Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Scottish Football League Division One

I've removed it because this season Raith Rovers, Cowdenbeath, Dumbarton and Airdrie are all part-time.

This would appear to have been the situation for the last ten years, at least.

Partick Thistle's manager says that his team train full-time but earn part-time wages - most are 19-20 year olds who have to live with their parents in order to support themselves.

Clearly some of these teams aspire to a professional-style approach. Airdrie manager Mr Boyle will bring his lads in for training three nights a week rather than the usual two, for example. Equally clearly this league is not and never has been "fully professional". 2.122.166.254 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have (for now) reverted; this is a very controversial move and needs discussion before being implemented. Giant Snowman 14:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Then as the editor restoring the content, the burden would appear to be on you to demonstrate "fully professionalism". Good luck! 176.253.21.62 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am happy for the SFL1 to be removed - but only from the end of the 2012–13 season. Therefore any player making a debut in that season or earlier should be considered to have played in a fully-professional league and therefore meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that a mid-season removal would be more confusing than anything else, but if it's not fully pro, then it's not fully pro. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why should the SFL only be removed after the 2012/13 season. If there are sources showing it is not 'fully-pro' for this season it should be removed accordingly. Is there any evidence it was fully-pro before this season - the free library link above suggests not. Eldumpo (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

First, it's worth pointing out that the 2003 article is referring to teenage player at one club; there's nothing to suggest that this reflects all players at that club, never mind the full league. In fact the tone suggests that full-timism is still expected in the SFL One "Fraser Wishart, assistant secretary of the Scottish Professional Footballers' Association, says it is not uncommon now for players at "full-time" clubs to have to get a second job to make ends meet. He explained: "The wage structure at Ayr United is the rule rather than the exception these days. "Everybody hears about the financial problems of the Premier League clubs but these are equally difficult times for most First Division sides and even those in the Second Division who are struggling to remain full-time."Wishart estimates the number of full-time players' contracts has been slashed by half in the last five years." More broadly, however, WP:IAR (something I'd rarely want to invoke) is a good reason here. Can you be bothered searching for every player who's competed in the SFL One, has an article based on this, nominating them for deletion...?Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Raith Rovers did not actually go part time. They announced there intention to do so by new players coming in being part time, however they then did the opposite as the players they brought in actually signed full time contracts. So you can discount them entirely. Cowdenbeath have a large full time contingent in there squad, so the only two that truly are part time are Airdrie & Dumbarton. One of which will is in pole position to be relegated and replaced by Queen of the south who are another full time club. It's worth noting we've had this discussion about 20 times over the last three years and ultimately its been agreed the Division is notable enough to be included, that's been the consensus. I have no major objections to it being removed if that's what's agreed to but there is no way that given the level of discussions held re this it Should be removed mid season that is just utter madness. Also the partick quite is irrelevant it just confirms they are a full time club who pay cheap wages they therefore are full time. Blethering Scot 09:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP gave evidence of 4 clubs not being full-time. You questioned that fact for two of the clubs - have you got any evidence? I don't see the issue with changing guidance 'mid-season'. I suggest most of the edits to this page will have been made during the season. Eldumpo (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In the NWSL discussion above Struway2 (talk) Phil Bridger, (talk), Giant Snowman Number, 5 7 and ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk expound—in great detail and with no little pomposity—exactly what this project means by "fully professional". Yet there seems to be a curious reticence to apply those same criteria here.

"Fully professionaly" clearly means, shock horror, it is fully professional i.e. every player in the league received enough income to support them solely with that job.

– Giant Snowman, 25 January 2013

Seems pretty clear cut? Let's see some sources then please, to indicate that this state of affairs prevails (or ever did prevail) in the Scottish First Division. 90.205.197.52 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We've a historic exemption for SFL1 on the grounds that it receives such significant coverage (both present and historical) that players in said league implicitly meet the GNG. See the long discussion we had in 2011. FPL is a rough guideline, rather than an absolute rule, and SFL1 is a big part of the reason for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

...and I've reverted. Apparently "according to WP:RS and WP:V you cannot just add leagues to the list because you want to." 90.207.214.138 (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Those policies are applicable to encyclopaedic content: this page is a tool for editors, so that is not relevant. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That was another quote from Mr Snowman. So perhaps the policies are relevant in some cases here but not others! 90.208.162.146 (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes no difference where it came from: you used it inappropriately. Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Good spot. Then why aren't you all over the NWSL thread above, like a Jack Russell slavering on a football? 90.208.162.146 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this implying that the Scottish div 1 isn't fully professional to quote "More money will flow into the second tier, enabling clubs to run a full-time operation should they wish to."

