Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 43

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football | Fully professional leagues
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Hmlarson in topic What is a fully proffesional league?
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

What is a fully proffesional league?

Latest comment: 3 years ago55 comments16 people in discussion

This list is used in deletion discussions and does not have a definition of ist main criterium. How are we supposed to judge whether a league is "fully proffesional" ? Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Asmodea Oaktree: Based on different discussions I've seen in the project in this regard, my understanding is that a fully-professional league is one that every player playing in it earns enough money so that the player doesn't have to earn from anything else to be able to make a living (usually judged by the average salary in the country). I definitely agree with you that this should be written on the page with clear criteria. --SuperJew (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Asmodea Oaktree: Agree on what @SuperJew said. In my opinion, it's basically when all players from the league are only footballers to make their living (i.e. Premier League). We can clearly see cases when players are part-time footballers, while also act on another profession to complement their wages (i.e. National League (English football)). MYS77 ✉ 15:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
That is a reasonable definition. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 34#New section - 'what is a "fully professional" league?'. GiantSnowman 16:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As a starting point, I've added a definition based on the above and the previous discussion. Cheers, Number 57 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Asmodea Oaktree, footballers are employed based on skills and normally paid salary. They may work part-time (less than 30 hours/week) or full-time (40 hours), it does not matter. What matters is the fact whether they will be wanted by professional clubs willing to pay for their skills. It is not punch-in/punch-out job. Each league has certain requirements that are set by continental confederation for a club to be considered professional, UEFA, for example has 5 criteria (sporting, infrastructure, personnel and administrative, legal and financial) UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (pdf). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The Premier League has published own "handbook" which demonstrates and explains what a professional league should look like Handbook Season 2020/21. The handbook explains financial, legal and administrative organization of the league, its development program and playing/non-playing staff compensation and welfare. The FIFA also regulates in more detail players' status and transfer Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
→ Notability proposal discussion starts here

@Asmodea Oaktree: You should know that you aren't alone in questioning the concept of "fully professional" being an adequate indicator for footballer inclusion on Wikipedia. It's been questioned numerous times since the original creation of the WP:FPL essay on men's leagues in August 2008, but we need to have a more robust and official WP:CONSENSUS discussion.

Here are just a few examples of questions in the past (I'm working on writing up a more complete list for another task):

List
  • June 30, 2009 Discussion about how difficult it is to confirm "fully professional" status for men's teams and vagueness. Objection to change at the end of the discussion from Number57.
  • April 2013 GiantSnowman dictates that even though the English women's league may pay all of its players a professional wage, he has deemed it not fully professional because it is subsidized by the Football Association It should be noted that the National Women's Soccer League (NWSL), the top league in the United States is subsidized by the United States Soccer Federation and is included on the fully professional women's leagues. There is no WP:CONSENSUS for GiantSnowman's declaration other than their own opinion.
  • February 20, 2015 "The whole pro vs semi-pro has been a headache" with suggestions on revised criteria submitted by other editors besides Number57
  • April 22, 2016 Questions about double-standard for women's leagues (any changes appear to be opposed by Number57 referencing things not in the guideline -- but their own opinion)
  • August 8, 2017 Questions submitted to better understand and clarify "fully professional" definition: vague response provided by Fenix down
  • September 11, 2017 Fenix down has reverted a change related to Spain's top women's league inclusion and is questioned (again)
  • August 8, 2017 Message posted addressed to Hmlarson responded to by Fenix down. Seems a few editors with admin privileges here consistently comment authoritatively in these conversations and later refer to them WP:CONSENSUS.
  • September 27, 2017 Fenix down and GiantSnowman dictate FA WSL (England's top women's league) exclusion despite reference provided
  • the same day Number57 decides to remove the Swedish top women's league, Damallsvenskan from the list with help from Fenix down
  • May 20, 2020 only objection to change includes Number57, Fenix down, GiantSnowman, Nehme1499; no notification to any relevant parties or notification tools that this was a WP:CONSENSUS discussion
  • September 9, 2020 Appears Number57, GiantSnowman dictate again what is fully professional in this case

Many editors have requested the guideline be updated over the years (search Talk archives at the top of this page for reference). This repeated pattern is a core part of why WP:NFOOTY is due for an update in 2021. It should be noted that the discussions referenced above do not reflect WP:CONSENSUS policy and appear to have some disregard for WP:OWN and WP:ADMIN policies.

