Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 27
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
French Women's League
This source indicates an average salary for the league of €4,000 per month, nearly twice the average salary in the country. Seems to me that this indicates a level of remuneration sufficient to consider the league fully professional. Thoughts? Fenix down (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Seems fully-pro to me 👍🏽 --SuperJew (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is the average distorted by the very high salaries of a few players at PSG and Lyon though (the article mentions that those teams have "disproportionate means)? Looking at this weekend's matches in the league, Montpellier vs Fleury had an attendance of 100, Soyaux vs Lille was 196, Paris FC vs Marseille was 250 and Bordeaux vs Albi was 444. These don't seem like typical attendances in a fully-pro league. Number 57 09:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Number 57: What is the "typical attendance in a fully-pro league"? Is there an established minimum for inclusion on WP:FPL? Hmlarson (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- In the UK clubs generally need to average over 1,000 to generate enough income to be full-time, hence why the Conference (which has clubs on both sides of this boundary) is a mix of full and part time teams. The attendances I mentioned above are more typical of the seventh tier, which is well into semi-pro territory. Number 57 12:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Reference for UK? Any info on France? Hmlarson (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Interest in soccer in the UK is higher than most other countries, so how do you compare this? Also different countries prob charge different prices for a ticket so would need a different amount of average crowd. --SuperJew (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- The previous discussions on the current version of this talk page (not even digging into the archives) about adding men's leagues do not mention attendance - just "financial criterion" (w/ no official consensus-based measures stated). Based on the comments here, there is consensus that "financial criteria" is met for the French women's league. It's remarkable that the editor who deleted it from the list of fully professional leagues, would start a discussion stating they think it's fully professional. Hmlarson (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Interest in soccer in the UK is higher than most other countries, so how do you compare this? Also different countries prob charge different prices for a ticket so would need a different amount of average crowd. --SuperJew (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Reference for UK? Any info on France? Hmlarson (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- In the UK clubs generally need to average over 1,000 to generate enough income to be full-time, hence why the Conference (which has clubs on both sides of this boundary) is a mix of full and part time teams. The attendances I mentioned above are more typical of the seventh tier, which is well into semi-pro territory. Number 57 12:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Number 57: What is the "typical attendance in a fully-pro league"? Is there an established minimum for inclusion on WP:FPL? Hmlarson (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is the average distorted by the very high salaries of a few players at PSG and Lyon though (the article mentions that those teams have "disproportionate means)? Looking at this weekend's matches in the league, Montpellier vs Fleury had an attendance of 100, Soyaux vs Lille was 196, Paris FC vs Marseille was 250 and Bordeaux vs Albi was 444. These don't seem like typical attendances in a fully-pro league. Number 57 09:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support the addition of the league. What is the minimum salary for men's teams to be considered fully professional? This is the first I've heard of using "nearly twice the average salary in the country" as a measure of "fully professional". What're other editors thoughts? Hmlarson (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that 2x average salary = fully professional, so let's not try to create some sort of standard like that. All I am saying is that €4k Euros a month seems a perfectly reasonable amount to live off as a full time job given the country's average salary is nearly half that. My presumption there is that it would adequately cover basic cost of living expenses. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- And do others agree with your presumption that "adequately cover basic cost of living expenses" is the definition of fully professional? If so, let's add it to the intro of WP:FPL. Hmlarson (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the definition, it is merely a means by which an editor may assess a source to determine for themselves whether they feel it is sufficient to indicate FPL status. Others may place more or less weight on such a consideration. Let's not derail this thread about a specific league by making it more general. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
WhyDerail? Wouldn't the same standards apply? Why not be transparent with how WP:FPL is managed?Hmlarson (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Hmlarson (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)- If a league paid an average salary equal to or greater than the average salary of that country then in my mind that would be fine regardless of the country, however, there are other factors that other editors may like to consider and which might override this - see comments above that the average salary may well be being skewed by one or two rich clubs. WP:FPL is managed by individual discussion and consensus, not a specific series of hoops that need to be jumped through. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- What about countries where the average salary doesn't "adequately cover basic cost of living expenses"? --SuperJew (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well the answer to that is obvious, if the average salary in a league is significantly below the average salary for the country in which that league operates, it is a reasonable indicator that the league probably isn't fully professional. In the absence of explicit sources, other means would have to be found to suggest full professionalism. In my mind in France it looks like you could be earning only half the average salary in the league and still be there or thereabouts in terms of the country as a whole, which is why I lean towards thinking this league probably does pay enough across the board to be considered essentially fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fenix down: Why do you think that in light of the France 24 article? Number 57 14:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry @Number 57:, only just seen this. Agree, if this had been the only source presented I would say definitely non-fully pro, but in this instance my gut feeling is even if players were only earning half the average they would still be earning sufficient to be full time just about. To be honest, personally I'm still leaning just about to the FPL side with this one as it is one of the few women's leagues I have seen where any form of source can be presented that speaks of reasonable salaries being paid at any level, though I accept there is a degree of skewing by the top clubs here seemingly. I would want to see some form of article specifically stating that a number of clubs were semi-pro / amateur before I was prepared to change my mind on this one. Fenix down (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see what's unclear about "while the smaller outfits scrape a living and their players have part-time jobs". I appreciate that some editors want it to be fully-professional, but I can't see how it can possibly be deemed to be so when we have a fairly unambiguous evidence that it isn't. Number 57 14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Because I'm not sure what level the article means when it says "smaller outfits". Is it referring to the top league or the overall pyramid? Either way, it doesn't look like consensus is going to be gained either way at this stage. Are there any other sources out there you can find? Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes: This article states that Soyaux are still amateur and the player in question works 35 hours. This article mentions that Rodez and Albi are also amongst the amateur teams. Number 57 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. With those sources in mind, I would have to Oppose, those sources essentially state explicitly that this is not a fully professional league and actually might not even be classed as semi-pro throughout. Fenix down (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes: This article states that Soyaux are still amateur and the player in question works 35 hours. This article mentions that Rodez and Albi are also amongst the amateur teams. Number 57 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Because I'm not sure what level the article means when it says "smaller outfits". Is it referring to the top league or the overall pyramid? Either way, it doesn't look like consensus is going to be gained either way at this stage. Are there any other sources out there you can find? Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see what's unclear about "while the smaller outfits scrape a living and their players have part-time jobs". I appreciate that some editors want it to be fully-professional, but I can't see how it can possibly be deemed to be so when we have a fairly unambiguous evidence that it isn't. Number 57 14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry @Number 57:, only just seen this. Agree, if this had been the only source presented I would say definitely non-fully pro, but in this instance my gut feeling is even if players were only earning half the average they would still be earning sufficient to be full time just about. To be honest, personally I'm still leaning just about to the FPL side with this one as it is one of the few women's leagues I have seen where any form of source can be presented that speaks of reasonable salaries being paid at any level, though I accept there is a degree of skewing by the top clubs here seemingly. I would want to see some form of article specifically stating that a number of clubs were semi-pro / amateur before I was prepared to change my mind on this one. Fenix down (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fenix down: Why do you think that in light of the France 24 article? Number 57 14:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well the answer to that is obvious, if the average salary in a league is significantly below the average salary for the country in which that league operates, it is a reasonable indicator that the league probably isn't fully professional. In the absence of explicit sources, other means would have to be found to suggest full professionalism. In my mind in France it looks like you could be earning only half the average salary in the league and still be there or thereabouts in terms of the country as a whole, which is why I lean towards thinking this league probably does pay enough across the board to be considered essentially fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- What about countries where the average salary doesn't "adequately cover basic cost of living expenses"? --SuperJew (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- If a league paid an average salary equal to or greater than the average salary of that country then in my mind that would be fine regardless of the country, however, there are other factors that other editors may like to consider and which might override this - see comments above that the average salary may well be being skewed by one or two rich clubs. WP:FPL is managed by individual discussion and consensus, not a specific series of hoops that need to be jumped through. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the definition, it is merely a means by which an editor may assess a source to determine for themselves whether they feel it is sufficient to indicate FPL status. Others may place more or less weight on such a consideration. Let's not derail this thread about a specific league by making it more general. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- And do others agree with your presumption that "adequately cover basic cost of living expenses" is the definition of fully professional? If so, let's add it to the intro of WP:FPL. Hmlarson (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that 2x average salary = fully professional, so let's not try to create some sort of standard like that. All I am saying is that €4k Euros a month seems a perfectly reasonable amount to live off as a full time job given the country's average salary is nearly half that. My presumption there is that it would adequately cover basic cost of living expenses. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Worth noting this France 24 article from earlier in the summer that notes the new focus on big-spending clubs belied the fact that most of the women’s game, including the top French league that PSG and Lyon play in, remains amateur. “We have a two-speed system in which the big clubs spend big because it looks good for PR, while the smaller outfits scrape a living and their players have part-time jobs”