NWSL again

I've removed it again. In the first link supplied, an Associated Press interview carried by ESPN, Abby Wambach clarifies the distinction between a league being professional (the players are paid to play) and fully professional (all contracted players are paid enough to support themselves by doing nothing other than playing football). To quote:

[Wambach]'ll be joined in the new league by all her American teammates and by Canada captain Christine Sinclair. But not all the players will be able to support themselves just from their soccer income.

"Where I think we went wrong in the past, and probably in both scenarios, is that we started off too big, where our salaries were too high," she said. "I think that we have to take what we can get, and some of the players are probably unfortunately going to have to have other jobs, which in my opinion isn't hopefully the long vision, the long-sighted vision of where we want to go." (my highlighting)

Clearly Ms Wambach hopes that the NWSL intends to be fully professional in the future, but as yet, equally clearly, it isn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly? Perhaps via your subjective interpretation of the article. Can you please point me in the direction of the definition of "fully professional" that you are using to make your case? It seems a citation or reference would be helpful at this point. Also, the second citation that I provided (of three) notes "professional league" in the article headline: [1] . Here's another one that refers to professional leagues with NWSL being a main topic of discussion: [2] See the second question in the article: "Did you think there was another opportunity for a league like this to start, given the way the last major professional league ended?" If we're really here to support the beautiful game for both men and women, I think there needs to be some clarity on what the consensus is re: professional vs "fully professional." If it's salary amount, that should be noted somewhere, no? Hmlarson (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perfectly clearly. What can "fully professional" mean other than all players being paid enough to live on without other sources of income? It's simply the meaning of those words in English. And we are not here to "support the beautiful game for both men and women" but to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) We have no agreed definition of 'fully professional', nor evidence that meeting any theoretical standard confers player notability. Many of the references in the list just refer to 'professional'. This issue crops up from time to time here. There's further discussion on this in the archives. Eldumpo (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Eldumpo. Can you provide a citation, reference, or dictionary definition for "fully professional league" for clarification? And yes, some of us are here, including User:GiantSnowman, in some ways to support the beautiful game and other topics of interest. Some of us seem to be here for power trips as well. Hmlarson (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsure who you're accusing of "power trips" - but I suggest you concentrate on commenting on content, not other editors. "Fully professionaly" clearly means, shock horror, it is fully professional i.e. every player in the league received enough income to support them solely with that job. Giant Snowman 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

According to your own standards, we'll need a citation for that. Unfortunately, the GiantSnowman dictionary doesn't count. Hmlarson (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, according to WP:RS and WP:V you cannot just add leagues to the list because you want to. Giant Snowman 22:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but I guess you can. Good luck with that. Hmlarson (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What have I added to this list without sourcing? Giant Snowman 22:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have provided FOUR independent sources now noting NWSL as a professional league. The discussion now seems to be about what is professional vs fully professional? Hmlarson (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) Once again, how can any possible interpretation of the words "fully professional" include a situation where it has been confirmed that some players will have to have other jobs to support themselves? This is a matter of simple English comprehension. I'm by no means a fan of this "fully professional" criterion, which in most cases does come down to a matter of interpretation (for example Wayne Rooney was being paid less than the national minimum wage when he made his Premier League debut, but we don't use that fact to exclude the league from this list), but it is our current guideline and this is one of those rare cases where we have a crystal-clear source confirming that the league is not fully professional. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, what is the crystal-clear source you're referring to? I have provided four sources - clearly that is enough. Hmlarson (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The crystal-clear source quoted by Struway2 above. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(after numerous edit conflicts) The football specific notability guideline was defined years ago as requiring a player to have taken part in a fully-professional league in order to presume notability, as opposed to having to demonstrate general notability. If I knew where to find a written-down definition of fully-pro with explicit consensus, I'd point you towards it, but I don't: it's generally understood at this project to mean earning enough from football not to need a second source of income to support themselves and their family. This page was set up as a quick-to-use checklist of FPLs for use at article creation or at article deletions, and has always required sources to verify each league's fully-pro-ness. And as Eldumpo says above, some of the sources are inadequate.

