Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Iraqi Premier League

Is the Iraqi Premier League fully professional? ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 23:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the Cypriot First League

In a recent afd, some interesting sources were brought to my attention concerning the pro status of the Cypriot first league. First, this article from The Economist, which discusses the number of foreigners in European top divisions. While far from conclusive, it certainly raises the possibility that the Cypriot First League might be fully pro. Second, this article from The Sports Journal, which refers to fourteen clubs of the First Division as professional. What do others think? Is this sufficient to relist the the Cypriot First League as fully pro? Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well 'Interviews were conducted with the presidents or secretaries general of all 14 footballs clubs in the first division of the national league, the professional clubs in Cyprus.' coming in a journal article sounds more conclusive to me than an inference from a sponsor's website. Think I'll be WP:BOLD and change it now. Stu.W UK (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian First and Second Division

The source listed for the Russian First and Second Divisions seems to state that amateur teams can play in these leagues. Can someone who speaks Russian please confirm this or explain why the source confirms the Fully pro status of these leagues? I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a translation error before I remove them. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you distinguish between "fully professional" and not?

I'm watching the AfD for Shawn Tellus. Right now, it seems to be hinging on whether or not the Maltese Premier League is a professional league or not. I only came across the article during huggling because someone removed templates inappropriately, as football is not my thing. But now I'm curious--what is the distinction between a fully professional league and some lower level? Are there some guidelines? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A fully professional league is one where all players at all clubs in the league are fully professional - i.e. they train five days a week and do not have other day jobs. There are some leagues where there is a mixture (for instance the Conference National), so players in these leagues do not meet the criteria. Tellus fails the guideline as the Maltese League is not fully professional (this source is given overleaf). Number 57 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense--thanks for satisfying my curiosity! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

New Providence Football League

Question for the experts: is New Providence Football League a fully professional league? My guess is no, given that it is labeled as the "highest form of football (soccer) on the island of New Providence", an island of only 330,000 people; it seems unlikely to me that a population of that size could actually support a fully professional league. I'm not worried about the league article itself, or even the articles on the teams (I'm willing to presume that there must be at least local coverage of the teams/league), but I am wondering whether merely playing in this league automatically confers a presumption of notability sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE (specifically, an Article for Creation submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bennett Coughlin). Thanks for your help. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but frankly if a sub-national league in the Bahamas is fully professional I will eat my sofa. BTW, as that article is a BLP with no sources whatsoever, is it eligible to be created anyway......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Albania?

Albania is not on neither the "professional" or the "non-professional" lists of leagues. What do we do with footballers whose only claim to fame is appearance in Albania's top level? Timbouctou (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence suggesting it is fully professional, I think we have to assume it is not. Hence they would fail WP:ATHLETE. Number 57 21:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm asking because I ran into several Croatian players who played in non-professional lower tiers at home before moving to Albanian top level. I assumed this was alright but then I saw this AfD. Timbouctou (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Albania2/Proposal

Moved discussion here as per suggestion of Sir Sputnik(Permanent link) --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Albania (again)

