Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 24

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.

I'm writing to determine the status of American indoor soccer particularly the

• This is a book about sports careers. See p. 133 for the entry on the MISL II, it comes right after the entries on FIFA and the World Cup.^[4]
• 1980 New York Times article about the Cosmos, at the height of their glory, wanting to play in the MISL.^[5]
• 1982 New York Times article regarding MISL player contracts. According to the Times, the league agreed that "club owners will retain television revenues and the players will receive higher salaries, per diem, termination pay and playoff revenues. Minimum salaries were increased to $2,000 a month."^[6]
• 1984 New York Times article about the Phoenix Pride selling the contracts of the last nine players on the team after losing $2.2 million the previous year.^[7]
• 1984 New York Times article on NASL teams moving to MISL, which required the NASL teams to post a "$400,000 entry fee and a $250,000 letter of credit."^[8]
• 1986 New York Times article about MISL teams refusing to release players for the World Cup. According to the Times, "The M.I.S,L. team owners contend that the players have contracts and that their first duty is to their teams."^[9]
• 1986 New York Times article about team-owner rebellion against league commissioner. One team owner said, "He had done his part in cutting back on high-priced players."^[10]
• 1986 Chicago Tribune article about an MISL player making $80,000-$90,000 a season.^[11]
• 1987 New York Times article profiling a "professional soccer player" in the MISL.^[12]
• 1987 New York Times article on failure of the New York Express. The team had planned to go public (sell stock like Manchester United just did).^[13]
• According to this 1988 LA Times article, MISL teams had a $1.275 million salary cap.^[14]
• 1988 article about the struggle for amateur players when it comes to giving up a good paying job to pursue an uncertain career as a professional indoor soccer player.^[15]
• 1989 LA Times article about the collapse of the Los Angeles Lazers. According to the article, "Lazer (and LA Lakers) owner Jerry Buss, who has reportedly lost more than $7 million on the franchise since its inception." ^[16]
• 1990 article regarding expansion of the American Indoor Soccer Association. Note the comparisons between the AISA and MISL.^[17]
• According to the Baltimore Sun in 1991, "Hale said he wants to invite all nine members of the NPSL into the MISL. "We would be the largest professional soccer league in the country if all nine teams came in," he said. However, Hale said he doesn't expect all nine NPSL teams to meet the "requirements" of the MSL. One of the main stumbling blocks to a consolidation of NPSL teams with the MSL is the difference in salary caps between the two leagues. The MSL has a team salary cap of $755,000; the NPSL cap is about $300,000. MSL players have been asked to take sizable pay cuts over the past three years and probably would protest further reductions." ^[18]
• 1995 lawsuit^[19]
• 1997 LA Times article regarding back-pay owed a Continental Indoor Soccer League team’s players.^[20]
• 2000 Baltimore Business Journal article about the National Professional Soccer League.^[21]
• 2001 Yale University article about an amateur player turning professional with an MISL II team.^[22]
• 2002 New York Times business section article on the MISL II^[23]
• 2003 Research Paper on small professional sports team using two NPSL teams as the basis for the study.^[24]
• This one is not online: International Sports Law and Business, Volume 1 by Wise and Meyer. There is a whole section on the various American professional leagues of the time, including MLS, A-League, NPSL, CISL, etc.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you all need more sources looking at clubs from a business point of view. Mohrflies (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

The NPSL old website states that it was professional.^[25]. Both leagues had a salary war to sign players^[26]. The NPSL secured a television deal with

• The only other time we've discussed these leagues, was at
  MLS - so I don't know why it's not listed here. Not sure about the National Professional Soccer League (1984–2001). Nfitz (talk
  ) 03:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. I noticed that too that there was no real conclusion pertaining to that discussion at
  USL (a league considered fully professional by wikipedia standards) players and including a USL club (Montreal Impact) competed in the league during the outdoor off season. Not to mention in 1996 the debut season of the MLS an agreement was reached with the NPSL to allow players to play for both leagues.^[28]. Including the fact that the league had a salary war with the MISL over player contracts, what semi-pro/amateur league has a salary war? The league received notable coverage by having their matches broadcasted by ESPN (a major sports channel). Also according to these articles a USL First Division (fully professional by wikipedia standards) club named the Toronto Lynx had a reported player salary of $300,000 in 2006.^[29][30].In 1991, NPSL clubs also had a team salary cap of $300,000.^[31]. It would be nice to come to some fair conclusion about the status of both leagues. I don't want to waste my time including other peoples time in having to research and write articles and then have them deleted without a clear statement with facts about whether the league is "fully" professional or not. Shotgun pete (talk
  ) 07:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• Can this issue please be addressed. There is a lot of evidence presented for this case and none of it is being addressed or considered. Can we please reach a consensus or some conclusion to this matter in order to know where we stand on this topic. Shotgun pete (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not an expert in this, but since no-one else is commenting, I'm leaning to including them both. Meters (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree and second that motion with you the evidence clearly shows that both leagues were fully professional. Both leagues had a salary war clear sign that they both were professional leagues since when do semi-pro leagues have that? Shotgun pete (talk) 5:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Professional players in a league is not indicative of a fully professional league. Your