If anyone's interested in collaboratively drafting a proposal to update the WP:NFOOTY guideline to better reflect football/soccer notability, let's discuss and follow actual Wiki Policy for garnering consensus to clarify the confusion. I realize my focus is largely women's leagues with these examples and this issue is not just regarding women's leagues. We can evaluate other sports notability guidelines at WP:NSPORT to compare and see how we can improve.

  1. For example, let's include some agreed-upon threshold of the top finishing teams for UEFA Champions League, UEFA Women's Champions League and similar top-level club tournaments in WP:NFOOTY. It's strange they are not mentioned at all.

Lastly (for any editors who weren't aware)... WP:GNG / WP:N takes precedence over WP:NFOOTY. Hmlarson (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't mind if we carve out a separate SNG exemption for women's leagues versus men's leagues, provided we can demonstrate a player who has appeared in one those leagues will almost always pass WP:GNG, which I think is what you're after. I also don't see any issues with any of the links that you've posted - many of them were "should we add this league," not "we need to replace NFOOTY." SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, my proposal was to include some agreed-upon threshold of the top finishing teams for UEFA Champions League, UEFA Women's Champions League and similar top-level club tournaments as stated above. Hmlarson (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to identify top-level club tournaments since those typically lead to game reports which are routine, but if you can show Women's Champions League teams/players get coverage after a certain round, I would definitely listen to that argument. Also, respectfully, it's better form to start new sections for new proposals instead of responding in threads which have been long dormant. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Please explain how your proposal(s) do not represent a double-standard? Hmlarson (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what you mean by that - are you implying that there's a problem if we create a guideline for the Women's Champions League but not the Men's? SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with SF - when we say 'fully professional' what we really mean is "of a high enough standard that means there is sufficient significant coverage of clubs and players, which means they meet GNG and are notable". If anyone can evidence that there are women's leagues which meet that standard then I have no issue adding them to the FPL list for the purposes of NFOOTBALL/player notability. GiantSnowman 22:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
"We" or you? There's a difference. Hmlarson (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Further, this is subjective criteria applied to women's leagues that is not for men's. It's a double-standard. Hmlarson (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying women's footballers should be excused from GNG? GiantSnowman 22:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Let's be constructive. Do all players currently included under WP:NFOOTY meet WP:GNG? What's the point of the additional guideline? Hmlarson (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
+98% of them should pass GNG. We do frequently delete players which pass WP:NFOOTY but fail WP:GNG, since sports SNGs defer to GNG, and because some players who make only one or two appearances may not have received GNG-qualifying coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
LOL. How'd you come up with that "should" #? Hmlarson (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Sports notability guidelines such as NFOOTY need to be tailored to ensure almost every player that they cover would independently pass GNG, and the guideline for showing that is >90% and frequently greater. If you want an example of this, look at the discussion we're having on cricket over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). SportingFlyer T·C 22:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
No, that's just your way of avoiding the issue and attempting to maintain status quo. Thanks for your input. Hmlarson (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Please explain to me exactly what issue I'm avoiding. SportingFlyer T·C 22:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
What's confusing to me is that we're using the exact same standard for men's and women's football? I wouldn't mind a proposal which sets out different standards for women's football - it might be needed - but every sports SNG has to be fine-tuned to ensure the players covered by the SNG almost certainly meet the GNG, so you'd need to show this if you make a proposal to add additional leagues. If you want to see why this is an issue, there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) about cricket because that sport's SNG is too broad. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me that we are using the same standard, unless the "standard" is the circular one that a fully professional league is one that this project has agreed is fully professional. The men's leagues that are deemed fully professional are passed without remark, while in this very discussion the women's ones that might plausibly be fully professional are asked to meet extra requirements, such as documentation that their players uniformly pass GNG, that are not applied to the men's ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: The men's leagues that are deemed fully professional are passed without remark. See these discussions relating to men's leagues: Syria, Norway, Azerbaijan, United States (1), United States (2), United States (3), DR Congo, for example. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should lump the non-European and non-Latin-American countries in with the women in the way they have been treated. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Non European such as Norway and Azerbaijan (part of UEFA)? There is no "systemic bias" going on here, let's be clear. A European, or men's Asian, or women's South American league get the same exact treatment. We try to analyse the status of the league based on official documents or articles. Are players paid enough to live off of the sport? What do sources say? We never differentiate our treatment based on male or female, European or non. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
David, you may have mis-understood my argument. I am saying that we could add women's leagues that aren't fully professional to NFOOTY as an exemption in order to improve our coverage of women's footballers, if we can show that the players participating in those leagues all pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: So, in your opinion, "fully professional" (which is evidenced to be murky as dung in numerous discussions previewed above) ensures that players "almost certainly" meet WP:GNG and this applies for men and women players. Is that your opinion? Hmlarson (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
There's no "opinion" - I've described how we've set up this particular notability system, and why. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Based on the diffs in your edit history on WP:FPL, it looks like you've mostly focused on removing (women's) leagues that have been added by other editors and have only actively edited the list since 2018. Do you disagree with this report? Hmlarson (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Would you say this edit summary is an adequate reflection of your standard? Hmlarson (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying really hard to assume good faith right now but it's clear you've come here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Now you're lying about my contribution history. Find me a single instance where I've removed a women's league from the list. You will not be able to. I added the Croatian league to the "not fully professional" list after reading the regulations a year ago, which is absolutely true - the standard of women's football in Croatia is unfortunately terrible. I added it without a source, it was reverted, I added the source two hours later, all normal Wikipedia practices. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks for providing more context. My apologies if I misinterpreted the deletions since 2018. Number57 also cites WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sometimes when we get to this point of discussions: but alas, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (top of page). Hmlarson (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. I'm reading the tea leaves here, but my guess is that you're raising this discussion since the Swedish league was on the fully pro list, then removed? My other guess is, if that's correct, that you viewed my responses above as someone who was trying to defend gatekeeping. Other sports don't use a fully professional league list, but instead tailor their guidelines to which leagues pass GNG (such as WP:NBASKET.) I think we could make that type of list work for women's football. One of the reasons we have the men's list is because football is popular worldwide and we have difficulty tracking down English-language sources a lot of the time, and the assumption that fully professional leagues receive coverage when you look for it has proven consistently good. If the FPL list isn't working for determining which women's footballers are notable, we can switch the SNG out partially or completely and tailor the women's football SNG so it approximates when women meet GNG, but it's going to take discussion and time, and the discussion might not be an easy one. SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. It'd be nice to hear from additional editors at this point-- particularly those who work more often on expanding articles in countries other than England and the United States, and of course, women's football articles. Appreciate your input. Hmlarson (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I fully understand where Hmlarson is coming from and also feel like WP:NFOOTY is just plainly sexist (e.g., when GiantSnowman wrote that FPL means "of a high enough standard that means there is sufficient significant coverage of clubs and players, which means they meet GNG and are notable", the first part of that statement is obviously subjective and leads to routine discrimination against female players). Given my past experiences, I would think the most likely path to reach consensus is to develop a separate notability criteria for women's leagues / female players as SportingFlyer suggested, rather than trying to fix WP:NFOOTY (and of course WP:GNG still takes precedence). To put it bluntly, this path doesn't require convincing editors who don't regularly contribute to creating and improving applicable articles on women's soccer anyway (which has always been an almost impossible task to begin with), and could also account for different historical backgrounds/standards between men's and women's soccer currently. Seany91 (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You both keep on talking about having a separate notability system, but have not yet proposed one... GiantSnowman 11:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I make my first comment in this discussion to second a previously raised proposed path forward, and immediately get accused for not providing a fully formed notability guideline already. It's no wonder inexperienced WP contributors quit every day... Assuming good faith from you, the reason why I only seconded the suggestion from SportingFlyer was because it seems important (at least to me) that we first try to reach consensus on whether to fix WP:NFOOTY to better account for women's leagues (and men's leagues outside Europe/Latin America, as David Eppstein noted), or to have a separate notability guideline for women's leagues altogether. I'm not going to waste my time and labor working down one of these paths if there wasn't already consensus about the right path to go on, and in fact I was trying to promote compromise among everyone's contributions so far, which you don't seem very interested in. If you want some proposed guidelines, Hmlarson proposed using continental competitions as one way to further distinguish notable women's teams (e.g., UWCL, Copa Libertadores) on top of WP:NFOOTY, but I don't see you engaging with the substance of their proposal above either. Seany91 (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm still oblivious toward this apparent "bias" toward Europe and South America... I edit Lebanese and Asian football on a regular basis, and have no problems in the way I operate. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
There's no need to have proposed one yet, we're still discussing things. The first step is to get consensus on spinning off women's leagues from FPL. A really easy thing to do: propose the initial women's guideline to be exactly equal to what's currently at FPL, which may not seem like it makes a big difference, but it means any discussions going forward will be GNG-based. The next step is to look at a couple of the proposals (later rounds of the Champions League, other leagues), see if those players meet GNG, and update the guideline accordingly. I have no idea if that's something anybody would want but there's at least a clear pathway to discuss changing things here, if there is a need to change them. SportingFlyer T·C 13:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't really mean to come off as extremely cynical here so I apologize in advance if it seems that way but I don't see this as a big issue with current events as they are. Most of the premier leagues in both men's and women's football today are professional unless you get outside the subject dominating countries and regions. No matter what, if GNG, as it is currently written, is the primary governing decision on inclusion you will be no better off than you are now. The AfD's of the past few months already reflect that. The initial argument is that a subject doesn't meet NFOOTY and the evidence is that the league the player/club is a member of is not a FPL according to the essay list. If that argument doesn't fly the next is that they don't pass GNG, even as relaxed as it is, which is a dubious claim to begin with. The GNG policy at Wikipedia is one of the most biased, discriminatory and exclusionary policies I have seen in a while. AfD's are basically a momentary mob rule. If you can get just enough people to side with you and possibly an admin who refrain's from giving their opinion just so they can rule on the AfD, then you can get your way. We have rogue admins who choose when and where to take a hard line approach on the "rules". How many articles on a men's footballer were drafted just long enough for him to play his first "professional" match and then quickly reinstated even though he is notable for what, one event with a half dozen sources, most of which have nothing but a name and stats? And we absolutely eviscerate an editor for daring to create an article on the impact of a murder victim of a serial killer and the way a community was torn apart with fear and sorrow. The reason given is that the victim is only known for one event no matter how many national and international sources covered it. Mind you, their killer gets a full spread that details out their whole life from birth. That is the problem with SNG's so I get it. I think SNG's are well-intentioned yet harmful but let's not kid ourselves, it starts at the top with GNG. Carry on but don't expect anything to change of note. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Tsistunagiska: aka ARoseWolf - Yeah, it's a wonder why AfD is also the abbreviation used by Alternative for Germany, "a German nationalist and right-wing populist political party, known for its opposition to the European Union and immigration." It goes beyond WP:GNG and any sports notability guideline (SNG). There is movement at the Wikimedia Foundation on some of these issues, we'll see. The activity in Wikipedia's AFD is just a desperate, last-gasp effort IMO. Thanks for your input. Hmlarson (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We've said it a million times over the years but this page is a genuine disgrace to the project. It's nothing but a superficially-plausible pretext for privileging favoured leagues, teams and players (invariably pale, male and stale). This page's gatekeepers scrutinize the credentials of certain candidates with laser-like intensity, then deliberately look the other way or make excuses for others – as with the Scottish men's second tier. I do sometimes feel a pang of pity for WP:FOOTBALL's in-house admins. A handful of them have now spent over a decade of their short time on this planet tenaciously clinging to what is essentially a bigoted enterprise. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and it's all in the page history. Hmlarson (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Are either @GiantSnowman: or @Number 57: open to administrator recall? If not, perhaps we need to consider arbitration as a way forward? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Addendum