(my comment copied over from an AfD) - I'm not convinced about the links provided for the Albanian Superliga - as far as I can tell (i.e. with the help of Google Translate!), the two news items simply refer to a 'professional league' without confirming whether it's truly fully professional or if there are still semi-pro teams there, and the league statute document seems to make no reference to players' professional status whatsoever. Could someone who can actually speak Albanian point us to where exactly the league's professional status is confirmed? —BETTIA— ^talk 09:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this kind of verification is needed for all none English sources on this list. For example, the source for the Russian First and Second Division appear to lay out the condition under which an amateur team may compete in these competitions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that without an agreed definition of "fully professional" it does not seem reasonable to suggest that leagues should not appear on the pro list because they lack that wording. A general consensus has arisen via the populating and editing of this list that a reference to professional is reasonable, and indeed I'm not aware which entries on the list do have sources confirming the "fully professional" nature of the league. I have reverted the recent change whereby Albania was removed from the list, but I admit I have not waded through the first of the links, and agree that when docs like this are posted there should be reference to a page number where the professional status is discussed/mentioned.Eldumpo (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot disagree in strong enough terms with the suggestion that we should stretch the letter of sourcing on a BLP-related matter. It may well be that a fair number of players in the Albanian league meet the GNG, and if so, playing in Albania should not be a barrier to such players having articles. But that's very different to assuming that every single one of them should have a full-blown biography. —WFC— 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My post above is based on the current consensus/guideline for notability i.e. the wording at NSPORT and current FPL list. I would like to see the draft alternative to this system (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers) taken forward in order that some of these ongoing issues can be addressed, and may try and post a reminder for input at Footy soon. However, we have to go with the existing system for the present. The vast majority of entries on the list do not have sourcing to show the league is "fully professional", and it is unreasonable to decide that Albania should apparently have to reach more stringent criteria than other list entries. I don't believe this is an issue of WP:Otherstuffexists because we are talking of entries on the same list, and a consensus that has built up over some time. I won't remove the tag you have added, but if it is deemed acceptable to add it for Albania, it could be added to most entries on the list, or more likely a generic tag would be added. However, better than this, we can try and move forward with the alternative page for footballer notability. Eldumpo (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Like WFC, I couldn't disagree more that a source that simply refers to a league as professional is sufficient to include that league in the fully pro list, simply because it completely removes the distinction between professional and fully professional. If professional were sufficient for inclusion, then leagues that per consensus are not, Conference National or Regionalliga for example, could be included as there is a degree of professionalism in those leagues, and they can be sourced as professional. Ultimately what it comes back to is Eldumpo's earlier point about the lack of a clear definition of fully pro. Therefore, I propose the following definition: A league is fully professional if all players in that league are paid to play football, and are paid well enough to not require a secondary source of income (i.e. a day job). Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with WFC that any player meeting the GNG, regardless of league, is notable. Also agree with Sir Sputnik's definiton of "fully-professional". GiantSnowman 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@SS - thanks for putting forward a definition for fully professional. However, I can't imagine it would be possible to provide sources that confirm this status for various leagues, and how many of the current leagues on the list would remain pro with this definition. However, the key question really is WHY do you think that such a definition should be used to determine which leagues automatically confer player notability? Out of interest, do you feel there should be a massive reduction in the list of leagues on the list, because a consensus has built up regarding the list Eldumpo (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@SS & GS - re my post at Footy, it would be useful if you have any points to add to the Player notability draft proposal. Eldumpo (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Scottish First Division