In men's football in England, the line is drawn between the Football League and the Conference National, a league in which some teams are fully professional, i.e. all their adult contracted players are full-time footballers in the playing season and they're paid enough to live on without needing extra work in the off-season, but some teams are not, i.e. some or all their players have other jobs as well, because they don't earn enough from football to live on. In England, that's a semi-professional league: from what I've read in discussions earlier on this page (presumably now archived), such a league in the US would still be called professional.

What Ms Wambach says places the NWSL similar to the Conference: players are paid, but they aren't all paid enough to support their family on. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're telling me that this is essentially an invisible rule for inclusion. A glass ceiling, if you will? Thank you for the clarification. I would like to direct everyone's attention to the Wikipedia:Five_pillars for a refresher on the mission of Wikipedia. Hmlarson (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that the words fully professional are used here in their standard English meaning. A fully professional football competition is for participants whose profession is football and who are fully engaged in that profession. They have no need for other employment.

If you think it's an inadequate definition from which to presume notability, then WP:NFOOTBALL is the place to take the matter forward. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it's correct to argue that the words are used here in their standard meaning. There is no agreed definition of 'fully professional'. Rather than try and come up with a meaningless definition, we need to try and move away from this method of determining notability as soon as possible. Eldumpo (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase simply consists of the basic English words "fully" and "professional" used according to their dictionary definitions and combined according to the rules of English syntax. How on Earth can anyone qualified to be writing an English-language encyclopedia lack such basic comprehension of the language. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to use terms such as 'how on earth' and 'lack such basic comprehension' when I've just been contributing normally. There can't be a proper agreement on a definition on this thread, any decision on a definition needs to be fully discussed and added to the intro of the main page, but the wording would need to consider the reasonableness of how to source it. Eldumpo (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Personallly I'm with Phil on this. I can't understand how anyone can't comprehend what "fully professional" means - it blindingly obvious to me that it refers to players who are paid a wage by their club that is equivalent to a full-time salary. Similarly "semi-professional" clearly refers to people who are paid, but not enough to make it a full time job (see Bald Zebra's link to the dictionary definition below), whilst "amateur" means not paid at all. I don't understand how people can't get this, and sadly I think it's wilful ignorance on behalf of those who are opposed to WP:NFOOTY (anyone who is intelligent enough to use a computer should be able to understand basic English terms). Number 5 7 12:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, since I've been asked to add my two cents into this firestorm...

First - I've never heard the phrase "fully professional" before in my life until I was directed to this page. As such, to me, the "standard English meaning" comes as follows: "professional" means being paid for what you do, so "fully professional" would mean all individuals are paid; that is, a league is either "fully professional" or "semi-professional", no in-between. NWSL fulfills "fully professional" in that sense.

As has been mentioned before, the lexicon surrounding "professionalism" varies by country - which is probably why I've never heard the phrase "fully professional" before. People would call NWSL as fully professional on the basic definition I mentioned above, just as they have for all of the modern US soccer leagues.

By the same arguments some people have been applying here to NWSL, then every single US league should be listed in the "not fully professional" category save MLS - and even MLS was paying salaries as low as $12,900 barely five years ago[3]. And MLS has been miles ahead of other US leagues; NASL (both iterations), USLPro, WPS, and WUSA all have/had many players out doing second jobs during the offseason. (And, by a similar argument, WPSL Elite shouldn't even be mentioned, as several teams were completely amateur.)

