Baltic Power Rankings: End of Season Results

As the 2025 season closed in all three of the Baltic states, we present the final Power Rankings calculation of the year – looking back at how the clubs moved around (or not) throughout their domestic league and cup competitions, intra-Baltic friendlies during international breaks, and even some competitive fixtures (specifically, RFS versus Levadia in the Champions League QR1).

The Baltic Elite

The highest tier of the rankings – the Top 4 – remained unchanged throughout the season. FC RFS occupied first place from start to finish, followed consistently by Riga FC in second. FK Žalgiris and FC Flora formed a stable second layer, each fluctuating by no more than one position during the season. Indeed, the only lasting change here is that Flora and Žalgiris swapped places, with Estonian Champions entering the Top 3 at the conclusion of the 2025 campaign.

However, not everything is as straightforward as it seems when we look at the actual coefficients, not just at the final positions. RFS, for example, started the 2025 season in a commanding lead over Riga FC, ahead by 87 coefficient points in the opening week and as far ahead as 122 coefficient points by round 5. They closed the season only 29 points ahead and, largely, only thanks to a win in the final Big Riga Derby of the season. RFS also finished the season with 38 fewer coefficient points than they started, whereas Riga FC ended they year with a ‘profit’ of 20 points compared to their starting coefficient.

Both Flora and Žalgiris also finished the season ‘in the red’, losing 24 and 181 coefficient points respectively. So, while no club outside this group entered the top four at any stage, only Riga finished the 2025 campaign stronger than they started, suggesting an ongoing erosion of power at the pinnacle of Baltic football elite. This should certainly be something to pay close attention to in 2026!

Biggest improvements

Four clubs improved their end-of-season ranking by five places or more compared with their starting position:

• Nõmme Kalju: 21 → 10
• FS Jelgava: 26 → 18
• Kauno Žalgiris: 10 → 5
• Harju JK: 30 → 25

Nõmme Kalju recorded the largest improvement, moving from the lower mid-table into the top ten. The 11 place rise is nothing short of sensational as two-times Estonian Champions hit the accelerator after the first lap and just kept going to finish third in the league and win their second domestic Cup.

Kauno Žalgiris, the newly crowned A Lyga Champions, progressed steadily through the season, breaking into the Top 5. The Kaunas side lifted their maiden domestic title and may be on the brink of starting a new dynasty in Lithuanian football. To find out whether they do or not, we will have to wait until 2026!

FS Jelgava and Harju JK are the two other clubs that significantly improved their relative position while remaining outside the top half. Jelgava, who remained in the top flight through no fault of their own (NB. they were relegated but then got back up as Valmiera FC were denied top tier license), rebuilt the squad and managed to equal their best-ever Virsliga finish – sixth. Harju, who earned their promotion to the top flight fair and square, finished seventh in Estonia thanks to a strong end-of-season showing. The Laagri side gained 18 coefficient points this season, while Jelgava collected an additional 68.

Biggest drops

Five clubs finished the season at least five places lower than their initial ranking:

• DFK Dainava Alytus: 23 → 29
• FK Metta: 16 → 21
• FK Panevėžys: 6 → 11
• Narva Trans: 18 → 23
• Tallinna Kalev: 25 → 30

Panevėžys’ decline occurred from a comparatively high starting point and placed them outside the top ten by season’s end. Despite winning the Lithuanian Cup, the 2023 A Lyga Champions had a poor season and only managed to finish sixth, which was still an improvement on their 2024 result, when they only just managed to avoid the relegation zone. Lifting the National Cup, however, will give Roland Vrabec and his squad a chance at another taste of European competition next season.

The remaining clubs were positioned in the lower half for most of the season and finished closer to the bottom of the rankings. Of the four, Metta, Kalev, and Dainava finished bottom in their respective countries and will start 2026 in the second tier. Narva Trans, despite finishing 5th in Premium liiga, are likely not feeling too great about their season either, owing to a terrible end of the season when they only managed 6 points in the final lap of the season (9 games), getting their only win against struggling Kalev. The silver lining for the Narva club might be that they did finish the season 58 coefficient points higher than they started.