WP:TLDR, please provide one or two sources which unequivocally state that the indoor league was fully professional. GiantSnowman

07:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to you doing similar for the

SPFL Championship below. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk

) 09:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also suggest that this isn't really the right forum to discuss this. WP:NFOOTY covers only the eleven-a-side form of the game. There is consensus at AfD that it does not cover beach football or futsal, so players in those fields simply have to satisfy wider GNG. As such, I am not sure it would be appropriate to have NFOOTY apply to indoor football. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that the first match of the professional league is played which is pioneered by 8 clubs (more than six required to be recognized by the AFC as a national league). I request that the Philippines Football League should be added to the list.

Also according to this news, the Philippines Football League (and its staff and players) was granted a professional license by the Games and Amusement Board, the regulatory body of professional sports in the country such as basketball's Philippine Basketball Association. http://www.foxsportsasia.com/en-ph/news/gab-grants-pfl-professional-license/

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it could be an FPL, but nothing has been added to support this since the last discussion, so I am not sure I would want it added to the list based on this source alone. I would need to see clearer statements as to what "professional" means here. The purpose of WP:FPL is to identify leagues that are not just (or do not just term themselves) professional, but exhibit through reliable sourcing a level of professionalism sufficient that it is clear that the players involved in the league require no additional form of employment, ideally sourced to documents indicating minimum salary requirements. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have read previous discussions about including PFL to the list. The league has already started [32] [33], 8 teams have already given license. It means 8 teams have met the AFC criteria and the PFF itself [34]. In fact, Games and Amusement Board has issued their first professional footballer license just recently [35] [36]. The league has completed its structures needed to become a fully professional league. With teams having their own stadium, training facilities, financial stability, professional players(full time), youth and reserve teams, I just can't believe PFL hasn't included in this list. Some users in last discussions are pointing out that the league hasn't started yet, but now it has already started. What are other issues? Theinkognitoman (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a difference between a league declaring itself "professional" (which has both financial and behavioural meanings and a league being able to demonstrate "full professionalism" as required by WP:FPL (which is essentially a purely financial criterion). Looking at the terms laid down here, there are a number of gaps I think that need to be closed.

1. Section 6.1 discusses professional contracts but neither notes the number of players who need to have them, nor a minimum salary that could be used to indicate full professionalism
2. Sections 6.3.6 indicate that key back room staff do not need to be full time. To my mind if you don't have a full time CEO or other key administrative staff it is more likely that the playing staff are not fully professional.

There has clearly been a concerted effort to improve the level of professionalism in the Philippines, but I am not sure that the documentation presented indicates it is universally of a level within the top division that could be deemed fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As per [37], certainly the league is struggling in terms of finances and labor. So I afraid the league as its stands fails FPL.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Are clubs like

I'd personally consider any club winning a national championship notable. Not the players of course. -Koppapa (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say any club that has played in the top division is notable and also echo Koppapa's comments on the players. Number 57 13:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That helps. Thank you.- MrX 13:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I edited this list to include the brazilian's

It appears to be the equivalent of a cup competition which is only available to fully-pro clubs (i.e., Serie A- and B-eligible clubs). I'm not sure the competition belongs on this page, but I believe players participating in the competition ought to be treated similar to players participating in "league cups" - meaning as long as both clubs are fully-pro, a match counts towards the brightline of NFOOTY. Jogurney (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The league was created with the ultimate goal of competing or even replacing the brazilian top tier league,

talk

) 23:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Jogurney that this is definitely mostly a matter form. Listed or not matches in this competition are competitive game[s] between two teams from fully-professional leagues, meaning they satisfy