Is the Scottish First Division fully professional for the 2011-12 season? With Stirling Albion and Cowdenbeath having been relegated, these sources seem to indicate all ten clubs in the division for the coming season are operating full-time: Raith Rovers [1], Livingston [2], Partick Thistle [3], Greenock Morton [4], Queen of the South [5], Ayr United [6]. Dundee[7], Falkirk [8], Hamilton [9], Ross County [10]. Deserter1 18:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I see from other conversations above that the definition of "fully professional" has not been agreed. To keep Scotland consistent with other leagues on the list, e.g. Greece, Paraguay, Ukraine, I have included all four Scottish divisions and references that show all 42 clubs in those leagues are professional. I have also added them to the relevant lower divisions section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers where further discussion is taking place. If these leagues should be removed because not all clubs are full-time, then I would argue that many others on the list should be removed as well because few league references indicate that all member clubs are full-time (as said above, this argument is not a case of WP:Otherstuffexists because it is in relation to the consistency of a single list). Deserter1 23:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've got that completely wrong. Divisions Two and Three are semi-professional at best (at least one club does not pay players at all). Number 57 23:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, so a professional league must comprise full-time players at all clubs. That definition was not clear to me in the article or this talk page, and many of the leagues e.g. Swiss Second Division have references that just state the league has a 'professional' label applied by the national football association or similar bodies - no mention of whether their member clubs are full-time. I also find it hard to believe that the lower leagues in the likes of Algeria, Azerbaijan, Paraguay and third/regional tiers in Greece and Ukraine satisfy this criteria, and I don't see any references confirming that clubs in these divisions are full time. I note you don't object to the Scottish First Division, which I have reinserted with the above references that appear to confirm the vast majority of players at all 2011/12 clubs are on full-time contracts. I hope that is acceptable, but happy to discuss further if others feel it does not belong on the list. Deserter1 11:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully with your above posts. There is no agreed definition of 'fully professional' or explanation of why such a definition is a means of determining player notability for Wikipedia articles. The list has developed with an accepted degree of reasonableness as to what is professional.Eldumpo (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the Ayr United source? they won’t risk putting the future of the club in jeopardy by abandoning their part-time status and Reid said: “We have part-time players with jobs and can’t ask them to give these up to go full-time. We will still be a predominantly part-time club but we will have some players in during the week. That is a failed citation if ever there was one. The QoS source says it is "unclear" if they are staying full-time this year. I see from their OS that the 11/12 squad contains part-time players and modern apprentices 94.4.165.172 (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I take your reasoning, but its worth pointing out that just about all British clubs have apprentices. —WFC— TFL notices 00:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point regarding Ayr United; the article starts with, "Newly promoted Ayr United will have a full-time complement of players in the First Division", which is misleading. I think it seems harsh to remove the league because one of the twelve teams has some part-time players, but I appreciate the rules (QoS confirmed they will continue to operate with a full time playing staff this season [11]). My wider question was to ask why other leagues have been added to this list without the need for any information on clubs’ full-time status. The article on attendance figures by league indicates that a number of listed leagues – Russian Second Division, Singapore S-League, Azerbaijan Premier League, Slovenian PrvaLiga – have a significantly lower average attendance than the Scottish First Division, which suggests that maintaining an entire quotient of full-time professionals at all clubs is not viable for these leagues. It can be hard to prove the case either way, but it seems illogical and unfair to require the Scottish First Division meets the definition and not others? I have been searching with regard to Swiss Challenge League, which I understand is in a similar position, but the most recent reliable sources I could find are several years old ([12] & [13] confirm F.C. Vaduz have mainly part-time players). Deserter1 10:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There are only ten teams and you will see from the player profiles section on Ayr's website that the vast majority of their players are on part-time terms.[14] The source above only says QotS intended to stay full-time. On their website this is contradicted by at least three part-timers on the player profile page. There is also a smattering of part-timers at other teams including Morton and Raith. Raith are claiming to now be "full time" after cutting their budget from last season (when they were part-time). All these squads rely on kids paid a nominal wage by the government modern apprenticeship scheme. Any BLPs created on the strength of playing in this League need to be pared back, IMO. 94.2.51.78 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked through the sources myself, but I note the points raised above. I just wanted to flag that previous discussions on here established a 'reasonableness' based on the Finnish situation, whereby the vast majority (I think the figure was 90-odd %) of players were paid, and ithe league was still included. I'm not saying that should be the case for Scotland, based on the number of queries raised, but wanted to raise the point for completeness.Eldumpo (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems the best situation this league has had in recent years and it is clear that Ayr, at least, is still semi-pro. These people also seem to think it is semi-pro. I think we should keep it out of notability until it clearly meets the fully pro criteria. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Time for abit of WP:COMMONSENSE gentlemen - especially when the Scottish Parliament describes it as "the oldest and largest professional League in Scotland." I mean, Finland isn't 100% professional, and we've accepted that after much debate. GiantSnowman 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To change this to non fully pro would be total nonsense and taking it to far just because one team has some part time players. There are plenty of notable leauges where this is the case. this is getting beyond a joke. It is a notable league regardless. Fair enough second and third but the first is notable. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I take Warburton1368's point about the undesirability of chopping and changing. It seems to me that if "fully professional league" is to remain a notability standard we badly need to agree some consistent criteria. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the rationale linking notability of players to how many hours they train. There is no obvious link between the two and the current rule is ridiculously ambiguous, incredibly anglo-centric and causes huge amounts of debates on every single lower league outside of England. Why do we insist on keeping it? Adam4267 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And please tell me were not accepting this as These people a valid source that its not a fully pro league. Warburton1368 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with adam how can so many tiers of english football be deemed acceptable when there is so little in scotland. Warburton1368 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looking again at the leagues that are in and out it seems pretty arbitrary and I understand these concerns. If we are not to fall back on WP:GNG then perhaps a fresh discussion on the criteria is in order? Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:GNG should always be the first priority with articles here, as basically all that WP:NFOOTBALL says in its small print is that "players in these leagues are notable because it is assumed they will meet the GNG." GiantSnowman 01:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is too many Scottish editors here crowing about the mote in the eye of others (Ireland, notably, and Finland) while overlooking the beam of semi-professionalism in their own eye. 94.2.38.154 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally untrue the if anything the project is heavily geared towards england not scotland. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is any country that is disproportionately represented on the site as a whole, it's a country beginning with "I" (the jury is out over which one). As crap as the criteria are, and while I personally don't think all that many Scottish First Division players are notable, there are several smaller leagues that get a cushier deal than Scotland. And before I'm accused of bias, I come from the warmer side of the border. —WFC— TFL notices 18:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Finland isn't 100% fully-professional but is considered it for this (a rare bit of WP:COMMONSENSE, as mentioned above), while the LoI isn't even nearly fully-professional, hence all the hoo-haa last week with St. Pats. Oh, and FYI, I'm not Scottish ;) GiantSnowman 16:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

