by Dmitrijs Kravčenko
Latvian Football Federation (LFF) published regulations for Latvian association football’s highest competition – the Virslīga – for season 2025. There are some minor changes compared to the previous years but one alteration stands out – the fee for foreign players has been increased dramatically and the conditions for use of the ‘foreign player fund’ have been diluted.
In more ways than one, the year 2024 has been marked by increase in frictions between the Latvian Football Federation and the Virslīga – Latvia’s top tier of men’s association football. Much of the disagreement, overtly polite as it was, emerged into the public eye during the LFF election cycle earlier this year, as the CEO of Virslīga, Maksims Krivuņecs, unsuccessfully attempted to challenge incumbent Vadims Ļašenko. Back then, much of the criticism that Krivuņecs levelled at the LFF had to do with financial accountability, use of UEFA funds and general commercial aptitude of the Federation, questioning whether the institution in its current set up was working to benefit Latvian football or just the select individuals at its helm. Ļašenko would, in turn, respond by pointing at the track record of local infrastructure development and discount comments about finances as Virslīga just being greedy. The Latvian Virslīga, unlike A Lyga in Lithuania and Premium liiga in Estonia, is a breakaway league that operates on a license from the LFF but is, otherwise, an independent body.
Some of these same questions are beginning to resurface now as LFF released amended Virslīga regulations for the upcoming season. Published on 18th of December 2024, these comprise of a few minor changes to some technical aspects of the game as well as a significant change to how ‘the foreign player fund’ is to be collected and can be used. The foreign player fund is a domestic solidarity mechanism developed by the Virslīga but administered by the LFF. The basic principle is that clubs which recruit foreign players must pay a fee for every such player into the fund. These funds would then be proportionately redistributed to clubs that use domestic U-21 players, thus channelling competitive ambitions of the more well-off clubs such as Riga FC, FC RFS, FK Auda and FK Liepāja into a simple yet effective support mechanism for development of local football talent. The fund has been consistently in excess of EUR 350,000.00 per annum since 2020, reaching as high as EUR 658,000.00 in 2022.
The 2025 regulations stipulate a significant increase in foreign player fees. Previously, the fees for the first eight foreign players registered would cost the clubs EUR 3,000.00 a head, rising to EUR 8,000.00 a head for the next seven. Fifteen was the maximum limit, ie. no more than half of a registered squad of a club could be comprised of foreign players. This progressive rate was scrapped in these new regulations, instead introducing a flat fee of EUR 8,000.00 per head, starting with the first foreign player. The new, increased, fee can be paid in two installments – half before the start of the season and half before the 20th of June.
The new regulations also amend the purpose for which the foreign player fund money can be used. Whereas previous regulations explicitly stipulated that funds from foreign player registrations will be used for the “implementation of the support system for the development of Latvian youth players, allocated on the basis of the total amount of minutes played by players born in 2002 or earlier in each of the beneficiary clubs” (2023 regulations), the 2025 edition simply states that funds will be used “at the discretion of the LFF“.
Other changes included more specific instructions on how disqualified club officials can behave and where they can be upon receiving a red card (for example: a club medic can remain on the bench even after being ‘sent off’ but a disqualified coach cannot shout directions from the stand), the limit of no more than 15 foreign players per squad has been scrapped, thus defaulting to the UEFA-prescribed 17 (albeit no more than 15 can be registered per match), and some technicalities on who counts as a local player and who does not.
So, what does this all mean for Virslīga in 2025 and can this move be construed as a step forward for Latvian football?
While this is not the first time that the LFF raised fees for foreign player registration, this is the first time that a progressive rate was removed in its entirety. Up until 2022, the first 8 foreign players would only cost clubs EUR 1,000.00 each, rising to EUR 3,000.00 for the next three and to EUR 5,000.00 for the remaining four. From 2022, the three tiers gave way to two – EUR 3,000.00 for each of the first eight and EUR 8,000.00 for each thereafter. Considering that LFF is now introducing a single, flat rate of EUR 8,000.00 for every players, it does not seem as if their actions are in any way out of the ordinary. Indeed, a clear two-step progression is obvious – to increase rates and remove tiers.