WP:NFOOTY. Including it would only clutter the list with no impact evaluation of notability. On the other hand, a bunch to the Brazilian state leagues, which are also secondary competitions, are already listed. I guess my take on this is that including the league is okay, but not necessary. Sir Sputnik (talk

) 02:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably time to start formally including cups in the scope of this page. Hack (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• From the POV of a Brazilian person: Primeira Liga is a pre-season cup, which does not have a good number of teams from the whole country, only a few from some states. IMO, it is notable enough to be considered as fully-pro, but it's not a league, definitely. MYS77 ^✉ 05:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with it. A league is fully pro when ALL the teams playing in that league are fully pro teams. And that is the case in the Primeira Liga. Only pro teams are admitted at Primeira Liga and therefore it's a fully pro league. Also, Primeira Liga is not a pre-season league, since in Brazil they are in mid-season and the league is still going in on.--

talk

) 23:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the concern is that this competition is only for clubs from particular states, and the format looks like a cup competition (a group phase followed by a knockout phase). Most national "leagues" use a round-robin system of some type, while most national "cups" do not. Jogurney (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your concern. But in Brazil this format is very common, even the national league (Campeonato Brasileiro) was in this format ( a group phase followed by a knockout phase) until 2003, when it changed to the round-robin format. Also, the league is very young, so this why it's still restrict to just a part of the country. But the point still stands. That is a fully pro league, only allowed to fully pro teams.--

talk

)

I added

To be fair, including "professional" in the name is not an indicator of professional status. Only half of the clubs in the Scottish Professional Football League are fully-professional. Also, perhaps I'm being stupid, but I can't see where in that source it says that the Uzbek League is fully-professional? I would be very surprised if it wasn't though. Number 57 14:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the fact that all the rest of the leagues are professional, the forum is to give professional football a big kick and the mention of professional league leaders. I'm sure there are Uzbek sources saying it explicitly, but I am not fluent. --SuperJew (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

But as I mentioned on your talk page, the whole point of the article is that acknowledged fully professional leagues such as SIngapore and Malaysia weren't there, so attendence at the meeting reported on does not equal 'fully professional status. Whilst there may be Uzbek language sources confirming fully professional status, we do not guess that there are and add leagues to WP:FPL on a hunch and we certainly don't do so unilaterally. Fenix down (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree. While it is entirely possible that the Uzbek league is fully pro, this source is not sufficient to confirm that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A request for comment is open regarding a proposed change to the

It's not really arbitrary. Footballers are notable by virtue of it being a spectator sport, and professional status is a reflection of the level of spectator interest – the greater the number of spectators, the higher clubs' incomes and the more likely they are to be professional. If the Bosnian league is fully-professional from this season, it can be added to the list with a note to that effect. Number 57 10:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that professional status is a significant step in notability, but requiring that the entire league needs to be professional in order to automatically grant or deny notability to all its players comes across as backwards. What if 11 clubs in the league are fully professional, and 12th, which was perhaps just promoted, isn't? I'm not a football fan, nor but I'm coming from

No such user (talk

) 13:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If the league is fully professional and then a semi-pro club is promoted into it, a bit of common sense is usually shown, as has been the case with the Scottish Championship. Number 57 14:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

So if the

WP:GNG.Hmlarson (talk

) 19:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the common sense here would be that it's not an FPL if only 70% are fully-pro; it's not too dissimilar to what the National League has been in some seasons (another league which is routinely covered by the BBC). Number 57 19:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, are you adverse to adding a link to

WP:FPL? Hmlarson (talk

) 19:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem with mentioning the GNG (what are you suggesting?), but I don't see the point in a link to all top divisions – there's no link between top division status and player notability. Number 57 19:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The point being you have a woefully incomplete essay otherwise. What's the point of the "Top level leagues which are not fully professional" headers? Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The list already states that it's incomplete. Number 57 20:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I propose for integrating link GNG. After "The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources." ... "Players who have not played in a fully professional league listed below may meet Wikipedia's

General notability guideline." Thoughts? Hmlarson (talk

) 19:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fine, although all entries do appear to be sourced now, so perhaps that bit can go. Number 57 20:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else oppose before I add? Hmlarson (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If by sourced you mean out-of-date subscription needed pages and deadlinks, sure they all are sourced. --SuperJew (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)