There's lots of chat here about the general utility of the fully professional guideline. Leaving aside our own opinions about "common sense" exceptions, I'd like to steer the discussion back to the actual issue. If anyone has any sources showing that Ayr United or Queen of the South are (contrary to their own websites) "fully pro," then let's see them. Otherwise the list reverts back to the previous, stable consensus version. 94.2.38.154 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I accept Ayr United have a mix of full-time and part-time first team players. Queen of the South are "still full-timers" for this season according to The Scotsman: [15]. With regard to the criteria, as far as I can tell from the archive, there hasn't been any discussion around many of the lower leagues that have been added to the list. For example, the Azerbaijan First Division, which doesn't even have a single reference, let alone multiple that confirm every club in the league has a first team comprising entirely of full-time players for the current season. Why is this strict criteria to be applied to the Scottish First Division, but not to other debatable leagues in Azerbaijan and elsewhere? Deserter1 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, the criteria are supposed to apply to all Leagues equally. Here, we're discussing Scottish Division One. But feel free to remove any others which are also demonstrably part-time. 94.2.38.154 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Mr ip you keep saying the consensus before was that it wasnt fully pro you are wrong it was that it was fully pro so by you removing it you are trying to badger your way to a new one. you seem to be on a political agenda here. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the default position until quite recently was that the Scottish First Division was not on either list. My understanding is that there is a dispute over the 'fully pro' status of 2 of the 10 clubs, which is perhaps right on the line as to whether a league can still be regarded as fully pro using a 'reasonableness' argument. Maybe it is unfortunate for Scottish football that there are lots of sources and they go into the detail of player status etc. As I've said many times we need to move away from 'fully pro' being regarded as the sole determinant of automatic notability. Eldumpo (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh, we're going in circles here and getting nowhere - Finland is not 100% professional, but was accepted onto the list after much debate because it's pure nonsense to say that having a few part-timers deems the league "non-notable." The same commonsense should be used here for the SFL1. I mean, what happens if Queen's Park, a wholly and proudly amateur team, gets promoted all the way to the SPL - are you then going to say that players in that league aren't notable? As for moving away from fully-pro, I'd be happy with that in part, but nobody has actually suggested a viable alternative... GiantSnowman 11:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember NFOOTBALL is supposed to tell is which footballers will meet GNG because of the where they play, however it does not ovveride GNG just because a player meets NFOOTY does not mean they meet GNG (at least in the current form) and just because a player does not meet NFOOTY doesn't mean they won't meet GNG. How can we say that every player in every league in our current list will meet GNG, which is what our current list is supposed to do. We need to look at which leagues get so much coverage that every player will be considered notable. And for leagues that don't come into that list every player will have to be shown to meet GNG. Adam4267 (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with your post, but if a player meets NSport (i.e. for football the FPL list) they are presumed to meet GNG and would be highly likely to survive at AfD. As such, meeting NFootball is effectively a 'free pass' to obtaining notability. Eldumpo (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

