Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Fully professional vs amateur in English men's football history

Hey guys - I'm reading the Football in England article and while it's not cited (nor is "fully professional" mentioned more than once and even that one sentence is unreferenced) -- I noticed there's a sentence in the Amateur section: "Although the FA abandoned a formal definition of 'amateur' in the early 1970s, the vast majority of clubs still effectively play as amateurs, with no financial reward." (unreferenced)

Does anyone know:

1. what the first men's league that became "fully professional" was (and when) and
2. why the FA dropped abandoned a formal definition of amateur in the early 1970's?

Thanks, Hmlarson (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The article on Professionalism in association football might assist. GiantSnowman 20:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

another men only article. Still looking for any mention of “fully professional” + #2. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article rather than just whining about it... GiantSnowman 12:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I can attempt question 2) @Hmlarson:, with an excerpt from Dave Bassett's book Settling the Score (2002):

“ I was particularly proud to receive it since the historic Amateur Cup competition was nearing the end of its days. The following year was to see the end of 'shamateurism'. The game was to go open at all levels and 1974 would see the FA Amateur Cup won for the very last time. It was a decision which we all knew to be right. Top amateur clubs had been paying their players for over two decades and tales of inflated 'boot money' had abounded for much longer than that. I don't mind admitting that I was receiving £25 a week as an 'amateur' with Walton & Hersham and it was possible to line our pockets even more by collecting additional cash incentives structured to success in both League and Cup. ”

So the delineation between amateur and professional was largely "bollocks", to borrow Mr Bassett's vernacular. Much like the bogus delineation between professional and fully-professional often peddled in this corner of Wikipedia, we might well conclude. Interestingly Bassett also says of his playing days with Wimbledon F.C. in the (allegedly fully professional) Football League Fourth Division in 1977–78: "We also had a squad of players who were mostly part-timers and who wouldn't train more than twice a week because the club refused to compensate them for loss of earnings at work". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well shoot, that is a lot clearer than murky dung. Thanks for that info on the Football League Fourth Division in 1977-78. Where, in your opinion, should we add this referenced material GiantSnowman? Hmlarson (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This kind of information is already well known and would not change the classification of the Football League as anything but "fully-professional" for notability purposes for the length of its entire existence. GiantSnowman 21:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My facts don't care about your feelings! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the English men's league setup is often smugly presented on here as a sort of gold standard for "fully professionalism". But it's arrant nonsense. Charlie Buchan played in the 1910s and 20s and was a schoolteacher, a soldier (obviously), and then a sports shop proprietor during his playing career. Tom Finney (40s/50s/60s) was famously the "Preston Plumber". Nat Lofthouse (40s/50s/60s) was employed as a paint salesman. In Lofty, Matt Clough wrote: "While the maximum wage for professional footballers was to be raised by £1 to £15 in 1953, Nat followed the example set by many of his contemporaries by taking a part-time job as a paint salesman". These examples are all elite international players, so it seems to me unlikely that rank and file players further down the football food chain would be any different. For example, Southport F.C. finished fifth in the 1955–56 Football League Third Division North with a squad comprising "seven full-time professionals, eight part-time professionals and three forces players". In The Leaguers: The Making of Professional Football in England 1900-1939, Matthew Taylor wrote: "Squads were smaller in the lower divisions. Clubs signed fewer full-time professionals and relied more on the services of part-time and amateur players [...] most Third Division clubs, and many in the higher divisions, regularly included a number of amateurs and part-timers, presumably as a means of keeping wage bills low." Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Bring back Daz Sampson Where, in your opinion, should we add this referenced material? Hmlarson (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I think, if this list is to have any credibility, we have to be dispassionate and let the facts fall where they may. So the Third Division North/South (the forerunners of Leagues One and Two) were evidently not "fully professional" in any sense whatsoever and that should be made clear in the list. Equally Division Four wasn't fully professional in the late 70s. Pre-WWII part-time and amateur players abounded in all four Divisions, so again a "(since 1946)" should be noted by the listing. Of course if anyone has any actual sources to the contrary (note: sources GiantSnowman, not your unevidenced opinion) we'd need to consider those before making the changes. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Calm down. As I said, the fact that a handful of players at times have held other jobs - something that is already well known (so I'm unsure why you're pretending like you have a smoking gun!) - will NOT prevent having played in the league being considered as inferring notability. I'm pretty sure we did this with the Finnish league as well a few years ago. GiantSnowman 10:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It will prevent it, unless you can come up with some sources to support your opinion. Maybe you should ask for help at WT:FOOTY as it seems you have little knowledge in this subject area. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it won't, and doesn't on a weekly basis. Common sense applies - I suggest you ask Santa for some in a few days time. GiantSnowman 11:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: - have you reviewed WP:ADMINCOND lately? Most of that I consider common sense - but maybe not everyone does and needs a refresher from time to time. Hmlarson (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Bring back Daz Sampson: I think these should also be added to the Professionalism in association football article as a start. Do you want to collaborate on a (separate) WP:ESSAY? Hmlarson (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure! It might be after Christmas though? I've been doing some more reading/research and have plenty more to add here for both the EFL and the Scottish Leagues (second and first tier - not "fully pro" until the 90s) when I get some time. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Sounds good! Feliz Navidad! Hmlarson (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Hmlarson: hope you had a great Christmas and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have started a separate page here which can either go 'live' as it is or be integrated into the main 'professionalism' article? I'd obviously be happy for anyone to contribute to these, so long as the contributions are evidence-based. Were you thinking of 'grasping the nettle' and drafting a WP:NWOSO essay?

