Talk:Professional sports league organization

Heading as Franchise Model and Promotion-relegation Model

Surely its the features of the league structures which are important, not which sport uses them. What possible relevance could it be that the franchise system was developed by baseball? Especially since the type of sport played in these structures is irrelevant. Its certainly possible to play baseball in a promotion/relegation system, and soccer in a franchise model as they do in America and Australia. Use of the term franchise and franchise model in this sense is common. It seems quite pedantic to argue that the term franchise cant be used just because the sporting clubs arent technically franchises in the strictest terms of a business model, rather than use the name franchise model and put in a line explaining how the clubs are not strictly franchises. Can we please use sensibly descriptive terms? Mdw0 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes you say that "franchise model" is a common name for the U.S.-style system of league organization? The reason we chose these headings is because there really is no commonly used name for these things. In America, there is no name for that kind of system because it's the only one that's used there and that most Americans have ever thought of. So rather than make our own neologism, which would be un-Wikipedia-like, we've simply titled them "System developed in baseball" and "System developed in association football (soccer)." This does not imply that you can't have P&R in baseball or run soccer like MLB, only that the U.S.-style system was first created by the National League and that the European-style system was first created by the Football League. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The term franchise is common at least. Naming the heading 'franchise system' or 'franchise model' is not creating a neologism, its indicating that the system or model used is one based on sports franchises. A descriptive term isnt a neologism unless people start using it a lot, and even if it does turn into one later, if thats not the purpose of the description at the outset, then whats the problem? Should Wikipedians cease and desist from writing good text just because somone somewhere sometime might popularise the term? I think you might be confusing the description of a system to the naming of the system. They're not necessarily the same thing. If 'franchise model' is such a red flag how about 'Fixed Number of Franchise Teams' and 'Promotion-Relegation System?' At least that indicates what's involved. In any case I've found some decent references for their use - a book from America, and newspaper articles from Britain and Taiwan. Mdw0 (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not really "franchises" that define the U.S. system. It is true that Americans call their pro sports teams "franchises" and Europeans don't. But that's just a name, a synonym for "pro sports team" in American English. It doesn't mean that the American system of organizing sports leagues is called the "franchise model." In fact, I recently heard a TV announcer over here describe Manchester United as "England's most successful soccer franchise." As far the system that originated in the U.K., it's more than just promotion and relegation -- there are several other unique aspects to it, as described in the article. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Promotion-Relegation is the key difference. The others are minor in comparison, in fact its because members of all the different levels are part of the same league that makes promotion and relegation possible. The only other feature mentioned is the occasional play outside of the main league, which could easy happen in the 'franchise' system. The reason to refer to a franchise model or system is that the Americans do call their teams franchises and there are some aspects of franchise behaviour in the system such as geographical exclusivity. Just because the name of the system isnt in common use in America generally doesnt mean it cant be used here. If anything, the example of your ignoramus referring to Man U as a franchise shows that the use of the terms to differentiate the models should be used, so that the terms arent confused and misused. When comparing systems the term franchise system is often used to differentiate between that system and the promtotion-relegation one, as shown by the relatively easy extraction of references for its use that were provided. These other points that you make should go in the text, but even the opening line uses these terms, so why is their use as headers a problem? At the very least the headers used have to be improved. The fact that they were developed first in particular sports is totally irrelevant, and not used at all in any of the literature. As I said before, if 'franchise model' or 'franchise system' is such a red flag how about 'Fixed Number of Franchise Teams?' Mdw0 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go about making the changes before coming to an agreement. Also, don't call people "ignoramuses" because they use a different dialect of English from you. There are a whole series of differences between the U.S. and European systems. It's not just that one has a fixed number of teams and geographic exclusivity and the other has promotion and relegation. (Actually, there are a "fixed number of teams" in the Premier League, too.) To wit:

U.S. system	European system
Rules set by league	Rules set by governing body
Same teams every year, except for expansion/contraction	Promotion and relegation
Teams operate under league auspices	Teams operate independently
Teams play almost exclusively within league	Teams play league and non-league games
All but a few teams enjoy geographical exclusivity	No geographical exclusivity
One champion each year	Several potential champions each year

There are undoubtedly other differences as well. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How about 'Fixed number of Member Teams'? You've referred here to the U.S. system and the European system. This would be a welcome change. Its much better than what went before, at least it identifies a cultural divide that incorporates many sports, but its still not ideal because the various aspects described are not part of any system. The most important and fundamental difference in organisation is that one structure is promotion and relegation with many clubs at different levels and the other one with fixed numbers and franchise aspects, but most of the others are minor differences that could operate under either structure. The way the article reads now, by describing aspects of baseball's organisation and aspects of soccer's organisation the article is saying these characteristics are necessarily linked and are mutually exclusive, which is inaccurate. The 'playing outside the league' characteristic has no link at all to the promotion-relgation structure. The Australian Rugby League certainly used to have a Cup winner. Also, rules set by league vs governing body has zero link to whether you have promotion-relgation or not. Its just that in some sports the league and the governing body are one and the same.

Since the article is meant to be about types of organisation, rather than a list of the differences between continents, these other minor aspects of organisation really ought to be separated out from the structure of the teams. We should have one section for each aspect, one for 'franchise' vs promotion-relegation, one for dominance by and exclusivity to the league, and also something about different salary systems which are definitely aspects of league organisation that aren't even mentioned. You're right - it was a bit harsh to refer to an ignoramus, but we're not talking about a language barrier here, but use of a totally incorrect label caused by ignorance of an alternative, so its not far off the truth. Mdw0 (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now someone's changed the second header to "The league system," which is even more confusing. I've changed the headers to "The system developed by baseball's National League" and "The system developed by soccer's Football League." There's no way anyone could interpret that to mean that all baseball leagues have to use the first system, or that the first system is associated exclusively with baseball. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the 'league system' was never going to last - I retrieved that term from the Wikipedia article which mentios the pyramid. Still, which sport developed the system orignally cant be the best headings. A non-descriptive minor fact has been elevated to a heading title describing the whole system, as though which sport originally used the system was the most important characteristic. If there is a heading title that only mentions baseball there is most certainly an implicit connection between the league structure and the sport which doesnt exist, and would necessarily mean a disclaimer in the text of that section explaining such. Whats more important and descriptive is that the different formats dominate in particular regions of the world no matter what sport is played there. At least the geographical titles reflect the opening paragraph. Mdw0 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using geographical names is they're not completely accurate. As the article mentions, the so-called European system is used around the world, as is the so-called North American system. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that European clubs play cup games outside of league games is not characteristic of the league, it is characteristic of European sport per se. If the article is to be a broader comparison of North American sport against European sport, the title will have to be changed. Also, there is only one domestic league champion in European sport. Champions of lower tier leagues are akin to champions of minor leagues in North America. Winners of cup competitions are referred to as cup winners, not champions. Continental champions are at a different level altogether. Rainjar (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats the point of a lot of this article - the structure of the league is traditional/cultural and based on the prevailing system in that region of the world. It is most certainly part of the league structure as to whether your clubs sometimes play teams from other leagues in cup competitions or international competitions. I agree about the duplicate domestic champions thing. No-one considers the Cup Winner to be the domestic champion. Mdw0 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to the "European" section of the article

The biggest difference between the "North American" system and the "European" system, other than promotion/relegation vs. a fixed lineup of teams, is that in the North American system, the teams for all practical purposes exist wholly within their leagues, while in the so-called European system, the league is just one competition that teams play in.

The article formerly explained this well. The explanation has now been eliminated, replaced with only the following paragraph:

Apart from playing in a domestic league, clubs usually play in one or more domestic, regional or continental cup competitions. Cup competitions are played on a knock-out basis, although they may have a mini-league format in the earlier rounds.

This paragraph will be meaningless to a North American reader, who likely has no idea what a "cup competition" or a "knock-out" basis is.

I'm going to put back what's been removed. If you feel this is beyond the bounds of the title, then suggest a new title -- don't go tearing up the article. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit more of an explanation -- much of the information that replaced the stuff that was taken out of the "European" section of the article was extraneous, such as revenue sharing in the Premier League and the number of games that teams play against each other. What's important here is explaining to people who aren't familiar with the European system (but are likely familiar with the American system) how it works and how it differs from the American system. If you have any major issues with the article as it exists, please talk about it here before making major changes so we can try to reach a consensus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The poor definition of 'league' creates confision. Sometimes its the struture that teams play. Sometimes its the giverning body. Those definitions ned to be explained. Revenue sharing is not irrelevant when a direct result is the creation of the Premier League. Revenue sharing, payment systems and demand management tools such as salary caps and transfer fees are important determinants and features of league structures and are basically ignored here.

It is wrong to say Americans arent familiar with knock-outs. See Single-elimination tournament and March madness.

But it is completely wrong to say the aim of this article is to educate an American reader. Its very important that such systemic bias is countered and removed. The article needs to describe and explain the various systems without bias. It should be very clear that the league systems have no direct connection to the type sport played and are more related to geographical and cultural factors. I agree the continental names aren't 100% accurate, they're just more accurate and descriptive than before. Rather than describing the aspects of two different continents I'd prefer the article examine each aspect in turn - one paragraph for franchise vs promotion relegation to determine which teams are in or out, then another about dominance of the governing body and matches outside the league, and then say where they are used. This would remove the implication that these aspects are necessarily connected with each other or a particular sport. Mdw0 (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that Americans aren't familiar with the term "knock-out" or "cup competition." The article certainly should not be written only for Americans, but when you ask who is like to unfamiliar with the so-called European system, you're talking non-Europeans, and those people are unlikely to be familiar with FA Cup-style competitions or the term "knockout competition." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that whole bit about extra-league competitions needs its own section with appropriate descriptions, but as I said above, there are major tournaments in America, most notably in the college basketball playoffs, which are knock-out competitions, so its just a matter of explaining the terminology, not the concept.Mdw0 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In Europe, only the winners of the primary competition are known as champions. In domestic competitions, the winners of the league competition are the only champions. Winners of cup competitions are known as cup winners (for example, List of FA Cup Winners. At the European level, the winners of the UEFA Champions League are often referred to as European champions. Even then, they are more commonly referred to simply as "winners". Only the top clubs from each country qualify for this competition. The winners of secondary European competitions, such as the UEFA Europa Cup, are merely referred to as winners, never as "champions".