As such, lacking an official definition spelled out somewhere in the project on what makes a league "fully professional" above simply paying every player, I see no reason why NWSL should be excluded from the list while the rest of the "professional" US leagues are included. (Honestly, considering the lack of an explicitly stated definition, I don't see why project members felt the need to make the distinction in the first place.)

CyMoahk (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the NWSL fulfills the definition of "semi-professional", in that while the players are paid, not all players are playing football on a full-time basis, and have to take a second job to supplement their income. This definition is supported by the Collins Dictionary plus a number of others. The list we're keeping here is for fully professional leagues only, i.e. ones in which all teams are fully professional (all players are full time employees) and don't have semi-professional teams, such as the NWSL. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 08:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

From the same source, here is the definition of professional: [4]. There is not a definition for "fully professional" [5] The NWSL is a professional league. [6] Hmlarson (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

From the dictionary definition of professional: "earning one's living from an activity, such as a sport, not normally thought of as an occupation". If you have take a second job to supplement the income earned from playing football, as many of these players have to, you're not "earning a living", therefore you ar enot fully professional, you are semi-professional. And that last link you provided doesn't prove your point at all, it just mentions the word "professional". ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 19:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've also been asked to give an outsiders' perspective to this and I agree that I have never heard of a putative "professional" vs. "fully professional" distinction, nor can I find sources to support that this distinction exists or has ever been made by any sports association or federation. Just to complicate matters, a quick perusal of sources show that the definition of "professional" itself varies from sport to sport; although there is a general meaning there: a professional athlete is someone who is being paid a salary in order to play (as opposed to possible prize money, training subsidies, etc).
So, if you're asking for a plain reading of "fully professional league" then the only possible interpretation I can see is "a league where all the players are professional (i.e.: paid to play)" and I can't see a possibly neutral justification for "more than X$ / enough for Z" – especially not "sole source of employment". Some millionaire players hold jobs coaching/making videos/as spokeperson, or own businesses as an added source of income/retirement funds and actively manage them. Does that make them "not professionals?" — Coren ^(talk) 14:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No, because they still earn a sufficient income from playing - they are still considered full-time employees of their clubs and anything they get from sponsorship deals is just a bonus. If we used that definition, then there would be no fully professional leagues in the world due to many of the top stars appearing in commercials etc. WP:NFOOTBALL calls for a player to be playing in a fully professional league, as opposed to a semi-professional or amateur league. If we started including semi-professional leagues, that would mean anyone who plays as far down as level 10 in the English football league system (and possibly even lower) would meet this guideline due to them getting a token payment every time they played. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 19:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My reading is the league is professional because players are being paid and the expectations are different than amateur leagues. As this debate appears to be centred around the idea of establishing notability for individual player articles, I would argue that they are "professional" and the top level league in the country for football. By the time players get to this level, they likely have received media coverage from playing at other levels (including university and international club football). Games are televised. Admission is charged for and the teams have professional backroom support. They are discussed on ESPN. The parallel in another sport seems to be the WNBA. I'd think in terms of professionalism as a component of notability for football, they would count. --LauraHale (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- If they pass WP:GNG through media coverage, that that's a separate issue. They don't pass WP:FOOTYN though, as the league clearly isn't fully professional. Number 5 7 16:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see that Hmlarson (talk · contribs) has resorted to a serious WP:Canvassing campaign as they haven't been able to get the response they wanted from project members.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Number 5 7 16:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked for outside input from a number of different users. I was not aware of the canvassing guideline. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hmlarson (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, asking uninvolved editors with a neutral request (as this one was) is not an improper instance of canevassing; this is exactly what consensus is about. I'm a little worried that members of a Wikiproject would take exception to editors seeking opinions outside their circle; Wikiprojects do now own the articles they concern themselves with, and have no exclusivity to consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 18:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

