequate there is a larger issue at hand here. Jay eyem (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that this page should (following review of leagues) should be upgraded to a notability guideline (or a supplementary guideline) - at present all other sports in WP:NSPORTS specify a list of leagues there (cricket has a page when they expand a bit more on various things - but their list is in NSPOSRTS). NFOOTY (which is a guideline) doesn't specify a list - and has a "see also" to this page which is an essay. IMHO, additions to FPL should go through an organized RfC - as with any guideline.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes we should clarify the definition; yes this should become 'officially' supplemental to NFOOTBALL; no, additions should not be subject to RfC, that is unnecessary bureaucracy. GiantSnowman 07:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In terms of being a FPL - in my mind the league should be fully professional - which means the vast majority of players should play full-time (no additional jobs) and receive a wage well above the average working wage in the country the league is based in. The league should be certified as professional by the relevant football association. Average attendance at the league should be above a certain threshold (say 3000?). The league should be competitive - not a reserve or player farming league. Matches and clubs should be receiving significant coverage from at least two national (or super-regional for very large states - e.g. West Coast for the US or say Scottish media for the UK - but not local city papers) media outlets. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the vast majority of players should be professional (earn a decent salary and have no other job - youth players not included). Average attendance not sure, that could be biased towards larger nations, and isn't an indication of professional status (I understand that US college sports can attract 10000s for example). Significant coverage is a good one. GiantSnowman 07:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I was meaning for this to cumulative - I think attendance is a proxy for there being a reason for SIGCOV - which is why I suggested this. US college sportspeople can be notable - US college division I sports is very well attended and covered by media (though excluded for the most part in NSPORTS) - even national coverage - e.g. top programs in the US receive more coverage than top-flight minor leagues (e.g. AAA in baseball or USL championship).... In terms of RfC for additions/removals - if you add a league - you are conferring notability on a few hundred players per season (easily rising to thousands over a few seasons, tens of thousands for 100+ year leagues) - think of all the bureaucracy involved in NPP, PROD, AfD based on inclusion of a single league in this list. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a long established convention not to add a league without consensus here first. That works and is appropriate. GiantSnowman 07:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this self-evident? A league is fully professional if all of the teams in the league are fully professional teams, i.e. none of their players are part-time or amateur. And the full professionalism is the SIGCOV - if the league is fully professional, there should in theory be enough coverage of the league to pass WP:GNG, though some African leagues are hard to verify. That being said, I know those leagues are covered and attended locally, if not always easily accessible online. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So, what is the definition now? If ALL the players have to be professionals then many of those leagues are not fully pro, because in many of them there are instances where a junior makes a debut before signing a professional contract. If, on the other hand, the vast majority of the players must be professional, then some leagues should be listed which are not, e.g. Slovenia, the source which is supposed to claim that league is not fully pro, actually states that the vast majority of players are professionals, more than 15 per each club. https://www.nzs.si/Doc/Info/Pregled%20pogodb%20med%20igralci%20in%20klubi%201.SNL%20na%20dan%2017.07.2018.pdf Edit:Also Croatia, to get the HNL license each club must be registered in the "regisry of professional sport clubs "registar profesionalnih sportskih klubova" https://hns-cff.hr/files/documents/16435/1.%20HNS%20Pravilnik%20o%20licenciranju%202018.pdf This system is in use since 2007 https://sdus.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//dokumenti/Profesionalni%20%C5%A1portski%20klubovi/Registar%20profesionalnih%20sportskih%20klubova//Registar%20-%20nogomet.pdf Ludost Mlačani (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That link from NZS (Slovenia) are not necessary PRO contracts, its just a list of contracts between players and the club. According to the source I added to the article, players can have a semi-pro contract with the club as well, they are counted as a fully-pro only if they earn the minimum wage in the country, which is about 800€ per month. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No, they can have only fully pro contracht in 1.SNL, it must be higher than minimal wage in SLovenia. https://www.nzs.si/Doc/Arhiv/Arhiv%20predpisov/Arhiv%20registracijskih%20predpisov/PRSI.pdf Look also at the second link i gave (that you deleted for no reason) it clearly specifies that 1.SNL is professional league and that second league is semi-pro. https://www.nzs.si/Doc/Arhiv/dokumenti/ostali_dokumenti/igralec%20%20brez%20pravice%20nastopa%20REGIONS%20CUP.pdf Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The second PDF is 11 years old, its outdated. And cite where in the first PDF it says "they can have only fully pro contracts in 1.SNL", it only says that the player can be either a PRO or an amateur, and that a PRO needs to receive a minimum gross salary in Slovenia. Where does it says that a player MUST be a pro to play in the 1. SNL? Snowflake91 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