In Europe, the term "champion" is usually reserved for the winners of the domestic league - this is inherent in the name UEFA Champions League and its predecessor.

It is not useful to apply North American pre-conceptions to the description of European sport, especially when it results in inaccuracy.

The pre-conception is inherent in the title of the article "Professional sports league organization". In Europe, the term 'league' competition is used in contrast to 'cup competition'.

The reference to the organization that sets the rules also carries this pre-conception - in North America it tends to be one organization. In Europe, the rules by which the game is played, the rules by which players are transferred and remunerated, and the rules governing the league itself may all be set by different organizations, having different jurisdiction. The very important role of the International Football Association Board is completely ignored.

Perhaps the article should be called "Comparison of professional team sports organization between North America and Europe", but then you'd still have the deal with the complexity and diversity of different sports and different countries in Europe. Perhaps "Comparison of professional team sports organization between North America and England" might be more manageable Rainjar (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making radical changes to the article without trying to get any kind of consensus. You are taking out everything that would help those who aren't familiar with the so-called European system understand the European system, replacing it with a disordered hodge-podge of stuff, some of which is extraneous to the subject matter. If you have an issue with the article, let's discuss it, paragraph by paragraph, on the talk page and come to an agreement as to what it should say. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Try to get your facts right before doing a comparison with a subject you are not familiar with. Misinformation is worse than no information, especially for an encyclopedia.

Your description of football's governing bodies and competitions are highly misleading and based on popular [American] misconceptions. My amendments are all linked to relevant Wikipedia articles on the subject of association football, written by those who know association football.

While purporting to be a comparison with the organization of European professional sport, you insist on making the article a comparison with the English Premier League and the competitions their clubs participate in, with only brief references to other professional football in England, let alone professional football in Europe or other professional sport in Europe. The focus on the 2009-10 Premier League season, while removing relevant historical development, such as the Premier League breaking away from the Football League, is highly illustrative of this. I suppose you realize that such a narrow focus would not pass Wikipedia muster, so you've "disguised" it under a broader subject matter. Rainjar (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I didn't write a lot of the article. A lot of this stuff was written years ago by others, or with the cooperation of others, several of whom were British soccer fans. If you think that some of the facts in the article are incorrect, then by all means, let's talk about what's wrong with them and correct them. But what you've been doing is attacking the article with a hatchet, deleting huge chunks of it and replacing the deleted material with items of questionable relevance or with wording of little use to those who are most in need of the information. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm disputing the accuracy of the article (especially of the European section), and that it represents a neutral viewpoint of the purported subject matter (a lot of American sports concepts and pre-concepts are being imposed on the far more complex and diverse European sports arena). These are obvious once you read the primary material, including other Wikipedia pages on the subject of European and English football. I would be grateful if you would reflect that in the article itself. Rainjar (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about what specifically you object to and try to work out solutions. We've replaced the word "champions" with "trophy winners" where you objected to it, for example. I don't mean this minute, specifically -- I don't know where you are but it's the middle of the night here. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A few obvious criticisms - (1) who makes football's laws/rules, (2) providing details of the Premier League in 2009-10 (in a section purporting to cover "European leagues") - an excessively narrow focus in my view - rather than how the Premier League came into being (as a breakaway from the Football League), (3) the FA only organizes the FA Cup and the FA Trophy, (4) there are professional clubs in the Football Conference, (5) the role of UEFA and FIFA in organizing leading club competitions is completely ignored, (6) Ignoring the UEFA Europa League, (7) In Europe, particularly in England, league competition (all clubs in a division playing each other home and away over the course of a season) is distinguished from cup competition (knock-out). The use of "League" in the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League is regarded as anomalous, especially in England, but they do combine a mini-league at an early stage with a knock-out format in the later stages. The use of "League" may also reflect the possibility/likelihood that these competitions are a stepping to a future European league. A few to start with. Rainjar (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea that a Wikipedia article is always written for an ignorant audience is not entirely true. Sometimes well written prose concerning a subject can entertain an informed reader as well. But all in all, thought about the potential reader is good. Rainjar, you've thrown around the word 'misinformation' here quite a lot. Misinformation implies someone is mistakenly promulgating inaccuracies. Thats different from someone who just doesnt agree with you. That accusation sets you up for detailed criticism of your own inaccuracies, which may have been forgiven if you hadnt been so ready to label other's work as misinformation. For instance, the Football Association used to run the top four leagues and now runs the Championship, Leagues 1 and 2, not just the FA Cup and League Cup as you claim. You are wrong to say UEFA wasnt mentioned - check the history. UEFA's competitions are examples of a section on extra-league play. The idea that minor leagues have their own jurisdictions is valid, but its of little relevance as the minor leagues have very little power and the national leagues in Europe dominate. I mentioned before, and agree that the word 'league' needs to be better explained, but the term is overwhelmingly used for the organising body on both sides of the Atlantic - as in Football League. It is only as a secondary use to distinguish between non-league games and cup competitions, not a main use. The equivalent term for 'league games' in America might be 'regular season.' Use of the term misinformation is quite strange, because if you think something is inaccurate or wrong, why not just correct it, just as I had corrected some of your previous edits without tearing the whole thing down. Rainjar, you couldn't possibly think that your rewriting wouldnt be challenged. The entire section on features of leagues in Europe changed into a mere description of the English soccer setup. This isnt an English football article, its an examination of the aspects that professional leagues can take, with descriptions of the dominant patterns with some small examples, similar to the examples in the North American setup, which doesnt try to describe any particular sporting league in anything like the meticulous detail your changes entail. Up until today there has been quite rigorous debate and editing that has done nothing but improve the article. Hopefully that will continue. Regarding your example, no major heading should EVER be Miscellanous. This section contains the most important concepts - the pyramid structure and promotion-relegation so they need to be moved up. Also, Wikipedia has links, so you dont need to waste an entire sentence directing readers to the results of last season in England, which are not relevant. What you have there is considerably weaker than the current article. Mdw0 (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have highlighted what I consider to be several inaccuracies above. If the article is to be nothing more than a comparison between the way that professional sport is organized in North America and Europe, without a reasonable amount of descriptive content, why not just call it that, rather than try to sustain the pretext that the article is about "Professional sports organization". Introducing the word "league" just makes it more contentious. I haven't even started on the distinction between league and non-league in England, which is in any event irrelevant. Rainjar (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also highlighted a big chunk of these so-called inaccuracies are not inaccuracies at all, which you've ignored. Your idea of a reasonable amount of descriptive content is WAAAAAAY too much. Non-league is just non Football League, another odd term used in England but yes, basically irrelevant in terms of the way a sports league is organised. Its good that you're not mentioning irrelevancies, right up to the point where you mention them. I've said before that I would break up this two-section style. I'm currently working on an example, Watch this space. Mdw0 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the 7 points I raised above. Your reference to UEFA competitions doesn't address the role of UEFA as a governing body in Europe. The most serious error is the part on who makes the rules/laws. The important role of the International Football Association Board, referred to further above, is completely ignored. Anyway, some of the stuff that has been removed recently was not put in by me at all. The parts I put in are on my User page. Rainjar (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Heres a quick rundown of your points; Technically its correct to say the FA doesnt make the laws now, and that role has been taken out of the hands of the national leagues. Thats a valid point and should be mentioned, so thats maybe one line you could add in. Using examples of the last Premier League season is appropriate as an example because its more likely to be top of mind. Your point about the FA only running Cups is wrong - it manages Championship and Leagues 1 & 2. The professional clubs in the football conference could be mentioned as an example of the pyramid structure but not mentioning this particular example is not misinformation. You are wrong to say the UEFA-run competitions were ignored as they were specifically mentioned as examples of extra-league fixtures. Just because it didnt mention certain other competitions as examples is not relevant. Why would a list of your favoured examples make a point better than one or two notable ones? Basically your list of points is poorly thought out, inaccurate or you're complaining about not mentioning certain examples when there were other examples that were perfectly adequate. Again, this is an explaination of structrures of leagues, not a description of English football. If you want to make it clearer exactly what a cup competition involves, great. Write it in without ditching the rest. Your points about things being missed out isnt about misinformation. I wouldve expected a list of things that you consider to be inaaccurate or wromg in the previous text rather a few little things you'd like to include or reword. Mdw0 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit about the history of this page

I'd like to go over the history of this page for the benefit of those who have started to edit it more recently.

Four years ago, some British soccer fans started a page called "Sports franchising." It was intended to be about the North American system of organizing pro sports. Not being experts on the subject matter, they sought the assistance of North American sports fans to craft the article. (The original article title didn't last long.) The article was written with the aim of explaining to those unfamiliar with the North American system how it works, and quickly expanded to explaining to those unfamiliar with the European system how that system works. This is how Wikipedia articles should be written -- aimed at those unfamiliar with the subject matter. People who already know about the subject matter don't need the information.

When writing an article, we should think, "Who is likely to need this information? What are they likely to know ahead of time? What are they likely not to know?" -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It might help you to read the Wikipedia articles I added links to for you to understand the subject matter. Rainjar (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The intention of the article is to explain to those completely unfamiliar with the North American or European systems how they work. Imagine someone who's only watched American sports and has no idea what promotion and relegation, a cup competition, a governing body, etc. are. That's the kind of person we have to keep in mind when writing the European section of the article. What you replaced the European section with, in addition to being a huge change without any attempt to seek consensus for it, was not written in that mindset. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And you are missing my point - misinformation does not inform the uninformed, it misinforms them. Rainjar (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy / Neutrality

In my view, the European section contains inaccuracies and is premised on pre-conceptions of how professional sports is organized in North America.

I have tried to make changes to the section, but several of my earlier changes, as well as my latest changes have been removed. I have re-produced several of my changes, including the latest ones, on a User page.

In the circumstances, the article should reflect that its accuracy/neutrality is disputed. Rainjar (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the matter on the Neutral point of view noticeboard. Rainjar (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the each section should written in order to clarify the concepts to readers unfamiliar with the topic. That is, the section on European leagues should explain the concepts to the American reader, while the section on American leagues should explain it to the European reader.

