by Agris Suveizda
Latvia’s European campaign began brightly with two wins and a draw away from home and not a single goal conceded. Yet by the end of August it was all over. For the third time in five years since the creation of the Conference League – and despite the increased number of qualification spots for champions – no Latvian club will feature in European competition this autumn.
Riga and RFS – like day and night
The contrast between the two capital giants could hardly have been starker. Both Riga FC and RFS fell at the play-off stage, within touching distance of the group phase, but their summers in Europe told very different stories.
Riga grew stronger round by round. They ended a 22–year wait for a Latvian club to win a tie against a side from Europe’s top 20 leagues by defeating Beitar Jerusalem 3–0 at home before losing 3–1 away. They then became the first Latvian team to clear the third qualifying round via the league path, and even claimed a single–match victory over a top ten league club, beating Sparta Prague 1–0 after a 2–0 first-leg defeat. In Latvia’s entire history such wins can be counted on one hand.
RFS, in contrast, never rose above mediocrity. Their only successful tie came in the first round against FCI Levadia, with back–to–back 1–0 victories. From there it unravelled. They lost five straight matches, offered little resistance at home to Malmö (1–4), and against supposedly weaker Finnish and Maltese champions they failed to win in four games, conceding in every match and never once taking the lead.
None of those defeats could be written off as freak results either. Even in games that might have turned – such as Mor Talla’s wasted early chance in Malta – the overall balance never felt unfair. Their opponents deserved what they got. Ħamrun Spartans, for instance, operate on a budget close to €4 million – not giants, but certainly not minnows either. By quality, at least one of those rounds was there for RFS to win. This was not a case of bad luck with the draw.
Preparedness the difference
Ultimately, the difference between the clubs lay in their readiness. Riga looked better prepared for Europe than at any point in their history: a settled, healthy, balanced squad, little summer upheaval and a coach who had been allowed time to build. RFS, meanwhile, were undermined by a flood of injuries, a failed rebuild, the absence of key men like Jānis Ikaunieks in crucial games, and questionable use of the players who were fit.
The irony was clear: Riga this summer resembled the stable, disciplined RFS of previous years, while RFS themselves fell into the chaos that has too often plagued Riga. Until now, RFS had managed to offset Riga’s bigger budget with smarter strategy, sharper foreign recruitment and better player sales. This time, the €2.5 million lost in prize money by falling short may tilt that balance in future seasons.
Riga showed, especially at home against Beitar and Sparta, the sort of performance expected from a club with their resources. Yet even for them, progress must be kept in perspective. A narrow aggregate defeat to Sparta still meant elimination. It was, however, a beautiful defeat – marked by clear improvement. That is something to build on, even if the club’s main task remains domestic: the title race, where RFS sit only three points behind and may yet be stronger in the autumn.
Champions under scrutiny
The wider picture does not flatter Latvia. Of 53 champions (excluding russia and Liechtenstein), 38 reached the league phase. Latvia’s coefficient ranking sits 36th, and RFS’s squad value and ranking place them firmly among the clubs expected to make it. Falling short is therefore a failure, one for which responsibility can fairly be demanded.
Across five seasons since the Conference League was introduced, Latvian champions have reached the league stage only twice – the poorest return among their direct rivals. Ireland, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina all boast better records. Even Moldova only missed out for the first time this summer, while Finland have advanced every single year.
Ireland and Poland shine
Elsewhere, Ireland produced one of their best ever summers. Shelbourne returned to the group stage after 18 years, while Shamrock Rovers also advanced, dispatching clubs from Gibraltar, Kosovo and Portugal along the way. Poland made history too, with all four of their representatives qualifying for the Conference League group stage.
Kazakhstan’s Kairat even reached the Champions League proper, banking more than €20 million, while Cyprus delivered three group stage clubs including Pafos, who stunned Red Star Belgrade. By contrast, Turkey and Scotland endured dismal rounds, both giants Glasgow and Beşiktaş crashing out, costing Ole Gunnar Solskjær his job in Istanbul.
Latvia recoils in the UEFA rankings
The impact on the coefficient table was immediate. Kazakhstan surged from 39th to 34th, while Latvia slipped from 34th to 36th, falling behind Armenia once again. A finish as low as 39th now looms as a real possibility, given the cluster of nations around them.
Latvia’s overall campaign must therefore be marked with a minus. Mistakes have to be corrected, lessons learned, and progress earned again. European football is cyclical: Riga’s embarrassment in Gibraltar in 2021 was followed by RFS earning a famous point in Florence, which itself was followed by setbacks, then by wins against APOEL and Ajax. Success comes only to those who work for it.
This year, Riga and RFS showed just how wide the gap can be between two clubs sharing the same city, the same resources, but vastly different levels of preparation.
Original version of the article (in Latvian): https://sportacentrs.com/futbols/eirokausi_fut/31082025-cempionu_zara_fiasko_rigas_grandi_eirokau