While receiving the minimum wage may be a prerequisite for being a professional, most players who receive salaries that low - are semi-professionals - and have additional non-footballing jobs. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing changed since then. It does not say that you must be a pro to play in SNL (in most leagues in the world the player is allowed to make an appearance even if he is not a pro, eg junior). It says, that you cannot sign a contract if you are not a pro, there is no such thing as an amateur contract in slovenian first league and all the players on the list have professional contracts and are professional players. That is vast majority of the league. I think that is crystal clear, but if you need a source. https://ekipa.svet24.si/clanek/nogomet/prva-liga/5d19eb3a6f487/kaj-se-dogaja-seznam-olimpijinih-pogodb-brez-obeh-kapetanov-kapun-in-vidmar-sta SO, AGAIN, a question for everyone: SNL is certified by Slovenian Football Assocciation as a pro league, vast majority of players (260+, 26+ per club, min 15 per club, practically all except young players) have professional contracts and have no other jobs next to it. There is enough coverage in varios national media. Does that satisfy your definition of FPL or not? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment. So, the league was removed again. It is just another instance of bias against our football. There are leagues, where some non-pro players can play, eg Norway (GiantSnowman himself said I agree with N57 that only one team in the league should not prevent it being considered fully-pro.), which was well documented and sourced on this talk page and the consensus was, that some exceptions for the new clubs are possible. Now Slovenian league that has 280+ pro players (edit: with new signings min number of pro players per club just rose to 17, and that is the new club still forming a roster) is treated differently. How many players have to be there 290, 300, 500? Will you finally provide a definition? And will you remove Norway and all leagues where a junior sat on the bench before signing a pro contract? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The only link I see for Norway's Eliteserien is a dead link, so the sourcing should either be updated, or the league removed from the list. The sourcing supporting Slovenia's PrvaLiga being fully-professional seems to be the same as the sourcing supporting other leagues, for example, USL Championship and League One. I think Ludost's question is valid: what is the inclusion criteria on this page where USL Championship gets in but PrvaLiga stays out? – Levivich 14:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So, out of 254 players in Slovenian League squads (https://www.transfermarkt.com/prva-liga/startseite/wettbewerb/SL1), 23 do not have professional contracts, mostly juniors from three (newly promoted) clubs. So, if this league does not satisfy criteria for FPL, can I then at least remove Norway and other leagues which have similar or bigger percentage of non-pro players? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So, what is the consensus? What is the definition? Why are just are reverting my edits? Why don't you comment it here (I always give a week before I make an edit, but noone responds)? Why are you treating leagues differently? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Slovenian League again

So, again, why is this league not considered a FPL? According to sources I provided it is considered a FPL by Slovenian Federation (https://www.nzs.si/Doc/Arhiv/dokumenti/ostali_dokumenti/igralec%20%20brez%20pravice%20nastopa%20REGIONS%20CUP.pdf) and practically all players have professional contracts (https://www.nzs.si/Doc/Info/Pregled%20pogodb%20med%20igralci%20in%20klubi%201.SNL%20na%20dan%2001.08.2019.pdf), that is 18 and more per club, all except a few 18/19 years old juniors in two or three clubs, that are still in school. I do not believe that there is a single player currently in the league that has a regular job apart from football. Excluding this league (but keeping others with the same situation) is an instance of bias and discrimination, even more as there is no clear definition or justification for such conduct. The current source is laughable, it is a set of rules from a federation that applies for a whole league system in the country and states that players can be either pros or amateurs (if I am going to play in the 6th level I will be an amateur there, that is logical) and it has nothing to do with Slovenian First League. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• What's the translation for Št.šp.izk? Is that the player's ID or the player's wage? SportingFlyer T·C 07:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it is the number of ID card. The wages are according to last UEFA report worth 2.0 million average per club, which is more than Belarus, Slovakia, Finland etc. leagues that are on the list (https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/59/40/27/2594027_DOWNLOAD.pdf page 73) Ludost Mlačani (talk)

I agree, before I didnt even fully read "Clear and Objective definition" section and thought that all players needs to be professional, so if the consensus is that the "vast majority of players should play full-time (no additional jobs)", which would means roughly 85% of players, then Slovenian League is easily "fully-pro" as the only players without a signed contract in the league are under-19 players, since they dont need any contract to play anyway per UEFA rules. Since the team with the fewest number of contracted players (NK Tabor Sežana – 17 players as of 1 August 2019) still has enough professional players for entire match squad, the club is pretty much "fully-pro", since the only non-contracted players are youngsters born in 2000. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven´t been around for a while... what has been going on? Why is Slovenia no longer in full-pro list? It used to be on the fully-pro side for all I remember. I tought Slovenia was the one along FR Yugoslavia and Croatia that followed the full-professionalism demanded in the old Yugoslav First League ever since 1967. Something changed recently in Slovenian case? FkpCascais (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, nothing changed. Snowflake removed it from the list last year, but I think it was a mistake. I tried to add it back, but all my edits were reverted. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No I havent, it was removed by S.A. Julio in March 2018, I just re-removed it since someone added it back with a source not supporting professionalism (that UEFA article from 2014). Snowflake91 (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support re-adding Slovenian PrvaLiga to the FPL list. The case in favor seems to have been made. – Levivich 18:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems the basis for removing the league was this article from UEFA, describing NK Maribor as the only fully pro club in Slovenia. @S.A. Julio: As the editor who initially added this source, you may want to way in here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I see... It´s that last sentence saying " Maribor, by contrast, are in rude health on and off the pitch, being the only fully-professional club in Slovenia." But, is it possible that what the sentence meant is that Maribor are the only ones having the full first squd with professional contracts? Because, as far as I remember, the situation in Slovenia is, and always was, as Snowflake described it in his comment from this morning, clubs having squads formed of adult players under professional contracts joined by a group of youth players which may, or may not, have pro contracts. Does it say anywhere how many youth players without pro contract can a club field in one game? FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

That source is either wrong or poorly defined, I suppose that author wasn't too informed about Slovenian League and was impressed with Maribor's European results and the gap between them and other teams. The situation 5 years ago was similar to that now, all players except a few youngsters in two or three clubs had pro contracts. Maybe it is meant that Maribor was the only one having signed professional contracts for their youth squad playing in Slovenian Junior League (They were the only club massively signing contracts with juniors not playing in Slovenian League https://snportal.si/prva-liga/deveterica-z-novimi-pogodbami/) Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, the article must have been misleading, if the other sources seem to indicate the professional state of the league I would agree in restoring it to the list. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

So we agree that I can put league back on the list? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on the sources provided I also agree that the league should be included in the list. Shotgun pete (talk) 5:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)