While this may seem like a good thing for local football – after all, the more foreign players play the less locals do – there are some nuances here. First, is the demographic reality of Latvia and of Latvian football. Specifically, there are just not that many young Latvians around for clubs to be able to field fully domestic squads and to remain competitive. Recent past is littered with clubs that attempted to compete with local-only players and either got relegated as a result (eg. Super Nova in 2022) or swiftly realised the error of their ways and changed course. Even Metta with one of, if not the largest academies in the country, still draws on some foreign players. What this means is that in order to remain competitive in an ever-developing and UEFA rank climbing Virslīga, all clubs will have to resort to hiring foreign players, not just the big ones.
Second, bringing in foreign players is not only necessary for club’s squad depth but also beneficial to the development of local youth. Many articles have been written and commentaries recorded on how lacklustre competition is holding back development of quality local players. Bringing in foreign players to complement the squad composition may be an unavoidable reality for every Virslīga club, but it is also an opportunity to expose locals to different styles, work ethics, experiences and perspectives. As football is not only played with the feet but also with the head, such exposure is invaluable.
With the above in mind, Third, the prior distribution of EUR 3,000.00 for the first eight players and the current flat rate now disproportionately affect smaller clubs. If the goal of the system is to aid in developing local players and to discourage excessive use of foreigners, then the sliding scale of the previous system was inverted and the new, single price point one is just cruel. Compared to the pre-2022 rates, the percentage change per every new player in the previous system (ie. margin) actually reduced the more foreign players a club attracted, from 300% for the first foreign player reducing to 216% for the last one. The 2025 system introduces a margin of 266% on the first eight foreign players and 0% on each that follows.
Considering how economic incentives work, the goal here seems to be to financially exploit smaller clubs that would normally rely on a handful of foreign players, never even reaching the previous threshold of eight. The difference is even more stark when translated into real numbers – under the previous system, a club would need to pay in EUR 24,000.00 for their eight foreign players. Now, this will only buy three players and a cost of eight will rise to EUR 64,000.00, which is only about half of what a well-off club with a foreign player development policy, such as, for example, FK Liepāja, would have to pay for their 15 foreign players under the new system. In other words, it is difficult to see how this change could make even the smallest of differences to the recruitment strategy of large Latvian clubs, but will likely cause some major budgetary headache for smaller clubs that want and, indeed, need to recruit a limited amount of foreign players.
But why now? Changes to the administration of the foreign player fund are not something out of the ordinary, with the latest one being just two years ago. However, back then, a tiered system was slimmed down but maintained, whereas now it is fully done away with. One explanation might be that it is nothing out of the ordinary and generally consistent with some LFF strategy not disclosed to the public – a gradual change in steps every couple of years, ultimately removing tiers and introducing a relative high flat fee. But a keen observer will be sure to take note of the dramatic increase in UEFA solidarity payments due to Latvian clubs over the next three years. As solidarity payments per club are set to rise from approximately EUR 100,000.00 to approximately EUR 300,000.00, many small clubs are looking at a significant improvement to their financial situation. Some, such as FK Tukums 2000/TELMS already announced efforts to scale up their backroom staff as a result of this coming increase.
The timing of changes to foreign player fund coinciding with the anticipated influx of money from the UEFA directly to the clubs raises some questions about what LFF are up to here. Is this a preventative measure to warn smaller clubs against using their new UEFA funds to neglect local player development? Are they simply trying to account for ‘inflation’? Or did LFF see an opportunity to redirect some of those solidarity payments back into their pockets by means of forcing smaller clubs that have no real choice but to recruit foreign players to pay up at a 266% premium?
The LFF did not disclose why they amended the regulations in this way (nor made any announcements about this at all) but we do know that clubs were not consulted and that the Virslīga was blind sighted by this move. And then there is the amendment to the intended use of funds – at LFF’s discretion instead of to explicitly support youth development – that makes all this seem less like the Federation which is working to raise the level of the domestic championship and more like someone trying to tax the top tier for its recent success on the international stage; or, worse yet, paying back for the criticism (and the votes) levelled against it during the election campaign earlier this year.