by Frank Marr
The Riga derby ended in a lifeless 0-0, exposing not just RFS’s risk aversion and Riga FC’s pragmatism, but also deeper problems for Latvian football – from stalled youth development to a league system that needs reform.
A derby without fire
Expectations at the recent Riga derby were a mixed bag. Two coaches with two distinctive styles meant that anything could have happened, but instead the match delivered control, discipline, and risk avoidance to the full-house LNK Sporta Parks.
Riga FC, normally the more expressive side this season, opted for pragmatism. With men behind the ball, deep-lying midfielders and an organised backline, their plan was clear: stay compact, and go forward with limited risk and numbers.
RFS, meanwhile, set up in an equally rigid, risk-averse system. Their first-half output was negligible, with barely a shot on goal. Even when coach Viktors Morozs pushed Slovenian defender Žiga Lipušček up as a makeshift targetman striker in the 88th minute, the midfield failed to deliver more than a single ball into the box.
The final whistle at 0-0 summed up the night: a poker game where both sides refused to bet until the casino was closing. Gridlock, and no real outcome.
RFS: saving face, not taking chances
For RFS, this was about damage limitation after crashing out of the Latvian Cup in the semi-final against Auda. Their season has been defined by signings that failed to ignite, tired legs, and a poor transition into the campaign. They wanted to show stability, professionalism, and ambition – and in one sense, they did.
But where was the risk-taking? Where was the freedom for players to try something different, like taking on more dribbles, gambling, or exploiting a mismatch? Instead, RFS played it safe in a game they had little to lose in, against a formidable Riga FC side unlikely to drop points for the remainder of the season.
Riga FC reborn
Riga FC’s season, by contrast, has been far more impressive. Their European run included a notable win against AC Sparta Praha, proof they can beat strong continental opposition on their day.
Most importantly, this is the first time in years the squad has looked truly cohesive. Riga FC now resemble a collective unit rather than a patchwork of individuals expected to carry games alone.
The missing generation
But both Riga giants face a deeper issue: local youth development. When was the last time an under-21 Latvian broke into either starting XI in a meaningful way? These are the wealthiest, most resourced clubs in the Baltics, yet they struggle to promote local talent. Simo Valakari tried to pull a couple U-21s from the academy shortly before packing up for St. Johnstone, but that initiative fizzled out as soon as he boarded his flight for Scotland.
Instead, youngsters are farmed out. Riga Mariners, who have been stacked with Riga FC loanees, were a calamity in the Cup against the Virslīga’s first-placed side. RFS, meanwhile, rotated through underperforming foreign signings rather than trusting their own academy graduates, and now have a rather hefty wage bill that could instead be allocated to local players.
There have been some bright sparks. Riga’s Eduards Dašķevičs, currently on loan at Auda, has shown glimpses of quality with sharp final-third passing and strong dribbles since going on loan, though consistency and work rate remain a question. RFS striker Faycal Konaté, at just 19, earned a Burkina Faso national team call-up. But these are isolated cases, not evidence of a functioning pipeline.
Meanwhile, RFS II sit comfortably in the second tier (Nākotnes līga), while Riga FC II flirt with relegation after having been drained of all promising talent to the aforementioned Riga Mariners. What does it say when the B teams with greater resources struggle against semi-professional outfits?
The truth is that short-termism, like prioritising immediate trophies over nurturing talent, is hurting Latvian football. Five seasons have passed without a breakout U-21 star leading either of the Riga’s big two, even if, it should be acknowledged, RFS’s academy system is only a few years old.
The Virslīga and LFF must act
The Latvian Football Federation (LFF) and league leadership cannot allow the Riga duopoly to stifle competitiveness and youth development. Policy changes are needed.
- Bigger benches: With so many foreigners, visa rules often force coaches’ hands. More roster spots would create room for young locals.
- Mandatory youth presence: At least three to five U-21 players should be named on the bench.
- Loanee rules: Players on loan must be allowed to play against their parent clubs – otherwise, how do they gain meaningful experience? Along with being systemically encouraged to train with the clubs they’ve been sent to.
- Fairness for smaller clubs: Teams like Auda and Daugavpils should not have to rebuild squads due to restrictive loanee agreements.
Latvia risks sliding into a “Scottish model”—a league dominated by two giants, suffocating competition. The Virslīga and the LFF must prevent this by enforcing stricter rules, protecting balance, and pushing genuine youth development.
So, what’s next?
Control may be the modern footballing trend, but without flair, freedom, and a new generation of Latvians breaking through, both club and national football will stagnate. Take Estonia, for example, where protectionist policies by the Estonian Football Association (EJL) had the result of catapulting Estonian national team well above their Baltic neighbours and top Estonian talent being in demand abroad. The downside of that is, of course, that their domestic competition is not particularly competitive. Is this the trade-off for smaller nations? At the height of their power, Latvia certainly looked very similar, so that may well be. In any case, the Riga derby showed discipline, now Latvian football needs the courage to enforce stricter policies.