For information only: the request that you (Coren) and other administrators received was indeed neutral: it began "Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion". The messages mentioned by Number57, received by other editors, were not neutral: they began "I would like to request your support in this discussion". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, all players will be paid to play and none will be part-timers. I think that's fully-pro. We've included leagues in the past where some players run camps or have other jobs in the off-season, but are full-time football players during the season. This appears to be the same type of arrangement. Jogurney (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think NWSL qualifies as "fully professional" - though, honestly, considering all the definitions cited, all of which are legitimate[14], I can see the discussion going either way. As long as the same criteria is applied to the other US leagues, (and other nation's leagues, I just know much less about them,) then I guess I'm okay in whichever half of the list NWSL is ultimately placed. For example, the link currently provided for WUSA shows that WPS would not be "fully professional" under the harsher definitions used here, and all of the links for the men's league simply say "professional" without specifying how much players are paid, hiding the fact that all (save MLS) have players that need offseason jobs. CyMoahk (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just decided to do a quick search: example for USL Pro and the current NASL. CyMoahk (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless I've missed it, the only definition not provided so far is "fully professional." If the page were re-organized to list "professional" and "semi-professional" leagues with a list of clear criteria for each (e.g., leagues with paid players (professional) vs leagues with some un-paid or amateur players (semi-professional) and any other relevant criteria with reliable citations provided), it would be much clearer and easier to discern which teams fall into what category. I have yet to see a definition or citation for "fully professional" or "professional" that lists salary amount as an indicator of whether a league is considered "fully professional" and thereby its teams and players. As this essay is used to support WP:NSPORT and WP:NFOOTY, I'm concerned it's current state does not represent WP:NPOV. This is also evidenced by the number of women's leagues listed on the page as a whole. I attempted to add three women's leagues (to both lists) and all were deleted within the hour. Hmlarson (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fully-professional basically means that the clubs employ their players on a full-time basis - i.e. they work full time as footballers and do not require a second job to support themselves (although that does not mean that they can't have second jobs - several fully pro footballers still do media work).