Rollercoaster clubs

Several clubs experienced frequent positional changes across the season, indicating limited stability in relative performance. Measured by total movement across the season, the highest levels of volatility were observed among:

• FC Kuressaare
• FK Grobiņa
• Tallinna Kalev
• FS Jelgava
• Narva Trans

Kuressaare showed repeated upward and downward shifts without settling into a consistent ranking range. Grobiņa and Tallinna Kalev exhibited similar patterns, with sharp movements over short periods. In contrast, Nõmme Kalju’s large net gain resulted primarily from a late-season rise rather than continuous oscillation.

Kuressaare had gone from a high of 24th to a low of 30th several times during the season. Grobiņa fluctuated between 13th and 21st, Kalev between 25th and 30th, Jelgava between 18th and 26th, and Narva between 15th and 23rd.

Competitive zones

Looking at the competitive dynamics during the season, it is clear that there are tiers of clubs that compete in only a handful of areas within the table. We call these competitive zones, where differences in coefficients are minimal and clubs stay close to each other, frequently swapping places.

The first such zone is observed in the upper mid-table (approximately ranks 8–12). Clubs such as Panevėžys, Paide, Liepāja, and Auda changed positions repeatedly, but within relatively narrow limits. Their rankings oscillated without either sustained collapse or sustained breakthrough. Movement in this zone probably reflects competitive proximity rather than some inherent instability, meaning that small differences in form translated into frequent but limited rank changes.

A second, more pronounced zone is visible in the lower tier (ranks 18–30). Here, clubs experienced sharp and frequent positional shifts, often reversing direction multiple times over short periods. Aforementioned teams such as Kuressaare, Grobiņa, Tallinna Kalev, and Narva Trans, but also Vaprus, Harju and Riteriai, moved extensively across the lower rankings without settling in. Despite this activity, upward mobility remained limited, and only Nõmme Kalju and FA Šiauliai managed to escape the lower tier by season’s end.

Final reflections

While doing the Baltic Power Rankings was always going to be a fundamentally theoretical exercise in absence of a controversial Baltic League or even a friendly competition such as the Baltic Winter League, it did highlight some interesting regional dynamics. First, there is a clear elite of four clubs (RFS, Riga FC, Flora and Vilnius Žalgiris) that, at least for the time being, dominate both their domestic competitions and the region in general.

Second, despite some of the league appearing to be more competitive than others, every league roughly follows a “top 3/bottom 7” structure, with teams in the bottom 7 (or 6, depending on the country) not really in position to challenge for the title. At least not yet.

The Baltic Power Rankings seems to reflect regional power dynamics well. This year, Estonia overtook Lithuania in UEFA league rankings (43rd vs 46th respectively), with Latvia still remaining above both in 39th position. Accordingly, of the Top 10 clubs, 4 are from Latvia, 4 are from Estonia, and 3 are from Lithuania (Nõmme Kalju and Auda are joint 9th), whereas of the Bottom 10, 6 are from Estonia, 1 from Latvia and 4 from Lithuania, with Bottom 5 having 3 clubs from Estonia (including the only club with a sub-400 coefficient) and 2 from Lithuania. Thus, Estonia seems to have both some of the strongest and some of the weakest clubs in the region, whereas Lithuania might be getting squeezed towards the middle.

An interesting and somewhat conflicting trend emerges when we look at the total coefficient by league, with Latvian clubs having a combined coefficient of 7737, Lithuanian of 6861 and Estonian of 6437. At the start of the season, these numbers were 7752, 6816 and 6399 respectively, meaning that Estonia gained 38 coefficient points, Lithuania 45 but Latvia lost 15. While this is not a lot in the grand scheme of things, it does align with the general feeling that A Lyga, despite their very poor European campaign, showed most competitive growth in 2025, while Latvia had generally lost momentum (likely due to negative impact on the competitive landscape of the league with the withdrawal of Valmiera FC to third tier).

Thus, our Rankings might be telling a different story to the UEFA rankings. A test of this, however, will only come with the new European season kicking off next summer.

Meanwhile, we look forward to the pre-season friendlies and will update the rankings to reflect progress there, entry of new clubs, and adjustments in the coefficients based on new UEFA league rankings!

And, of course, if there is one winner of the 2025 Baltic Power Rankings it is, without a shadow of a doubt, Nõmme Kalju, who climbed those impressive 11 places to reach the regional Top 10! Congratulations!