I won't respond to this incivility, GiantSnowman, except to say that it is unworthy of an administrator. Despite what you seem to think, you are not in charge here. You can't govern by diktat, and you need to deal in the currency of verifiability and reliable sources the same as the rest of us. In fact if you continue with incivility and repeatedly reintroduce false material as you did here, you are likely to find yourself back in front of the Arbitration Committee. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Bring back Daz Sampson can you ping me via the Message this User link in the left sidebar of user page? I’ll most likely be working on wiki-related business tomorrow while watching a couple English FA WSL games on American broadcasts. Hmlarson (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

From what date can the English Football League be said to be "fully professional"?

Based on User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in English football I think there is a case to use 1961 (the abolition of the maximum wage) as the cut-off date? It's obvious we'll have to draw the line somewhere, as projecting the FL's current professional status into the distant past is recentism. What do others think? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominems

It's a madey up nonsense concept. GiantSnowman 21:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC) @GiantSnowman: Is it necessary to be this petty? Aren't you the one who always insist that, regardless of what genuine criticism editors may have toward WP:FPL, that as long as it remains the notability guidelines we must all work with it as much as possible? I don't see why Bring back Daz Sampson deserves ridicule here when they're working within established guidelines while trying to improve them at the same time. Seany91 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not the one being petty. I am simply quoting BBDS on the topic. GiantSnowman 08:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC) And yet they're still trying to bring in substantive sources for discussion, while you're actively creating a hostile environment for folks who want to participate. Regardless of what you think about this specific issue, Wikipedia wasn't intended to be yet another exclusive gatekeeper in the world. Seany91 (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC) I - and many others - would have a lot more time for them if a) they didn't have a certain reputation as an editor and b) they weren't engaged in POINTy editing on the topic. Rather than trying to remove men's leagues, they would be better of spending their time and effort trying to include women's leagues, which is their overall aim. GiantSnowman 08:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC) To add to this - nobody is disputing that many of the 'fully pro' leagues have, at times, had a minority of semi professional players. That, however, does not mean the league should be removed from the list, or that playing in it does not confer presumed notability. GiantSnowman 08:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please try to comment on contributions, GiantSnowman, not on contributors. The definition states that "virtually all" adult players must be full-time professionals? I am just trying to drill down into the double standard which apparently waives this rule for certain favoured leagues, but not for others... Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a double standard here. While I was searching for articles in response to the FAWSL quotes section above, I came across an article stating that Liverpool players were semi-pros in 2019,[1] but I wouldn't consider removing the FA WSL on the basis of a single club. Number 57 12:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What date do you think for the EFL then? Are you seriously positing 1888–89 Football League? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know TBH; looking at your research, it's quite hard to say when would be an appropriate cut-off. Re your change to the Netherlands, would 1967 not make more sense as a cut-off (than 1970) given the Murray source? Number 57 13:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's try and stick to the subject here, I'll reply to the Netherlands question under that section. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

National Independent Soccer Association

Is NISA (third tier US league) fully pro? Apologies if this has already been discussed. I've noticed that National Independent Soccer Association calls itself a professional league in the article and each of the member clubs' articles have the word 'professional' in the opening sentence of the lead. Their website also says "bringing pro soccer to every city in the US". Other sources in a quick search include Soccer Today and US Soccer Players. Spiderone 14:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Source 1 indicates that NISA has not disclosed any salary information, while a conservative calculation from Source 2 suggests that average salary for NISA players would be around $16,000 for an entire season (that's barely above poverty line for a single person in the US). Also there are periodic complaints of NISA players not getting paid at all (see here). Seany91 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, I agree with not adding it to the list. Spiderone 19:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can this be reconsidered? NISA is a professional league recognised by the US soccer federation. It is listed as professional on its own Wikipedia article. See [2][3] [4] Pbowmaker (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)