I found the section on your user page to be very good, though I thought the 5th miscellaneous paragraph (on number of games and months) to be more detail than would be necessary in explaining the league model. --Habap (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to take a good look at this tonight, but tomorrow I'll try to look at each of your proposed changes. What would be helpful would be if you could mention specifically what you find objectionable about each line that you want to change. Also, since you want to make significant structural changes to the article in addition to addressing what you call inaccuracies, you should explain what you find wrong about the current article structure and why you want to change it in the way you want to. Note that this is not a NPOV dispute. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the structure in my first round of changes - one of the few things that has been retained! My latest changes (which have been removed) didn't change the structure - the contents have been changed where inaccurate and elaborated where necessary. I just added sub-headers to make it more readable. Rainjar (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The reference to the number of games was added earlier, and had been removed earlier. I hadn't sought to re-introduce it in the latest changes, but as I was placing all my changes that had been removed onto a User page, I included it as well. I agree we can do without it. Rainjar (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rainjar's objections

Rainjar has not specifically pointed out what's wrong with each individual line, but he did give a very brief summary of some things he seems to be concerned about. While I don't have time to go compare his proposed changes to the existing article line by line at the moment, I think I can respond quickly to his list above:

1. "who makes football's laws/rules" -- Rainjar seems to object to the lack of a mention of the IFAB. If the current wording, ("In conjunction with other countries' governing bodies, it also sets the playing rules and the rules under which teams can sell players' contracts to other clubs.") is misleading, we can try to reword it. However, we should not get too bogged down in specifics here. Remember, this is a basic introduction for people completely unfamiliar with the whole concept of European-style pro sports organization. The IFAB is a consortium of the four home nations' national soccer governing bodies and FIFA. Therefore, our sentence is technically correct. Again, if people really think the sentence is misleading, we should try to recast it, but in doing so, we must try to keep it as simple and as general as possible (that is, we can use soccer as an example but shouldn't get bogged down in things that are specific to soccer and might not be analogous to other European sports).
2. "providing details of the Premier League in 2009-10 (in a section purporting to cover "European leagues") - an excessively narrow focus in my view - rather than how the Premier League came into being (as a breakaway from the Football League)" -- The detail of the Premier League in 2009-10 is simply an example to show how the European system works. It is not intended to focus on the Premier League. We could just as well use Serie A, La Liga or the Luxembourgish league. The Premier League/Football League split is extraneous for the purposes of this article. What's important is simply to explain what a "league" is in the European sense of the term.
3. "the FA only organizes the FA Cup and the FA Trophy" -- This can be addressed by adding the word "some" before "tournaments that involve teams from different leagues."
4. "there are professional clubs in the Football Conference" -- I don't know why this is important for the article, but the article already describes Wimbledon as the a pro team in the Conference, so I don't see what you're objecting to.
5. "the role of UEFA and FIFA in organizing leading club competitions is completely ignored" -- I don't think this is necessarily something we need in the article, but we can add "organized by the Union of European Football Associations" at the end of the third-last paragraph under "Structure of European leagues." We don't have to get into the details. This is the kind of thing readers can follow wikilinks to if they want more-detailed information.
6. "Ignoring the UEFA Europa League" -- Mentioning the Europa League is wholly unnecessary. This is not an article about UEFA or about European soccer; it's an article about the European system of pro sports organization. We mention the Champions League simply to give an example of how teams sometimes play games outside of their domestic league. We don't need to mention the Europa League any more than we have to mention the Intertoto Cup or, for that matter, the Copa Libertadores.
7. "In Europe, particularly in England, league competition (all clubs in a division playing each other home and away over the course of a season) is distinguished from cup competition (knock-out). The use of "League" in the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League is regarded as anomalous, especially in England, but they do combine a mini-league at an early stage with a knock-out format in the later stages. The use of "League" may also reflect the possibility/likelihood that these competitions are a stepping to a future European league." -- I don't know what you want to change here. Going off onto a tangent about whether the UEFA Champions League is really a league or not will not serve the reader. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read my proposed changes, rather than just my response to the various reasons given for removing them. You might understand the subject matter better then. Rainjar (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The European section

Before I started making changes to the article on 11 November 2010, there were just two sections, namely "Fixed number of franchise teams" and "Promotion - Relegation". The "Promotion - Relegation" section (last previously edited on 8 November 2010) read as follows:

English football (soccer) developed a very different system from the North American one, and it has been adopted for football in most other countries, as well as to many other sports played in Europe. The system is marked by:

*The existence of an elected governing body to which clubs at all levels of the sport belong *Games played both inside and outside of leagues *The promotion of well-performing teams to higher-level leagues or divisions and the relegation of poorly performing teams to lower-level leagues or divisions.

European football clubs are members both of a league and of a governing body. In the case of England, all competitive football clubs are members of The Football Association, while the top 20 teams also are members of the Premier League, a separate organization. The FA operates the national football team and tournaments that involve teams from different leagues. In conjunction with other countries' governing bodies, it also sets the playing rules and the rules under which teams can sell players' contracts to other clubs.

The Premier League negotiates television contracts for its games. However, although the league the dominating competition in which a club might participate, there are many non-league fixtures a club might play in a given year. A Premier League team might play a league game one week and an FA Cup game against a team from a lower-level league the next. The third game might be against a Danish team in the UEFA Champions League, operated by the Union of European Football Associations. On occasion all three such games may involve the same clubs.

In any given year, a country could have several champions. In 2004-05, Chelsea won the Premier League championship, Arsenal won the FA Cup and Liverpool won the UEFA Champions League, a multi-country club championship. Usually the national league winners are considered the national champions, similar to the franchise-based leagues, and bragging rights may be settled by means of a Super Cup, although this is considered a special event and has not been mandatory in any league anywhere in the world.

The promotion and relegation system is generally used to determine membership of leagues. Most commonly, a pre-determined number of teams that finish the bottom of a league or division are automatically dropped down, or relegated, to a lower level for the next season. They are replaced by teams who are promoted from that lower tier either by finishing with the best records or by winning a playoff. In England in 2010, Burnley, Hull City and Portsmouth were relegated from the Premier League to the Football League Championship, the second level of English soccer. They were replaced by the top two teams from the second level, Newcastle United and West Bromwich Albion, as well as Blackpool F.C., which won a playoff tournament of the teams that finished third through sixth.

Relegation often has devastating financial consequences for club owners who not only lose TV, sponsorship and gate income but also see the asset value of their shares in the club collapse. Some leagues offer a "parachute payment" to its relegated teams for the following years, (if a team is promoted again the next year then the parachute payment for the second season is distributed among the teams of the lower division), sums which often are higher than the prize money received by some non-relegated teams, in order to protect them from bankruptcy. There is of course a corresponding bonanza for owners of promoted clubs.

Clubs may be sold privately to new owners at any time, but this does not happen often where clubs are based on community membership and agreement. Such clubs require agreement from members who, unlike shareholders of corporations, have priorities other than money when it comes to their football club. For similar reasons, relocation of clubs to other cities is very rare. This is mostly because virtually all cities and towns in Europe have a football club of some sort, the size and strength of the club usually relative to the town's size and importance. Anyone wanting ownership of a high ranked club in his native city must buy the local club as it stands and work it up through the divisions, usually by hiring better talent. Buying an existing top-flight club and move it to the city is problematic, as the supporters of the town's original club are unlikely to switch allegiance to an interloper. There have been some cases where existing owners have chosen to relocate out of a difficult market, to better facilities, or simply to realize the market value of the land that the current stadium is built upon. As in the U.S., team relocations have been controversial as supporters of the club will protest at its loss.

The league does not choose which cities are to have teams in the top division. For example, Leeds, the fourth-biggest city in England, saw their team relegated from the Premier League to the Championship in 2004, and then saw their team relegated to the third-tier League One in 2007. Leeds will remain without a Premiership team as long as it takes for Leeds United or in theory any other local club to do well enough in the second-tier division to win the right to play in the Premiership. Famously, the French Ligue 1 lacked a team from Paris for some years.

Territorial rights are not recognized, and successful new teams in a geographical location can come to dominate the incumbents. In Munich, for example, TSV 1860 München were initially more successful than the city's current biggest team Bayern München. Major cities such as London may have many teams in the professional leagues: for example, in 2010–11 it has five teams in the Premier League alone, an additional eight teams in the three fully professional leagues within The Football League, and at least one fully professional team (AFC Wimbledon) in Conference National, the top level of Non-League football.

This system originated in England in 1888 when twelve clubs decided to create a professional Football League. The "closed shop" aspect of baseball's National League was not deemed to be necessary to ensure stability in England because a national English football league did not require the sort of travel commitments that were necessary in the U.S. A secretariat was created to organize and run the Football League. Later lower tiers (divisions) were added.

This system is widely used in football (soccer) around the world, notably in Africa and Latin America as well as Europe. The most notable variation has developed in Latin America where many countries have two league seasons per year, which scheduling allows because many Spanish-speaking Latin American nations lack a national cup competition. Promotion and relegation has historically been used in other team sports founded in the United Kingdom, such as rugby union, rugby league and cricket.

The system is also used in Europe even when the sports were founded in America, showing that the league system is not related to the sport itself, but more on the tradition of sports organisation in that region. Sports such as basketball in Spain and Lithuania and ice hockey in Russia use promotion and relegation. Alternately, in Australia the A-League follows the tradition of Australian sports having a franchise model that better suits a country with great distances between the country's main population centres, similar to the situation in the U.S. and Canada.

East Asian countries (Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan) have a particular differentiation among leagues: "European" sports such as soccer and rugby use promotion and relegation, while "American" sports such as baseball and basketball use franchising, with a few differences varying from country to country. A similar situation exists in countries in Central America and the Caribbean, where soccer and baseball share several close markets."

When I first added a European section, I moved most of the above to "Comparison between the North American system and the European system. Intervening changes have also been made by others.

I leave it to the reader to decide which of the above, the current version, or the further changes I propose, is most relevant and accurate. I have no interest in pursuing the matter any further. As I have stated above, bias is inherent in the title of the article, and creates inherent inaccuracy when applied to European sport.