its only one club and it was on the list untill it was removed without discussion. Fully pro is no way to determine notability of a division. If one club isn't full time. It dosent mean the division isn't notable it just means they train less thu still field a team against the whole other nine fully pro teams. Warburton1368 (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not about whether the division itself is notable, but whether players who play in that league can gain automatic notability. Eldumpo (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

IM aware of that. The players in it are notable if we are looking at it objectively and with common sense one team out of ten going semi pro for one season dosent make the players in it non notable over night that is crazy. Eldumpo i think you agree with me although not sure that Fully pro is a ridiculous way to determine notability of a squad of players in a league. especially in the current economic climate the likelihood is that more clubs all over will follow suit and become semi pro. We need to look at a better way to determine notability rather than Fully pro as in its current shape it inst fit for purpose. Any ideas. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• We could look at overall attendance figures tv and media coverage and club following. This directly links to notability rather than Fully pro which really only means they train all the time which dosent mean they are any good or get coverage. 16:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)

Have you seen the draft player notability link near the start of this thread. It hasn't got too far but aims to cover revised guidance for notability of footballers. At present there is probably too much emphasis there on the Wp:FPL list, but that was used as the starting point.Eldumpo (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

...and back to Scottish Division One

Leaving aside all the "whataboutery", I'd like to thank those still contributing constructively to the debate. Eldumpo, the default position was that the league was removed several months ago when part-timers Stirling Albion and Cowdenbeath were also involved. I certainly have no "political" or any other interest in keeping it off the list. But it has simply never been remotely close to being professional. I can remember a golden age of the division in the mid-90s when very strong Dunfermline, Dundee United and Morton teams battled for the title, meanwhile the likes of Stranraer and Dumbarton were firmly in the semi-pro camp.

At present Ayr are comprised almost entirely of players on part-time terms, per their OS. Queen's centre half Campbell is a full-time prison guard, and the OS lists two other semi-pros. Half of the rest are college boys, on apprenticeships. Scotland is unique in the UK in that the state pays these "wages". When Stirling were relegated Morton signed one of their players who didn't want to give up his job so strictly speaking they're not "fully pro" either. Potless Raith's goalie is p/t and having been semi pro last year they claim to have 13/14 full-timers this year. Therefore I make the League (at best) 60% "fully professional" 94.14.78.108 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not applying WP:COMMONSENSE - having a few part-timers in the league does not make it semi-professional. Even the Premier League has youth players! GiantSnowman 19:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been gone over above the league is notable it is described by the the scottish government as already said above as the the oldest and largest professional League in Scotland. It has already been established that we already air on the side of common sense re Finland. As been shown above only one club could be considered by there admission as semi pro though containing a compliment of full time players which means some of there squad is fully pro. Notability is not temporary as has been said in another discussion if an amateur team made there way up through promotion to the Barclays premier league and chose not to go fully pro the league is still notable. One club out of ten questionably not being fully pro does not make it non notable and fully pro. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO the current rule, being "fully-pro" means that all the players are paid by the clubs, not that they are full-time. However I think there needs to be a rule change and players from SFL1 should not be considered inherintly notable.