I forgot to include a few reports demonstrating how a handful of editors with WP:ADMIN privileges self-appointed themselves managers of the WP:FPL WP:ESSAY which has been used for over a decade to delete articles about women footballers (and male footballers predominantly in non-UK countries) based on a standard ("fully professional") FIFA doesn't even use:

Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Are we good with this? Hmlarson (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Care to suggest a better guideline then? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment, I understand the arguments laid out, and I think a case can be made for more inclusivity of leagues (both female and non-European). But the way Hmlarson and others are going about this is not productive, and is instead destructive. The more leagues they get rid of, the higher the standard of what gets included in the list. And let's be honest, women's football in general is less "notable" than men's football. Should women's footbal articles be carpet bombed and removed without reason? No. But the same applies to the other leagues that are being targeted, which are also notable in their own way, and certainly have their own WP:GNG arguments.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand some editors fervently wish to pretend that certain men's leagues were 'fully professional' (Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Scotland, England etc etc). But the fact is they aren't, or weren't, and we are not here to right WP:GREATWRONGS. Perhaps instead turning up here with their petty nationalisms and tendentious POV-pushing, they should get a personal blog instead? I myself am a keen blogger and if I want to churn out any obscure, completely non notable dross I would do it there where it would be at reduced risk of being 'carpet bombed'. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, and would rather add an addendum protecting these leagues since they clearly pass GNG even if you're right. And you lost me at the second part.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bring back Daz Sampson: If you insist we are pretending men's league are 'fully professional' even though they contain a couple amateurs, then you should stop pretending the WSL is fully professional. Removing these leagues would not be at all productive as players playing in these leagues clearly pass GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues/Archive_43&oldid=1027644140"