PS. I assume the reference to the formation of the Football League in 1888 is intended to be ironical, as the Football League was a 'closed shop' from its formation in 1888 until promotion and relegation was introduced when the Football Alliance became the Football League Second Division in 1892. Rainjar (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm far too ignorant of European football to know what's wrong in the above, so while I can sit and look at the two possible versions, I don't know what's wrong about this one.... --Habap (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rainjar, I'm going to take a look at your proposed version now and compare it with what we have. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparing Rainjar's proposed changes with the original

The first difference between Rainjar's version and the existing version is the subhead "The English example." This is important because Rainjar then goes into a lot more detail about England than the existing version. However, the point of the article is not to inform the reader about English soccer but to explain to the reader how the European system of pro sports organization works. It uses England as an example because that's what the original writers were most familiar with. We need to keep the article focused.

The current version then says, "European football clubs are members both of a league and of a governing body. In the case of England, all competitive football clubs are members of The Football Association, while the top 20 teams also are members of the Premier League, a separate organization." Rainjar does away with the first paragraph and just says, "In the case of England, all competitive football clubs are members of The Football Association, while the top 20 teams also are members of the Premier League."

It's likely the reader will not know what the FA or the Premier League are. Therefore, we need something that makes clear the FA is a governing body, keeping in mind the theoretical uneducated reader does not yet know what a governing body is yet. So I think the first sentence should stay.

Rainjar's next sentence says, "Clubs below the top tier are members of other leagues, such as the Football League (the oldest football league in the world) and the Football Conference." This might be good to add.

Rainjar completes the paragraph as follows: "The Premier League was formed in 1992 when clubs of the old First Division broke away from the Football League[1]. The Football Conference is the lowest level at which there are professional clubs. A club from the Football Conference could, by way of several promotions over several seasons, get to play in the Premier League."

The first two sentences there are unnecessary for the article. The third is misplaced, because we haven't gotten into promotion and relegation yet.

Next comes the description of what the governing body does. The original article tries to do this in two sentences: "The FA operates the national football team and tournaments that involve teams from different leagues. In conjunction with other countries' governing bodies, it also sets the playing rules and the rules under which teams can sell players' contracts to other clubs."

Rainjar spends no fewer than five paragraphs on the FA and all of its tasks. This is way too much, since this is not an article on the FA or on English soccer. All we have to do is briefly explain what a governing body is and what it does, perhaps using the FA as an example.

We do not need to mention the FA Cup, FA Trophy, League Cup, League Trophy, Champions League, Europa League or Club World Cup. The current article does mention the FA Cup and Champions League as examples of non-league competitions a club might play in, and that's OK, but we don't need to mention them by themselves. All we need to say is that one of the governing body's tasks is to organize competitions between clubs in different leagues.

Furthermore, we don't need to get into the nitty-gritty about how the rules of soccer are formulated. What's important to explain is that this is a responsibility of the governing body or bodies rather than the leagues (as it is in the North American system). I'm concerned that if we mention the IFAB (which is just a consortium of the four Home Nation governing bodies and FIFA), we're making this too much a soccer article rather than a pro sports organization article that uses soccer as an example. If something about soccer isn't analogous to other sports that use the European system, we probably shouldn't mention it but rather should speak in general terms. Therefore, I think the current wording -- "it also sets the playing rules and the rules under which teams can sell players' contracts to other clubs" -- is preferable, as it could apply to other sports.

Rainjar then has the subhead "Miscellaneous," which is not a good choice of word, since we haven't gotten to promotion and relegation yet, which is not "miscellaneous" but a key part of the European system.

The next sentence is, "In England, player salaries are a matter of contract between the club and the player. There have been no rules concerning player salaries since the Professional Footballers' Association successfully brought about the end of the maximum wage in 1961." This sentence is extraneous as this is not an article about salary caps.

Rainjar keeps the next sentence about promotion and relegation from the original article, but deletes the example from the Premier League, replacing it with, "For details of the winners of the various professional competitions and promotion/relegation in the 2009-10 season in England, see 2009–10 in English football." I don't see why he makes that change. The example is helpful for a reader who might not be familiar with the concept of P&R. Rainjar's replacement seems like a non sequitur.

Rainjar keeps the next paragraph but deletes the following two:

"Unlike in North American pro sports, where the "league" is the only competition member teams play in, European teams play matches both inside and outside of their leagues. In English soccer, a team may follow a league game with a match in the FA Cup (a tournament involving hundreds of pro and semi-professional teams), and then a game in the UEFA Champions League (a competition involving the best European teams from the previous year.

In any given year, a country could have several trophy winners. In 2004-05, Chelsea won the Premier League championship, Arsenal won the FA Cup and Liverpool won the UEFA Champions League."

These paragraphs are very important as they explain to the reader (who may only be familiar with the North American system) the key difference between the European and North American system and provides examples of how it works. There is no reason to delete them.

Rainjar then adds the following:

"In the major European football leagues, there are usually 16 to 24 clubs in each division. Clubs play each other twice in the league over the course of a season, each club playing the other at home once and away once. In countries with a significant drop-off in quality outside the main centres or a smaller population, there may only be 10 to 14 clubs in a division and the clubs may play each other three or four times over the course of the league season. The league season usually runs for 8 or 9 months, with either a winter break or a summer break, or both. In England, the league season runs from August to May of the following year."

This, again, is completely extraneous and irrelevant to the topic at hand. The number of teams in a division, how many times they play each other and the months the season runs have nothing to do with what makes the European system and how it differs from the North American system. These things are likely to differ from sport to sport and, in soccer, from league to league and country to country. As stated above, this is an article on pro sports organization as a concept, not on English soccer.

Rainjar doesn't mention the final section of the article. I don't know if this is because he has no issues with it or because he wants to delete the whole thing.

I'm sorry if my comments seem harsh and I appreciate Rainjar's desire to work on the article, but we have to keep in mind the intention of the article and the needs of the likely reader. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My reply is below Rainjar (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the European section of the article

The current version, not the version that existed before I started making changes. The current version already incorporates a lot of my changes. I'll try to summarize the problems here:

• The article currently states that "The FA operates the national football team and tournaments that involve teams from different leagues. In conjunction with other countries' governing bodies, it also sets the playing rules and the rules under which teams can sell players' contracts to other clubs."

What I have proposed is:

"In the case of England, all competitive football clubs are members of The Football Association, while the top 20 teams also are members of the Premier League. Clubs below the top tier are members of other leagues, such as the Football League (the oldest football league in the world) and the Football Conference. The Premier League was formed in 1992 when clubs of the old First Division broke away from the Football League[1]. The Football Conference is the lowest level at which there are professional clubs. A club from the Football Conference could, by way of several promotions over several seasons, get to play in the Premier League.

The Football Association is the governing body in England. The Football Association operates the England national football team and organizes the FA Cup, the oldest non-school football competition of any code in the world, involving clubs from professional, semi-professional and amateur leagues in England. The Football Association also organizes the FA Trophy, a cup competition for clubs in the Football Conference and lower semi-professional and amateur leagues.

The Football Association also exercises overall supervision over the several leagues played in England, and other domestic cup competitions, such as the League Cup (involving clubs from the Premier League and the Football League) and the Football League Trophy (for clubs in the second and third tier of the Football League). The FA Cup, the League Cup, the Football League Trophy and the FA Trophy involve teams from different domestic leagues.

The Football Association is also a member of UEFA and FIFA. UEFA is the governing body for European football and organizes the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League. The top clubs from the domestic leagues in Europe qualify for the following season's UEFA Champions League. Other clubs from the domestic leagues in Europe qualify for the following season's UEFA Europa Cup.

FIFA is the international governing body, and organizes the FIFA Club World Cup, an international cup competition for continental champions.

The laws of the game are established worldwide by the International Football Association Board. FIFA, UEFA and the domestic football association of each country determine rules for player transfers. Other membership rules, such as financial[2] and stadium[3] requirements, are determined by each league itself.

In England, player salaries are a matter of contract between the club and the player. There have been no rules concerning player salaries since the Professional Footballers' Association successfully brought about the end of the maximum wage in 1961.

You will see what is currently stated in the article is not accurate. If what I propose is too lengthy, it can be summarized - it is no excuse to stick with inaccurate content. The sub-headers are intended to break a lengthy passage up. They can just as easily be removed. The important roles of IFAB, FIFA and UEFA as separate governing entities with greater jurisdiction is completely ignored. The current version makes it seem like the various domestic FAs get together and decide rules etc, which is erroneous. The roles of FIFA and UEFA in organizing the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa Cup and the FIFA Club World Cup are also completely ignored. The current version leaves the erroneous impression that any such international club competitions are also organized by the FA. On the other hand, while the FA does not organize the Premier League, the Football League, the Football Conference, the League Cup and the Football League Trophy, it has powers to oversee all domestic competition. No clear distinction is made between domestic and international club competition. I won't even start on international competitions involving national teams, such as the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA European Football Championship. The "obligation" of professional sportsmen to represent their countries is not addressed anywhere in the article (see for exmaple, Vlad V cries foul over international duty, Kickoff, 15 November 2010). The idea that a professional club, paying high salaries to players, can lose players for competitive matches due to international duty, is one that would be very foreign to North American readers, but it is a reality in football.

• The article currently states that "The "closed shop" aspect of baseball's National League was not deemed to be necessary to ensure stability in England because a national English football league did not require the sort of travel commitments that were necessary in the U.S. A secretariat was created to organize and run the Football League. Later lower tiers (divisions) were added."

This is wrong. As stated above, the Football League was a 'closed shop' from its formation in 1888 until promotion and relegation was introduced when the Football Alliance became the Football League Second Division in 1892. The different systems are historical accidents. The use of travel commitments to excuse the North American system is an ex post facto justification. In England and Europe, the travel expense for smaller clubs with lower revenues is addressed by regionalisation - for example, the Football League Third Division (North) and (South) from 1921 to 1958 and the current Football Conference North and South. The fact that regionalization also exists in North America (NBA's Eastern and Western Conference) is also ignored.

• The statement "The North American system has some features of the European model in terms of a pyramid struture." shows a misunderstanding of the pyramid. Promotion and relegation give the tiers sufficient connectivity to be a single pyramid. When there is a break between tiers, such as in Scotland, the term "pyramid" is not used to describe the entire system, only the part of the system within which there is promotion and relegation. I have changed the word "pyramid" to "tiered".