Here is my proposed criteria;
1.Due to the large media coverage of football in this country a player can be assumed to automatically meet WP:GNG if they have played in one of these leagues: (EPL, SPL, La Liga, Bundesliga and so on)
2.The majority of players who play in these leagues are presumed to be notable, however they must be shown to meet WP:GNG: (Scottish First Division, Football League One, Bundesliga 2, MLS, A-League, League of Ireland and so on)
3.Players in all other leagues are not presumed to be notable and should only be included if they can be shown to strictly meet WP:GNG.

So for rule 1 any player to have played gets an article. For rule 2 players who have played must also have pieces written about them in secondary sources but these can be local media. For rule 3 the player must have had an article about them published in a national media.

Which leagues go where will need to be researched and decided upon but what is important is that we have a rule which is, clear, concise and leaves no ambiguity. So we do not have to revisit this in future. Adam4267 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you adam that change is needed and your idea if worked upon would be ok but I would argue that SFL1 receives a lot of coverage and could easily fall under cat 1 i am sure a lot of other users will feel the same about one league or another. But under current rules SFL1 Should be on the list. I would fully back change which needs to happen but that will take some time until that happens we need to come to a conclusion on the matter currently at hand. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which leagues go where is not important currently, what is important is that we have a rule which is, clear, concise and leaves no ambiguity

The problem with SFL1 and the current rule is that we do not know what it means. Full-pro suggest to me, non-amatuer i.e all players are paid. But many users have interpreted it as full-time. Which I think is wrong because if it was suppposed to be full time then why wasn't full-time written down instead of fully-pro. Adam4267 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

To me its if some players are amateur which isn't the case they are all pro players being paid. Even if we look at it the other way say one team has a mixture of pro and non pro that dosent make the league non fully pro some of there squad are fully pro players. No way to determine notability. Ill back anyone that wants to change but in my and i feel other editors feel that on current system it should be there. if we want change then a full working draft will need to be drawn up. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(to Adam) Eh? If you think that fully-pro means that all the players are paid, then clubs as low as the 10th level (and reportedly some even lower) in England are fully professional by your standards because their players get paid for playing (even if its only £50 a game). It's fairly clear to me (and I think most people who are part of WP:Football) that "fully pro" and "full time" mean the same thing. Number 57 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

and in both Football League 1 and 2 all clubs are fully professional in all senses of the word. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

head in hands I have already stated that the current guidlines are anglocentric and ridiculous. And in no way am a proponent of them. I think they should be scrapped immmediately and WP:GNG should be used until we come up with a new set of proposals (If only some intrepid wikipedian could come up with a set of new proposals) Adam4267 (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In general players in the highest league in any country will get decent media coverage. I am sure that this would be far too radical to be seriously considered but it at least has the advantage of being clear, and with a certain rough fairness, and could form a starting point for discussion as to a different approach:

"Footballers who have played for a team in the highest league of any country, except for countries whose leading teams play in another country, are deemed to be notable. Other footballers must meet WP:GNG to attain notability."

The "except for countries whose leading teams play in another country" is to deal with the Welsh Premier League, for example. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the suggested guideline is clear, the problem is that there are a number of small nations and/or countries where the game is not so popular, and some of these players get limited coverage in reality. As such there would be no logic for the Wales caveat as LoW players surely get more coverage than a number of other nations. Eldumpo (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Then remove the Wales caveat? Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That would solve the unfair point but you would still be allowing footballers from non-notable leagues. Do footballers who have made a handful of appearances for a lower-table team in places like Bhutan, Comoros, Anguilla, Nauru and San Marino really warrant a free pass to notability? Also, what about prominent lower level leagues such as Championship, Serie B etc. Eldumpo (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Division One

Has anyone checked the page at semi-professional? In Scottish football, semi-professional teams compete at all levels below the Scottish Premier League. If SFL Division One is to stay on this page, then we really need to change the name of the page! PorridgeGobbler (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That article doesn't give a reference for that (or most other) claims, in fact the only two sources provided relate to the history of American Football. As per the above SD1 sources in which 9 of the 10 teams are described as full-time clubs, I would contend that this statement is misleading and inaccurate, because it implies the SD1 is a semi-professional league. Deserter1 09:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)