Can you provide a citation or reliable source for this? Hmlarson (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This should provide sufficient explanation. Number 5 7 17:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your division of leagues into professional and non-professional would not work - the majority of clubs down to level 10 in England pay their players (there are a handful of completely amateur clubs), but the players at the clubs only train a couple of times a week and have day jobs. Number 5 7 17:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like we are speculating that NWSL players will be part-time based on some comments in an interview with Abby Wambach. We can't say for sure that any player will be part time yet. I'm also troubled that the US men's second-tier has had a club or two with arguably "part-time" players (I can dig up old discussions if needed). I would say it's too early to be sure, but most signs point towards this league being fully-pro (full-time paid professionals only). Jogurney (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My two cents—Wambach is just one player—her opinion/speculation that some players will have to get second jobs is hardly definitive evidence as has been presented here. Sources are all clear that this new league is of a piece with the WUSA and WPS, both fully–pro. Most informed speculation is of a $200,000 salary cap for the 11 to 13 squad members who are not being paid through the national associations. That equates to a rough average of $15,000 per player for a six or seven month season. Throw in accommodation, travel and health insurance and you're well into the realms of "livable wage" in my opinion. Some NWSL players may choose to run coaching camps etc. as a sideline, but I would be very surprised if any players were deriving their primary income elsewhere, given that they will be training every day with their clubs. Female footballers with families (ie. children) to support are obviously the exception rather than the rule. Admittedly, the money on offer won't be great in the first season but the players make that sacrifice to be full time footballers, and cut their cloth accordingly. In the same way as male players in England's fourth tier or Scotland's top two tiers take one year contracts on a couple of hundred quid a week when they could make better money doing something (basically anything) else. Last point: I can absolutely guarantee that some of the weird and wonderful leagues which are included on this bizarre, arbitrary list have players earning MUCH less than the lowest NWSL salary. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing to use England as an example, the current list of "fully professional" men's leagues for England is entered as follows: Premier League, Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two with the only citation being a BBC article about David Rainford, a "part-timer" in the Football League [15]. There is no mention of "fully professional" on Premier League, Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two - only "professional", "the highest division", or the "third-highest division" (in the case of Football League Two). Hmlarson (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If you really need any evidence, start with this. Number 5 7 19:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Have you considered that the "fully professional" classification is a culturally-based definition that individuals who do not live in Europe may not be familiar with nor adhere to? Professional vs semi-professional have different connotations in the United States, for example. Also, what do you propose to do with the leagues currently on the list that are not "fully professional?" Hmlarson (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that fully professional term is in American dictionaries, and that the link above is from Australia, I fail to see how this is a Europe-centric debate. If there are any leagues on the list that aren't fully professional, then they should be removed (this happens fairly frequently as you'll see if you look through the edit history of the page). Number 5 7 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The fully professional term here [16], you mean? The link you provided to the Australian piece only displays the headline and lead-in to the article, providing us no information here in the U.S. Hmlarson (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to play games, then there's no point having this discussion. The link I provided shows that the term fully professional is known to America as it's used in the definition of semi-professional (maybe it doesn't have it's own definition page as it's two words, as opposed to semiprofessional). If you can't read this link, the important bit is: "But before football went fully professional, players had to work a day job. Many were tradies - it was not unusual to find a premiership captain turning up on the doorstep to clean your windows (Terry Daniher) or fix your plumbing (Michael Tuck)." Number 5 7 20:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Number 57, you state NWSL will be "clearly not fully professional". What evidence do you base this claim upon? Abby Wambach's opinion in that one interview? For example, can you identify any NWSL players who'll do something other than football as a living? Or any that will only train part–time? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not Wambach's opinion. The author of the article itself noted that "not all the players will be able to support themselves just from their soccer income". Number 5 7 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, this is not a game, but a discussion with valid questions asked. I'm not willing to pay for access [17] to read the article, although I would be interested in reading it. Not everyone in the world is familiar with "fully professional" as evidenced by the same question being posed here by multiple editors, in the archives, and throughout the project pages. Hmlarson (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In case you haven't yet been able to read the piece, this link is free access. I'm assuming it's the same content, I can't access the original link either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading most of this discussion (it got quite burdensome after about 10 minutes) I'm leaning towards classifying this as fully professional (though I'm not fully convinced it should be labeled as such). I'm giving consideration to many of the leagues around the world in countries like Kyrgyzstan, Niger, Tonga, etc. where every player is paid, but perhaps not enough to sustain themselves on football alone, and are classified as "fully professional". Overall, I think we need to wait until the league begins and we have more concrete details about salaries.--MorrisIV (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If every player is paid, but perhaps not enough to sustain themselves on football alone, that makes them (and by extension the league) semi-professional, which by definition is not fully professional. Either way, there's no consensus that this league should be added to this list. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 07:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are these semi pro players then? The English FA WSL is a semi pro league as it contains podiatrists, lawyers, postal workers, carers, plasterers etc. and a whole load of students. This American league won't have any students at all because they'd become ineligible for the NCAA. I'm also unaware of any "free agents" about to be drafted in the NWSL whose main job is something else apart from soccer. Seven players on each team are paid through the national associations — they're full time pros. The other 11 to 13 members of the squad apparently share out a $200,000 salary cap. Ok, they'll earn in a year what Ashley Cole gets in a nanosecond, but they'll be training full time too. Where is the evidence that they won't be able to support themselves on this income? Abby Wambach in that one interview "thinks" second jobs will "probably" be necessary. Are we seriously excluding the league based on that source alone? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we are seriously excluding the league because there is no reason to think that, by simply playing a game there, it is sufficient, on that basis alone, to assume that the person is notable. You yourself are claiming that the majority of players will be paid <$20k/year. In the United States. The ones who have a kid would be eligible for food stamps, for crying out loud. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about a year? The regular season is four months long. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is my experience that playing a single match in any of the leagues listed on this page is not sufficient to assume a person is notable. The discussion above is not about the merits of this list, but rather whether this new league has the characteristics of a fully-pro league. I think we have to reserve judgement (most clubs don't have a full playing staff yet) for now. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More recent sources

Yael Averbuch uses the term "fully professional" re. the NWSL in her blog for the The New York Times. Seattle Reign sign the English FAWSL player of the season (I'm sure they're not paying her in foodstamps!), who tells the BBC that the NWSL is "completely professional". Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source Hmlarson (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We have to decide this question. the league is set to start. I vote for the inclusion, NWSL is FULLY PRO league in my view point.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)