• The use of the word "league" in the title of the article. There are actually 3 meanings of "league" in Europe alone.

A league format competition, where a group of teams play a fixed number of games against each other, so that at the end of the competition, each team would have played the same number of games (number of teams less one multiplied by the number of times they play each other). This is the common meaning across Europe. Competitions with knock-out formats are usually referred to as "cup" competitions in Europe.

The organization that runs the league, of which the clubs playing in the league are usually members.

League contrasted with non-league, a peculiarly English usage arising through historical developments, which, as I have stated above, is irrelevant for present purposes.

These meanings can be distinguished from the North American meaning - a group of teams playing in a regular competition, whether it is a league format or knock-out format, or a combination of both.

The word "league" in the title, and the predominant meaning throughout the article, was the North American meaning, which created a North American bias throughout the article. If the word "league" was dropped from the title, we wouldn't have half the problems we've had. I have suggested changes to the title above. The European meaning (but not the English one) should be equally valid, and should be clearly distinguished in the article (which I sought to do in my first round of changes, many of which have been retained). How the North American bias came about becomes clearer after reading the "A bit about the history of this page" section above. Remnants of the dispute can be found on the "Sports in Europe" article, which states in the last section:

Unlike major team sports in North America, where franchises are awarded to nominated cities, most European teams have grown from small clubs formed by groups of individuals before growing rapidly. Churches and work places have often been the most fertile birth place of many of Europe's major sports clubs, particularly in Britain, which in latter part of the twentieth century led the way in organised sports[citation needed].

Clubs therefore had an equal chance to grow to become among the strongest in their particular sport which has led to a situation where many cities are represented by two or even three top class teams in the same sport. In the 2007-08 football season, London has five teams playing in the Premier League, while Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham also have double representation. The cities of Nottingham and Sheffield have also previously had double representation in the Premier League (Sheffield currently has double representation in the second-level Championship) with the clashes between these sides, referred to as a local derby, being considered a major event in the city.

The concept that a club can be formed anywhere in a country start at a low level (probably as an amateur or semi-professional club), and then have the potential to rise through the pyramid is important to the European system.

• The article persists in trying to explain and illustrate "promotion and relegation" when there is an entire Wikipedia article on the subject that would serve the purpose better.

• The article purports to compare a North American system with Europe and the rest of the world. Europe, let alone the rest of the world, is more disparate and diverse than most North Americans probably understand. The result is an over-simplification of the systems outside of North America into a single "system". A comparison between the North American and British system, or the North American sport and European football, would be more manageable. Rainjar (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to try to work with you to try to address whatever concerns you have, because you are not making yourself clear or engaging in a discussion. You want to replace a simple, two-sentence explanation of a governing body with a seven-paragraph essay that includes extraneous material completely irrelevant to the subject matter.

We can address your accuracy concerns without making a major overhaul. We can replace the word "countries'" with "national and international" before "governing bodies" so as to encompass an international organization like FIFA. We can put the word "some" before "tournaments" so no one will think the FA runs every tournament. We can mention UEFA when we mention the Champions League.  Done

A lot of the other stuff you mention really doesn't belong in this article. Remember, this is supposed to be a simple introduction to the two forms of pro sports organization, not an article on everything that makes up European soccer.

We can put in a line about how the promotion and relegation system came about. The sentence you object to (which is not in the article now) stated the conclusion of an academic paper on the matter. You are correct that it is a post hoc analysis of why the promotion and relegation system made economic sense in England but not in the U.S. We can restore the sentence making that clear if we want. I didn't write that sentence.

Finally, if you think the article could have a better title, then by all means suggest one. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the above description of the problems clear enough?

The word "conjunction" creates the wrong impression - the fact that the FA is a member of an organization that decides the laws of the game does not mean that the FA decides, whether alone or "in conjunction" with others. "Some" does not capture it's oversight over all other domestic competition. There is a hierarchy of oversight, going all the way up to FIFA. Football is a truly global sport, while North American sports aren't. I think it's an important distinction. You seem loathe to admitting the roles of UEFA and FIFA, both as high level governing bodies, and as organizers of international club competitions, into the article. If it is not relevant, then take out the reference to the FA as well. In real terms, the FA has very little authority.

As for a title, I suggested changes much earlier. "Organization of professional sport" would involve the least amount of change from the current title. Rainjar (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Organisation of professional sport is a much broader title, which would necessarily include detailed sections on player movement, demand management, salary caps, and transfer payments. This still comes back to the use of 'league' to mean governing body, instead of a structure used by a governing body to organise their teams and determine who plays who. I understand the orignal issue of the article was - Some places have a tiered structure with promotion and relegation and some have a franchise system. What are the differences and how did this come about? This other use of the term 'league' as it relates to governing bodies has meant the article has taken on some additional description of the hiererchy of leagues (governing bodies) in England. I think we can live with this additional information because there is significant overlap regarding the pyramid structure. After all, in a franchise system with 30 teams its obvious who runs everything, but if there's a pyramid, who runs all the different levels and hundreds of different sized clubs? Of course there's an article on promtion and relegation, as there should be. The detail involved there isnt necessary in this one, which is primarily to compare the different structures that are used by governing bodies to organise their teams, of which promotion and relegation is only one aspect. There's been a few edits since the debate started, and most of the glaring issues have been addressed - are there any other inaccuracies still there? As opposed to extra description we could add? Mdw0 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made the other changes I think are important, and elaborated on some on the points already contained in the article. To reduce the focus on English football, I've replaced several of the English examples with examples from other parts of Europe. Nothing major left, other than the title. "Professional team sports competition structures"? Rainjar (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the changes:

• European football clubs are members both of a league and of a governing body. In the case of England, all competitive football clubs are members of The Football Association. The top 20 teams are also members of the Premier League, a separate organization. The next 72 clubs are members of the Football League, divided into three divisions. The FA operates the national football team and organizes or oversees knock-out competitions that involve teams from different leagues. The Football Association in turn is a member of the European ruling body UEFA, the international ruling body FIFA and, in recognition of the role of the Home Nations in the development of the sport, the International Football Association Board (IFAB). The Laws Of The Game are established by the IFAB. Rules on player transfers and contracts are governed by FIFA. UEFA, the FA and the individual leagues also have jurisdiction to make rules on player transfers, provided the rules are not inconsistent with those made by the higher level body. The Bosman ruling, a decision of the European Court of Justice in 1995, reinforced freedom of movement. Other league rules, such as financial and stadium requirements, are determined by each league itself.

I think it's probably a good idea to explain how there are national and international governing bodies and to try to briefly explain what each do. I do think the above paragraph gets too much into soccer-specific nitty-gritty. There's no need to mention the Bosman ruling, for example, as this isn't an article about free agency. Is there something we can say that applies to all or most sports that use the European system, as in: national governing bodies generally to X and Y, while international governing bodies do A and B. Then we can give a few examples from soccer or another sport. A couple of small but important points: You need to write out and wikilink Union of European Football Associations on first reference, and at least wikilink FIFA. Also, the foreign reader is unlikely to know the term "Home Nations." The word "knock-out" is a Britishism and unlikely to be known by foreign readers. Anyway, it's unnecessary here: What's important is that the governing body organizes competitions among teams in different leagues, not the format of the tournaments.

• With the promotion-relegation system, the league does not directly choose which cities are to have teams in the top division. For example, Leeds, the fourth-biggest city in England, saw their main team, Leeds United relegated from the Premier League to the Championship in 2004, and then saw their team relegated again to the third-tier League One in 2007 before being promoted to the Championship in 2010. Leeds will remain without a Premiership team as long as it takes a local club to perform well enough to gain promotion to the Premier League. Other cities in England such as Bristol and Sheffield also lack a team in the top league. In fact, Yorkshire, the largest historic county in England (in which both Leeds and Sheffield lie), is currently without a Premier League club. Of the 20 clubs currently in the Premier League, 8 are in the north-west (Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire), five from London, four from the West Midlands and two from the North-East. The remaining club is Stoke City.

This paragraph should really end after the stuff about Leeds. There is no need to go off on a tangent here and give a whole bunch of examples.

• Cities such as Madrid, Milan and Lisbon have a number of clubs playing in the top tier of their domestic leagues. Both Milan clubs, AC Milan and Internazionale, have won the UEFA Champions League and its predecessor, the European Cup, making Milan the only city in Europe to have achieved this. Although crosstown rivalries are not unknown in North America, the numerous instances of two or more clubs from the same town, city or region playing in the same league/division gives rise to regular local derbies throughout Europe.

This is extraneous and, again, going off on a tangent. Really, we only need a couple of sentence to explain that some big cities may have a bunch of teams and some may have no teams.

• The first four tiers in England are fully professional, while there are also fully professional clubs at the fifth tier, the Conference National.

Again, I don't see the need for this sentence. All we need to explain is that a pyramid can have pro teams at the top and semi-pro or amateur teams at the bottom.

• Unlike in North American pro sports, where the "league" is the only competition member teams play in, European teams play matches both inside and outside of their "leagues". Taking Premier League clubs as an example, in addition to their regular home and away league schedule, there are weeks in which a club will be scheduled to play in the FA Cup (a tournament involving hundreds of professional and semi-professional clubs affiliated to the FA) or the Football League Cup (involving clubs from the Premier League and the Football League), played on an elimination or knock-out basis (commonly referred to as "cup" competition to distinguish them from "league" competition). The best performing clubs at the end of each season also qualify to play in the following season's UEFA Champions League or the UEFA Europa League, competitions organized by UEFA, where clubs play top clubs from other countries in Europe. The top teams from the UEFA Champions League also take part in the FIFA Club World Cup. Leading players are also required to represent their countries in international matches.

Some of the clarification you make here may be helpful; however, it again goes into too much detail. The mention of the Club World Cup, for example, is wholly unnecessary. We need to keep this brief and to the point.