. Number 57 14:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Number 57 is there a salary minimum in the league? Hmlarson (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've no idea. Number 57 14:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ahh, well anyhoo - that seems similar to NWSL which has been on WP:FPL since 2013. I added some new references for American NWSL, Australian W-League, and Division 1 Feminine (the French women's league) and quotes noting salary minimums in each. Hmlarson (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure if you have misread the source, it's not a claim to a minimum salary but and average. Fenix down (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- To clarify... in 2013, the NWSL had a $6,000 USD minimum salary when it was added to the fully professional list on WP:FPL. As of 2017, the NWSL salary minimum is $15,000. Today's announcement re: Australian W-League indicates it should be added to the list of fully professional leagues as well. ref The W-League is taking things a step beyond the NWSL in some ways. It will be great to see what's to come next year. Hmlarson (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure if you have misread the source, it's not a claim to a minimum salary but and average. Fenix down (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ahh, well anyhoo - that seems similar to NWSL which has been on WP:FPL since 2013. I added some new references for American NWSL, Australian W-League, and Division 1 Feminine (the French women's league) and quotes noting salary minimums in each. Hmlarson (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've no idea. Number 57 14:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Number 57 is there a salary minimum in the league? Hmlarson (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strikes me that the quota of "Fully Professional" is the inclusive criteria, and the source provided above indicates that this is not the case. However, a discussion around quite why a league must be "Fully Professional" Vs a mix of Pro and Semi and Amateur (as if that really is a factor) seems an obvious point of contention. Koncorde (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- The whole discussion of equating salaries with fully-professional teams is deflating considering the fact at one time players needed to have a second job just to get by (perhaps even played for free; simply for the enjoyment of the game?). Furthermore, if you enter the many economic variables, many of these poorer nations’ players will never be able to make enough to live from football alone adequately. Does that mean they aren’t fully-professional? In my opinion, no. Money should not factor into what renders a fully-professional league. Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Savvyjack23: Numerous editors agree if you search the talk archives. What's needed is a proposal to change it. Hmlarson (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- The whole discussion of equating salaries with fully-professional teams is deflating considering the fact at one time players needed to have a second job just to get by (perhaps even played for free; simply for the enjoyment of the game?). Furthermore, if you enter the many economic variables, many of these poorer nations’ players will never be able to make enough to live from football alone adequately. Does that mean they aren’t fully-professional? In my opinion, no. Money should not factor into what renders a fully-professional league. Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Indian Super League citation
Is there a new citation to replace the 404 one? Can't seem to find one saying sponsorship or professional from an independent source. Govvy (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/dhl-renews-partnership-with-hero-indian-super-league/article9956635.ece and http://www.hindustantimes.com/football/indian-players-salaries-surge-in-three-years-of-indian-super-league/story-wHvO60eXWL2lOvopTHFYvI.html. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Ukraine Second Division/Druha Liga
Please can someone mark the exact part of the given reference where the fully professional nature of this league is confirmed. In the absence of that the league should be removed from the list. @Shotgun pete: Eldumpo (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Austria
Does the reference supporting the fully-professional status of the top two Austrian leagues actually say that these leagues are fully professional? Hack (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- 2nd league will go semi-pro in 2018/19. Too few clubs willing to invest the money to promote from third tier currently. source-Koppapa (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Polish leagues
Official rules from Polish Football Association states that amateurs beside contracted players can also play in Ekstraklasa, I liga, II liga, III liga competitions. Page 141 (article 11)[1] "W rozgrywkach Ekstraklasy, I II i III ligi oraz Ekstraligi i I ligi kobiet mogą występować wyłącznie zawodnicy posiadający podpisany z klubem kontrakt lub podpisaną deklarację gry amatora." TRANSLATION: In the Ekstraklasa, I, II, III leagues, as well as Ekstraliga and I women league, can only participate players who have a contract signed with the club or signed an amateur declaration.
For me it indicates that above leagues are semi-professional, not fully professional. However I've got instatly reverted so I brought it here. Current sources for these leagues seems very weak (some interviews with a word "professional", article about wages in 4-9 tier etc.)--Oleola (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that statement indicates anything about the divisions' professional status – it just states under what contract situation players can play in the league. The fact that amateurs can play in the divisions doesn't mean that there are any. Do you have any evidence of players in these divisions being part-time or amateur? That's what will actually help a judgement be made. Number 57 11:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- There you go a quotation from II liga club president Dariusz Ziąbski: "Besides, everyone forgets that II liga is not a professional level. Here amateurs play, who receive several hundred zlotys for a sports scholarship."[2] Is it enough for you to drop this league from the fully professional leagues list?