The rest of the changes seem OK. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on some of these, but as you have not explained why you think a lot of the seemingly extraneous information is necessary, I'm going to remove the least defensible parts from the article. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think the old wording of the paragraph that discusses the various competitions a club might be playing in concurrently is preferable, as it makes clear that the competitions can be going on at the same time (something that wouldn't happen in the U.S.). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You mention avoiding "Britishism", but don't seem to have a problem with "Americanism", particularly the American usage of the word "league" and the abbreviation of "professional" sports to "pro" sports. Much of the rest of the world will be more familiar with British sporting terminology than American. 6 billion people against half a billion? I don't know why you have removed the reference to the FA being a member of UEFA, especially when the section is entitled "Structure of European leagues", and the involvement of clubs in European competition (run by UEFA) is an important thrust of the article, even for you. As for the role of the FA, I added the word "oversee" so "some" should be removed. Apart from the competitions it actually organizes, the FA oversees all domestic competition, both league and cup. The elaboration on how teams qualify for Europe brings across the hierarchy of competitions, in addition to the hierarchies within leagues and the hierarchy of ruling bodies. I would think that is worth bringing across. Yorkshire, as an entire region without a Premier League club, is a better example than the city Leeds. If Bradford had a football club in the Premier League, it would not be an issue. If Manchester United were the only Greater Manchester club in the Premier League, then the city of Manchester would be without a Premier League club, as Manchester United lies outside the city limits. Rainjar (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

UEFA is mentioned later in the article; there's no need to mention it up top. As I've said before, the point of the article is to explain things to people who don't already know them, and if someone doesn't know about European pro sports, he or she is also unlikely to know terms like "Home Nations" or "knockout competition." Your issue is not an American/British English issue. It's simply an issue of finding better wording. The original heading for the European section was "The system developed in soccer." Mdw0 didn't like it and changed it to what's there now. I think Mdw0 is from Australia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue with "league" is clear, and will remain an issue while the title of the article remains as it is. I've added a link to a Wikipedia article where "knock-out tournament" is explained. As for reducing two references to UEFA to one, you are conflating two different contexts Rainjar (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the passage in the article quoted below, I'll concede Australia to the North American perspective.

".... Most sport leagues in Australia are based on the North American model, with the most notable examples being the Australian Football League (Aussie rules) and National Rugby League (rugby league)."

Make that half a billion people and a bit. Rainjar (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Where your response to my elaboration is to delete the original material that was already there before I made the changes, I'm ok with it. For example, the previous reference to 1860 Munich and Bayern Munich was not helpful the way it originally was. On the other hand, my insertion of the fact that local derbies (crosstown rivalries in North America) are more common under the European system than under the North American system may be a point worth making. Rainjar (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is WAAAY off topic, but seriously Rainair, dont tell me you havent noticed the American influence on the Indian English dialect? The number of American accents and use of American terms is multiplying rapidly along with the number of Indian students in America. Just look at all the American terms floating around the 'franchises' of the IPL? Also, the influence of American film is pervasive, so I dont see how you can possibly assign millions of people to an exclusively British or American English camp. Fact is, this is a cross-cultural article, so there are bound to be some local expressions floating around - they just need to be removed to keep it all as neutral as possible in its terminology. I think mentioning cities is a better example for comparisons between the systems, rather than regions. Your example of Manchester United not technically being in Machester because of an internal administrative border is irrelevant to the point being made with regards to Leeds, which is a major city without a Premier League team purely because all its local teams were relegated due to bad play. Mdw0 (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That Indian cricket has adopted the franchise system is acknowledged in the article. I don't see how you can make any more of that, or at least to respond to the point I make about use of terminology. India is a country of a billion people. How many of them are or have been students in North America? As far as Leeds United are concerned, you conveniently ignore the Bradford hypothetical. Rainjar (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I ignored it because it wasnt worth commenting on. If you took the number of Bradford people who consider themselves part of Leeds, and the number of Leeds people who consider themselves part of Bradford, you might have enough people to form a football team, but I doubt it. They are separate cities, albeit adjacent. The populations are not measured in combination in any way. Bradford having a team or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that a big city like Leeds doesnt have one, which is the point of comparison with the North American franchise system. You've assigned all of India's billion into a British English/non American English camp. My points above suggest that doing that isnt valid due to the influence American English has Indian English. Mdw0 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Overview issues

The above discussions highlights that the article still lacks a universal perspective.

The use of the term sports league in North America, as contrasted with league competition, in Europe brings out the inherent unsuitability of the word "league" in the title.

The continued reliance on the fact that European clubs play "cup competitions" outside of "league competitions" as a distinguishing feature is a false premise. The comparison is with North America, not the North American system. That Super League clubs continue to play in a separate cup competition even though the Super League has switched to a closed "franchise" system, brings this out. Once you move beyond a strict distinction between a 'closed' system with territorial rights and a 'promotion-relegation' system without territorial rights, you're already moving into extraneous matters. Who is to decide how much extraneous, descriptive content should be allowed? I would accept all extraneous matter being deleted, including the reference to European clubs playing games outside of their "league".

I have sought to address overview issues by amendments to the introduction and adding an "Overview" section at the end of the article Rainjar (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Except you cant have an overview at the end of an article. And its not an overview, its a look at how some sports are changing their structures, so it should probably be renamed something like 'Changes in league structure.' The current examples would be valid, and you could add that there is pressure on the A-League to become like the rest of world soccer with a tiered competition. Its certainly true to say that the two systems have aspects that arent mutually exclusive, and the way the article is set up does make assumptions in that area which are false. Rugby League in Australia for instance also had a long running cup competition. You dont have to have no extra-league games in a franchise style setup. However, the North American leagues never do this, and fixtures never include extra-league matches, so that distinction should still be mentioned. This is not necessarily extraneous, but there is a restriction in the current setup of the article, split as it is into two parts which basically forces this issue to the sidelines. I think its OK to stick to the prevailing structures and mention the exceptions. The existance of these exceptions dont mean the standard description has no value at all. I dont think you're going to escape from the fact that the word 'league' is used to refer to different things by different people. Its just something that needs to be explained, and should be explained in the article. Saying the invention of promotion and relegation was an accident isnt correct, though. The system was designed to achieve a certain outcome by the FA and its success meant it was adapted and adopted more widely. You've also mucked up the sentence at the beginning of the 'Overview' when you say the franchise system is used for American sports (which isnt right) and then give an example of sports in Europe playing American sports with promotion and relegation. If you really want to pare down the article and just make it a comparison of league structures - franchise vs pyramid, maybe the article title should be 'Comparison of sports league structures?' Mdw0 (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that you can't have an overview at the end, it's just that it may not be the practice. Anyway, I've re-titled the last section. The error in the first sentence was from earlier on - I didn't write it, just moved it. I'll correct it now. I've also replaced the phrase "historical accident". The Football League was looking to takeover a rival league, and promotion and relegation between the two was the way to make it acceptable to the latter. There is no evidence of any greater principle being applied. The use of the word "league" in the title will always create an issue, especially when the article tries to address "cup" competition as well. Replacing the word "league" with "regular competition" might help. The contents of William McGregor's letter of 2 March 1888 says a lot about what is a league, without actually using the word "league". Rainjar (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rainjar's edits

Rainjar, you have continued to operate in a way that makes it difficult to improve the article. You have come here not with the attitude of, "I have some concerns about the accuracy of the article; let's work together to address them." Instead, your attitude has been hostile and uncompromising. You can't just go onto an article that has existed for four years, make massive changes without seeking consensus, and then when people challenge you on them get all worked up and say, "Well if you just read what I wrote you'd understand!"

I'm going to revert to Mdw0's last version until you try to get consensus on whatever changes you want to make. If you want, we can do a WP:RFC to get more people involved. If you keep acting in the manner you have been, I'll put it on WP:WQA.

Also, I'm going to suggest renaming the article "Organization of professional sports" to take "league" out of the title. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont think Rainjar's behviour is nearly so bad as to warrant this sort of censure. His failings are obvious, namely a deep affection for his own style, and there's a plethora of mistakes, but he is usually willing to make changes when prompted, and I believe his heart is in the right place. Prickly rather than hostile and uncompromising. Also, the name change of the article to Organization of professional sports isnt a good idea, because its a much more open-ended title, which would require examination of all sorts of payment regimes, demand management, salary caps, stadium management, junior development, which I think is way beyond the scope of what the article is about. Dont like 'Comparison of sports league structures'? Thats more specific. WP:RFCs arent usually a good idea in this type of article, because all it does is encourage pedants to rip up anything that's not vigorously referenced. Mdw0 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Rainjar needs to be censured so much as simply better told how to operate constructively on Wikipedia. The article can certainly use some improvement. It was written at a time when Wikipedia standards were much looser with less attention paid to backing up assertions with third-party sources. I think it can be significantly improved by basing it on the academic or specialist literature on the topic. Unfortunately, I don't have access to subscription scholarly journals, as I'm not a student or college staff member. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I note you say "I'm going to revert to Mdw0's last version". Mdw0 has added a section entitled "Entymology". "Entymology" appears to be an alternative spelling for "Entomology", the scientific study of insects. I suppose this article that you and Mdw0 have taken over as your own is suitable for insects. Your faith in Mdw0 appears to be well founded. :) Rainjar (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hahaa! That was obviously a misspelling of Etymology - the study of the use of words. See, I'm not perfect, but not so bad as to talk about insects in a sports article. Again, an appropriate response to that would have been to just correct it. Actually I was hoping for a bit of credit in trying to overcome the 'meaning of league' issue. Other than mucking up the section title - something of a disease on this article - is there any problem with the actual text? Mdw0 (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have changed "non-league" to "cup competition", since non-league has a peculiar meaning in England which is irrelevant for present purposes. "Cup competition" is the common European term for knock-out tournaments or elimination tournaments, in particular, single elimination tournaments. I decided not to make any changes instead - you never know how Mwalcoff might react. Rainjar (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I think there would be less argument about this page if we based it on academic sources instead of our own experience. Undoubtedly, much has been written about the organization of pro sports, as sports business is a subject of much study nowadays. In 5 seconds on Google Scholar for instance, I found a paper titled "European and North American Sports Differences (?)" from the Scottish Journal of Political Economy. No doubt there are dozens more like it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You should try reading other Wikipedia pages. Everything I changed or added was referenced to other content on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say that you appear to have decided this article is yours (perhaps shared with one other, who shares a lot of your perspective), and behave in that way. The "Developments and Analysis" section I added brings out the fallacies perpetuated by this article. I can see why you would want to delete it. I won't dignify your personal attack in the preceding section with a reply there. The article with most of the changes I have tried to make is set out here. Read the "Analysis" section re-produced below. You will see that some of what you and Mdw0 have decided is relevant is not, and a lot of what you and Mdw0 have decided is not relevant is no less relevant than stuff already in the article. Rainjar (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway... The following article is also said to have a list of differences between the U.S. and European systems: HOEHN, T., AND S. SZYMANSKI [1999], “The Americanization of European Football,” Economic Policy, 28, 205–233. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Analysis

The Football League, the world's first association football league, actually started with a closed system in 1888, with limited capacity to replace member clubs by a system of re-election. There was also originally a rule that only one club from each town should be included. In order to expand, the Football League absorbed the rival Football Alliance in 1891 to form a 'Second Division', with promotion and relegation between the First Division and the Second Division. Promotion and relegation was thus more a result of prevailing circumstances than a conscious departure from a closed system.

In any event, prior to the formation of the Premier League in 1992 by the clubs of Football League First Division, and the introduction of automatic promotion and relegation between the then Football League Fourth Division and the Football Conference in 1987, the entire four tiers of the Football League could be regarded as 'closed' system, with promotion and relegation taking place internally. Such a multi-tiered closed system with internal promotion and relegation is not uncommon in association football and other "European" sport.

Further, association football's equivalent to Major League Baseball's financing of minor league teams are reserve team leagues, such as the Premier Reserve League.

Nevertheless, the use of the North American system is increasing worldwide. As team sport becomes increasingly commercialized, the 'closed' system, with territorial rights, and without the financial risk of relegation, allows for greater business stability and profitability. For example, in cricket, the Indian Premier League, launched in 2008, operates on this system. The Super League, which is the top level of rugby league in the United Kingdom and France, will be run on a franchise basis from 2009.

The increasing use of the 'North American system' for league competition in countries that previously used the European system, while continuing to maintain a separate cup competition, has resulted in increasing 'hybridization'. For example, clubs playing in Rugby League's Super League continue to participate in the Challenge Cup.

The global nature of association football also gives rise to a hierarchy of governing bodies. Even though they operate under a closed system, Major League Soccer and the A-League are both subject to governance by FIFA.

In the final analysis, the only real difference may be the availability of territorial rights in the North American system, and the absence of such rights in the European system. Rainjar (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The upshot of this analysis is that there isnt really a North American or European system as such, just use of certain systems in certain areas by certain sports. This is true, but all it proves is that the descriptions of the structures arent systematic, theyre just descriptions. Its a long-winded way to say that sports have switched systems in the past and may do so again. I think this is a case of the example taking over the point trying to be made regarding structures - that they're mutable. Most of this could be at the end of the 'North American system' but it definitely cant go into the article labelled as a personal 'analysis,' which is just a big chunk of original research. The conclusion at the end is definitely wrong - there are many 'real' differences, they're just not all necessarily exclusive to either the franchise or pyramid models as described in the article. Mdw0 (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do the differences need to be expressed as two systems? And why do you and Mwalcoff only want some differences addressed but not others? It's almost a fetish. I've noticed yours is to do with games "inside and outside of league". As I've said before, it's not particularly relevant. You should read the articles on tournaments, sports leagues, league systems and single-elimination tournaments to see there is a lot more diversity than the two system model that you and Mwalcoff seek to impose on the article. We may not need the analysis, but as I've stated above, the analysis does bring out the fallacies that underlie the current version of the article. Perhaps more worryingly, all that is strictly relevant may be adequately covered by the article on Sports leagues, in which case, this article serves no useful purpose. Rainjar (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than suggesting I read topics I've had a hand in editing, I think it might be good for you to read through the Talk page on THIS article. If you did, you'd see I do NOT think it should be expressed in this two-type style. As I've written above, I think it would be better and more accurate to describe each of the individual aspects of leagues, and then give examples as to where they are used. One section for pyramid vs franchise, one section for intra vs extra-league play, and other sections for player movement and payment. Of course, you would know this if you'd bothered to read any of it yourself. If you were to have a go at restructuring the article in that way on your page I'd view that very positively and would be happy to comment.

I dont see how you can say the scheduling of matches outside of regular-season league play isnt relevant to this topic. The North Americans dont have 'cups' or any other tournaments outside of their league games, so their scheduling is very different. Its a significant point of difference that certainly should be described. You do seem very Euro-centric, with little ability to take a neutral point of view and see things from the viewpoint of a potential reader from a different sporting culture. It confused me a little when you said that you thought this article had an American POV and syntax, but that seems to be explained by your Euro-centrism, so that neutral POV seems American to you. The franchise vs promotion-relegation setup isnt mentioned on the Sports leagues page, and although I agree that some of this article should go on there, I think the additional descriptions and comparisons were split off from that article into this one. Besides, this one's a mess that would bring the other one down if the text was transferred across. Mdw0 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What you said in the earlier discussions might have been relevant if you didn't so vigorously defend the current structure of the article. Your earlier views might actually work better, if they weren't expressed in such American terminology, and if you weren't so obsessed with the differences between the North American and European experience at the present point in history. What you want might work better if it were entitled "Explaining the differences in current structures in commercial team sport between North America and Europe for the uninitiated American reader". However, that wouldn't pass muster as a Wikipedia article would it. Which is the basic problem we're facing. You may have contributed to the other Wikipedia articles, but you evidently haven't read them, at least not the parts that you weren't involved in. The fact that every change I made was referenced to a wide range of existing Wikipedia articles, while you have repeatedly removed those references, shows who really has the non-neutral perspective. Your perspective can be summed up by the comment near the top of the article: "!--unless stated otherwise, facts and assertions in this article are supported by the Cain and Haddock paper listed under 'References'--" - Cain, Louis P. and Haddock, David D.; 2005; 'Similar Economic Histories, Different Industrial Structures: Transatlantic Contrasts in the Evolution of Professional Sports Leagues'; Journal of Economic History 65 (4); pp1116-1147. The paper is clearly an American account of the difference between professional sport in North America and Europe. The current version of the article is little more than a watered-down version of the paper for the lay (American) reader. The fact is, the more commercially-driven European competitions, such as the Premier League, the Super League and the UEFA Champions League have or will take on features of the so-called "American system". A neutral perspective would be able to capture this. The realization might then be that these are not "European" or "American" features, but differences between being more commercially driven (eg, territorial rights, protection from promotion/relegation and separate negotiation of TV rights) and less commercially driven (more inclusive, more competition in sporting rather than commercial terms, such as promotion/relegation and participating in traditional cup competitions). The changes I have made so far have primarily been to the European section, and aim to reflect the European reality in place of an artificial American or non-European characterization of it. (Rainjar (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're starting to get it. If being interested in what the article is actually about is 'obsession,' then you could use a similar dose of such obsession, because like it or not the article is about 'the differences between the North American and European experience.' Title change? Yes, as I've said, I think if the two-mode structure is to continue to apply, the title should be something like 'Comparison of League Structures' and the article should talk about the structures themselves, rather than try to describe common features in various leagues in different parts of the world and try to lump them together as though they were part of a system. I've never said anything different. What I have done is resisted edits that are wrong or disorganised or not as good as what was there originally. I consider my style to be strictly neutral, but I'm not going to argue the point because up till now you havent shown you're capable of understanding the difference between a neutral terminology and an American one. If you dont like the terminology change it to something more neutral, just dont add in two paragraphs of pointless irrelevant examples

As for POV, retrieving references from other articles doesnt mean your sections are NPOV. Also, when you say you've 'referenced' to other articles, I hope what you mean is that you've lifted citations from the other articles where they the same thing as this one, because you cant use other Wikipedia articles as references. That citation you've quoted here is just a reference that was there before I got here, its not necessarily my 'perspective' any more than any of the other references mentioned from Europe or America. Its true that commercial realities help to determine structure of sports, but tradition plays a big part, and it is the American/Australian tradition to use the franchise style of league with playoffs to determine a champion. The use of various features of the American leagues and European leagues arent systems, they're traditions, another reason why I'd support the dismantling of the two-mode structure of the article, as long as it was replaced with something better. Mdw0 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be surprised if adding links to other Wikipedia article to substantiate examples of other features (in an article in any event full of examples of a limited selection of features) is frowned upon. It is the selective choice of features, with several of them unsubstantiated or erroneously used, that I was criticizing in the first place. The things you now suggest I do were the things I was doing in the first place, which you found unacceptable. The problem you face is that if the title of the article reflected its narrow perspective (a transatlantic comparison of professional sport), we have to ask whether it deserves a separate Wikipedia article at all. One of the points I raised early on was whether any of this belongs in an encyclopedia. As for whose view is non-neutral, unfortunately, it is not an uncommon feature of the American perspective that it believes that is or should be universal, so I think you're the one with the problem, especially in an increasingly inter-connected and globalized world, in which American hegemony is in decline. Attributing features to either a North American system or a European system is a point of view, and is not neutral. Basing an entire article on single academic paper is also a single point of view, and not neutral. Perhaps you've been hanging around on Wikipedia for so long you've gotten caught up in technicalities and forgotten what it should really be about. Your patronizing comments about me do nothing to strengthen your arguments. As for my comments about you, I'll stick with sarcasm. Rainjar (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you need a patron, someone who can help you with your confusion and explain that links are not references. They're just links. But it couldnt be that you were saying because you added in some links to other articles your edits were automatically NPOV? Could it?