--Oleola (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is several years old and refers to the very fact II liga was made professional, hence the title "Professional requirements in an amateur league". The article laments that Poland is not ready for 3 pro divisions. As of now (2017) you might find semi-pros in reserve or youth teams, but certainly not in the first team squad that play in the 3rd tier; the wages may be the fairly low national minimum wage for most of these players, but they will all receive a full time wage. The fact of the matter is, under Polish FA statute, clubs are required to be fully pro, as per the PZPN charter that I quoted somewhere in there. The other articles were just meant to support that in case people started picking holes (which it seems, people now are). That quote is massively out of context and article is several years old and Przeglad Sportowy are known to be a bit sensationalist with their reporting. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Abcmaxx: I'd be interested to know how Liga II clubs manage to pay their players a full wage. Attendances are as low as 200-300, which is nowhere near enough to support a professional squad, at least in the UK. Comparing the average attendance of the division to leagues known to be full-time or part-time, it does seem a bit odd. Number 57 11:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Number 57 Aside from the fact that a lot of teams have healthy attendances ([3] look a the numbers in brackets, and bear in mind some teams are playing in exile due rebuilding of stadiums), I went to see 2 top historic Bulgarian teams in Sofia for a derby match and the attendance barely reached triple figures. Paris FC's attendances in Ligue 2 barely reach that too. Attendance is almost irrelevant in modern football. You can have a team like Termalica Nieciecza, or Amica Wronki with attendances of almost nothing and still be a professional team. Money is made from TV, radio and sponsorship. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Abcmaxx: Saying clubs have healthy attendances is a bit of a stretch; 14 of the 18 clubs in Liga II have attendances under 1,000 (I can't view your link but I got the figures from here), which is the general benchmark in the UK for when clubs can turn professional. I'm not sure why you mention Nieciecza or Amica Wronki; both clubs' crowds are/were significantly over 1,000. I'm more interested in knowing how WKS Gryf Wejherowo supposedly support a full-time squad. Number 57 20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Przeglad Sportowy article is from 19.11.2014. You provided even older article as only reference for II liga from 20 June 2013[4], which says nothing about the fact that the league will become fully professional, it only mentions league reform. Wikpedia works on WP:VER, so far we got one article denying II liga fully professional status against your personal beliefs --Oleola (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Abcmaxx: Saying clubs have healthy attendances is a bit of a stretch; 14 of the 18 clubs in Liga II have attendances under 1,000 (I can't view your link but I got the figures from here), which is the general benchmark in the UK for when clubs can turn professional. I'm not sure why you mention Nieciecza or Amica Wronki; both clubs' crowds are/were significantly over 1,000. I'm more interested in knowing how WKS Gryf Wejherowo supposedly support a full-time squad. Number 57 20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Number 57 Aside from the fact that a lot of teams have healthy attendances ([3] look a the numbers in brackets, and bear in mind some teams are playing in exile due rebuilding of stadiums), I went to see 2 top historic Bulgarian teams in Sofia for a derby match and the attendance barely reached triple figures. Paris FC's attendances in Ligue 2 barely reach that too. Attendance is almost irrelevant in modern football. You can have a team like Termalica Nieciecza, or Amica Wronki with attendances of almost nothing and still be a professional team. Money is made from TV, radio and sponsorship. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Number 57: Comparing England (Germany, Brazil being the other exceptions) to any other country is pointless as if you look at other countries the pro leagues have similar attendances. If you take out Radomiak and ŁKS and a few others who pull in thousands they look no different to Scottish League Two [5] and also, in Poland half these teams have grounds being modernised and collective punishments and matches played in empty stadiums due to ridiculous "disciplinary reasons" happen on a regular. Nieciecza's attendances are mostly propped up by the fact they play big teams and the away support is larger than the home (which is around 100 usually), they play in a village of 700 inhabitants Abcmaxx (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC) By the way the website you quoted: noticed how they added the stats for the 3rd tier only after it became pro. WKS Gryf Wejherowo manage the same way Annan Athletic or e.g. many teams in Balkans with no fanbase but still play in a top league do Abcmaxx (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Abcmaxx: Annan and all the other clubs in Scottish League Two are semi-pro, hence why it's not listed as a fully-pro league (only the Premiership and Championship are). Using that league as a comparison illustrates why I have serious doubts about liga II. Number 57 00:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
US leagues
Has this note on the end "were also fully pro leagues, but are now defunct." Is there refering to the last league listed or for another one? It says leagues in plural also, so it's a little confusing!! Govvy (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is referring to the entire sub-bullet, all those U.S. leagues are defunct. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Honduran league
Hey, does anyone have anything about the Honduran league? It isn't listed in any of the lists. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me its professional (since there are no sources I could find denying this claim and all its news claimed its professional). However, there were sources I could find that specifically stated the overall professionalism of the league or how its fully professional so it is not listed on any of the lists. Das osmnezz (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Slovenian PrvaLiga really fully professional?
Is the Slovenian PrvaLiga fully professional? An article from 2002 stated the league "consists of 12 fully professional teams", but a UEFA news article from 2014 stated that NK Maribor are "the only fully-professional club in Slovenia". The current reference offers no explanation of where in the source PDF that the league is stated to be fully professional. The PDF was originally added in 2009 under a slightly different URL, but I still couldn't find where the league is stated as fully pro. Should the PrvaLiga be removed from the fully pro list (and moved to the non-pro section)? S.A. Julio (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Now listed under the non-fully pro section based off the UEFA article. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)