In any case I think the article came from a decision to excise it from the original sports league page, which is fair enough, but I dont know for sure. If you're now wondering if the article should be here at all, there are Wikipedia procedures for removing a page - good luck with that. Since you've now decided you want to get rid of the article altogether there's not much point in asking you for suggestions on what sections you think are biased in terms of being pro-American or anti-European. I dont have an American perspective, but a smattering of political buzz words gives you away as anti-American, reinforcing my earlier comment. Your bolded section is incorrect. Its not biased to say the franchise model is common in America and the pyramid with promotion-relegation common in Europe. It is, however, incorrect to imply there is some sort of system, rather than following of established traditions. The article isnt based on one academic paper, its mostly based on unattributed opinion and observation, which of course isnt the goal for Wikipedia and is part of the reason why we have disagreement on its form. This is maybe another reason to remove the article totally, but I think that would be going a bit far. It just needs a rewrite. Maybe you could try a rewrite that only mentions aspects of leagues and doesnt mention America or Europe at all, then there couldnt be any bias, could there? My comments about you personally have been a bit patronising, I admit, and I should'nt have suggested your edits were no good because they werent no good, they just werent better than what was there originally. What I said was that you seemed so Eurocentric that you couldnt tell the difference between neutral and pro-American text and you have responded with a little soapbox speech about the decline of American hegemony. You're right - patronising. But correct. Mdw0 (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to put it to you simply, since you seem to have difficulty understanding (perhaps caused by selective reading). I have provided examples, by way of links to other Wikipedia articles, that highlight that the premises of this article are false, and do not represent a neutral point of view. "Reference" has an ordinary dictionary meaning, and does not belong to Wikipedia. It's not rocket science. I avoid using "Wikipedese" (POV, NPOV, notvote etc) as it gives rise to the risk of jargon overcoming substance (something you seem to suffer from).

I had earlier tried to re-work the article, but your responses to my changes as set out above speak for themselves. After several rounds of having you remove many of my changes, it has become abundantly clear that you have very little understanding of the subject outside of the North American experience. I was speaking of terminology and perspective, you've made it an issue of pro and anti. Are you capable of understanding anything? Wikipedia has an article on American hegemony entitled "American imperialism". Does this make Wikipedia anti-American?

The crux of the problem with the article is that you interpret the title of the article to include what you want to include and to exclude what you want to exclude. It has become your article. You are part of the problem with the article, a big part. Perhaps it would be better to delete the entire article, so as not to misinform. Further to what I said earlier, worse than an encyclopedia that does not contain information about a subject is an encyclopedia that contains misinformation about the subject.

Most of the changes since 11 November 2010 have in fact been made by me. The version of the European section existing prior to 11 November 2010 is set out above. Anyone can see that I have made significant improvement to the section. I have not touched the American section. However, I am severely constrained in editing by the views you (and Mdw0) have as to what is and isn't relevant, and how the article should be structured, that you have repeatedly re-imposed on the article. Perhaps I should revert the article to the version before 11 November 2010 and leave you to your little enclave. Rainjar (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you dont want to use the correct language dont be surprised if you then have trouble communicating with people. If you dont call neutral point of view what everyone else calls it, how can you claim to have it? A link and a reference are not the same thing, not even close. Your changes were removed because of faults of their own - disorganised and full of errors and original research, not because anyone's in love with what's already here. If anything, you've spat the dummy and taken it personally that your precious edits have been reverted. You want to believe there's some sort of conspiracy against you, rather than try to improve your writing. Since I've said repeatedly that the article needs radical rewriting and posibly a title change, your claims that I'm too attached to the article as it stands are ridiculous. If you think the article is not worthwhile, I've already said there are procedures for removing articles and you're quite within your rights to go through them. If you think there's misinformation here, say what it is and fix it, but dont try to claim the whole article is misinformation just because you had some poor edits reverted. As I've said, the biggest issue with the article as its stands is that it implies systems that arent there, which can be fixed with a rewrite, a change to the structure of the article. If you want to fix it, fix it, and then others may revert if the changes dont improve the article.

The 'American Empire' article is a good one, and one where I've done a little bit of editing, but you seem to have a knack for picking poor examples for your points, because its not at all anti-American. It has a good NPOV style. If you're interested in examining biases further you might want to look at the Wikipedia:Systemic bias section for some additional points. The more people watching out for this sort of bias, the better. However, I see no reason to change my view that you are parochially anti-American and pretty much incapable of seeing the difference between neutral point of view and a pro-American one. This article as it stands is NOT pro-American. It in no way insinuates that the American league structrures are better than European ones, and currently you're the lone voice saying that it is - without examples to back you up. The examples of errors you mentioned above, none of which were biased, have been refuted by a couple of editors point by point. Since then there's been a lot of whinging here and very little constructive dialogue regarding changes to the article - something I've also been guilty of myself. As I suggested above, maybe you could try a rewrite that only mentions aspects of leagues without examples and doesnt mention America or Europe at all. That way there couldnt be any bias, could there? Mdw0 (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You really have trouble reading stuff in context don't you. Something else you seem to share with Mwalcoff. "American perspective" is not the same as "pro American". I pointed out to Mwalcoff he was confusing the two, now so have you. It's very difficult to have a discussion with two people who either deliberately misunderstand, or are not capable of understanding. The points I have made have not been rebutted, other than by misrepresenting them, and then claiming that they are unfounded. Everything else you say supports what I've been arguing, but I guess you can't see that. By the way, as referenced above, words are defined in a dictionary. Ever use one? I'm working on an article outside of Wikipedia, which will be copyrighted. I have no choice, due to you and Mwalcoff repeatedly removing my relevant edits. I'll provide you with a link in due course. Enjoy your enclave. 10:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Rainjar (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I regret that it became personal. Mdw0 (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

As the above discussion with Mwalcoff and Mdw0 has degenerated and become unnecessarily personal, I will leave them to their misconceptions and tendency to treat this article as their own. I will revert the European section to the version that existed before I started making changes on 11 November 2010. I would be grateful if none of the changes that I made are re-introduced. Rainjar (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You've also reverted quite a few subsequent edits which I will endeavour to replace, but out of respect to your request here I will use as little of your syntax and phraseology as possible. Mdw0 (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

League by any other name

League, association, conference, division — and maybe others. Reference to the following articles may be useful. (I expect to add some listings before deliberating much.)

• Sports league; League system
• [Sports association]] redirects => Sports club; see also Franchising
• Sport governing body
• [Conferences (sports)]] redirects => Athletic conference
• Division (sport)
• Exhibition game — related to non-league/association/conference/division game

These aren't well explained at wikipedia. I think this article is right to imply or to establish that league is one preferred general term (lowercase). The articles on associations, conferences, divisions, etc, should note that some Yadda Yadda Leagues (proper nouns) aren't leagues; some Yadda Yadda Associations aren't associations; etc. --P64 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-league games

The article notes that NHL, NBA, and MLS teams have faced outside hockey, basketball, and soccer teams. What is the purported distinction between systems? Is that all matches with non-league opponents are exhibition games, in the American system? --P64 (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Typically, yes. With the exception of the CONCACAF Champions League, such games are treated as exhibitions, as there's no championship on the line. oknazevad (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Territories

With few exceptions, clubs in the American system have exclusive territories. I have changed that to say that all American system clubs have territorial rights, which are usually exclusive territories.

That is true on the American side. Is it true that European system clubs have no territorial rights at all? --P64 (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Only in terms of exclusive rights to their grounds, not to any other territory. A new club could start up tomorrow anywhere and if successful on the field, they could enter the top leagues. This can create fascinating rivalries - just look at Machester United and manchester City now. Of course it doesnt happen often. AFC Wimbledon is a London club that was formed in 2003 and currently plays in League Two, the 4th tier of English football, so they have a long way to go before Chelsea has to look over their shoulder. In Italy, Chievo Verona was promoted five times from 1975 to 2001 from Serie D to Serie A, and the older Hellas Verona had no say in it. You win, you rise to the top. Mdw0 (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

MLS promotion

This has been deleted as a small part of the latest edit.

"(the league has, however, promoted teams from lower level leagues to MLS, but not through automatic means)"

This is material for a footnote or a link to the section of Major League Soccer where it is explained. Offhand it seems important enough that it should be explained there. --P64 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Franchise

The link in the opening paragraph to Franchising is troublesome, as that article explicitly excludes the North American sports concept. It has a note stating: "For the concept of "franchising" in sports, see Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada." However, that article does not actually go over the concept in a particular section. Facts about franchises and the franchise model are spread throughout the article. Is there a more focused article to direct this to? If not, shouldn't there be? Does anyone have any idea about how to structure such an article? --Khajidha (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of implied "American supremacy"

• "the four major team sports leagues represent the top level of play in the world" - I don't think this phrase can stand. The paragraph explicitly states that American teams hardly ever play outsiders, and in that case any comparison would be an assumption or conjecture. Sure, they get paid more, and may be more famous, but that's not the same thing. You can't know without head to head results.
• "the winner of the playoffs is crowned champion of the league, and, in some cases referred to as world champions" - again, we need to acknowledge that this is just a phrase thrown around by lazy/closed-minded journalists, or by the champions themselves. At the very most, they could be claimed continental champions, but otherwise it's just hype with no foundation. It would help if we inserted the word incorrectly referred to as... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.160.108 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not easy to compare 'levels of play.' Just because a national USA basketball or baseball team dominates opponents, that is not necessarily indicative of the 'level of play' in the national league. The line suggests that the level of play in the American national leagues is superior even to international level. Unfortunately saying the only way to tell unless you play them doesnt make sense, because you cant throw in a club side from a different league and expect that to be significant. Not even in football's Champions League does that really work, because Real Madrid and Barcelona's success does not reflect the relative weakness of the domestic Spanish league. It is true to say a USA gridiron team has never been tested by an international opponent, but since there has never been a challenger, trying to use this basis to say that the NFL is not the top level of American football has no merit. The one true challenge is with ice hockey, where it can easily be argued that Olympic play is often superior to the NHL, and the intensity of Canada vs USA is at a higher level than between the North American franchises. The trick is to replace that line with a better one, yet still maintain the point. As for being world champions, it depends on who is challenging them. The Superbowl champions have no challengers. The European basketball and hockey clubs or Japanese baseball clubs have not been beating their chests saying they are better than the American champions. Mdw0 (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed renaming to "Professional sports league" and creating "Franchise (sports)" article for the North American sports usage

The title of this article is confusing. A league is an organization, so adding organization at the end makes it seem "professional sports league" is a modifier to "organization". So the topic of this article could be about organizations in professional sports leagues, otherwise known as teams or clubs, rather than the leagues they play in. I would just move the article to "professional sports league", but there are lots of redirects from the sports meaning of franchise, including Franchise (sports), which should be an article, not a redirect to professional sports league, even if the articles themselves will have overlapping content. But they aren't the same thing. A short article that wikilinks to this article would be sufficient to start to untangle this issue, including significant confusion on Wikidata, which is already named professional sports league. Any discussion? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)