by Francis Plevoks
In modern European football, the Sporting Department has evolved into one of the most crucial engines of success. At its heart is the Sporting Director – a figure who provides continuity, defines long-term sporting strategy, manages scouting networks, and ensures that the club’s recruitment and development align with both financial realities and footballing philosophy. Across Europe, this role is well established and increasingly data-driven, with multi-layered departments handling everything from youth recruitment and international scouting to sports science and analytics.
In Latvia, however, the reality is strikingly different. While leading clubs such as Riga FC and RFS have made strides towards professionalism, the broader landscape remains fragmented, reliant on informal networks, and often tied more to personal contacts than institutional processes. This article takes a closer look at the current state of Sporting Departments in Latvian football, their structural limitations, and how they compare to European best practice – while also outlining potential avenues for growth. At present, only a handful of Latvian clubs employ Sporting Directors in a capacity comparable to Europe’s footballing standards. RFS’s Sporting Director, Aleksandrs Usovs, previously worked in finance and business before transitioning into football via InStat Sports, where he was involved in introducing scouting and analytics tools across the Baltics. Riga FC’s Aleksandrs Romašins has a background as a local footballer in the 1980s, while FK Liepāja’s Ivans Visockis built his career as a scout at Riga FC before assuming broader responsibilities. Smaller clubs such as FS Jelgava (with Czech Sporting Director Miloslav Brožek), Grobiņa (Andis Ādiņš), and Super Nova (Aleksandrs Štekeļs) list Sporting Directors, but in many cases the role is not full-time, nor does it resemble the layered responsibilities seen elsewhere in Europe. For the majority of Latvian clubs – Auda, BFC Daugavpils, Metta, Tukums 2000 – the role does not formally exist at all. Recruitment and strategic planning often fall to coaches, presidents, or general directors. This stands in stark contrast to European football, where the Sporting Director is a cornerstone of operations. In Germany, Italy, and Spain, the position carries authority equal to or above the head coach, ensuring long-term continuity even as coaching staffs change. In Latvia, however, short-term needs and financial constraints have left most Sporting Directors as peripheral figures, without the autonomy or resources to implement strategic visions.
One of the most distinctive differences between Latvia and other European footballing nations lies in decision-making during transfers. In Europe, the Sporting Director typically defines the recruitment strategy, manages scouting departments, and oversees negotiations. Coaches may advise on needs, but rarely dictate signings. In Latvia, the opposite is often true. The head coach plays a disproportionately large role in recruitment, sometimes effectively doubling as Sporting Director. In some clubs, final decisions are made by the president or major financial backer, leaving Sporting Directors (or those who have taken on the role) in an advisory role at best. Transfers are frequently driven by existing networks of contacts, agents, and local relationships, with far less emphasis on data analysis, real scouting or long-term squad building. This reliance on networks makes sense in the context of limited budgets. Latvia’s football market is small, with limited revenue streams, meaning cost-saving often outweighs strategic planning. Yet it also prevents clubs from developing professionalised scouting structures or creating sustainable pipelines of player recruitment. Scouting in Latvia remains underdeveloped and often opaque. Riga FC employs a full-time scouting, but even there the structure is complicated by partnerships with external companies and fluctuating projects. Other clubs have no designated scouting department, relying instead on agents, personal contacts, or trial periods. Volunteer scouting, common in many European markets, is virtually non-existent in Latvia. This is a major untapped resource: motivated young analysts and aspiring scouts could provide valuable insights if clubs were willing to formalise even minimal structures. In Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, such volunteers often progress into professional roles – a practice Latvian clubs have yet to embrace. By contrast, European clubs routinely integrate advanced data platforms like Wyscout and TransferRoom, alongside in-house statistical modeling. In Latvia, access to such tools exists, but they are used more as an occasional resource rather than a foundation for decision-making.
One of the most significant gaps in Latvian football’s Sporting Departments is the lack of international player pipelines. The market is heavily localised, with clubs relying on known contacts rather than systematically building relationships abroad. This contrasts sharply with Estonia’s Paide Linnameeskond, which established a partnership with Gambian academy Real de Banjul. This collaboration recently saw Abdoulie Ceesay move from Paide to Bundesliga side FC St. Pauli. Similarly, FK Liepāja has explored partnerships with Diambars FC in Senegal, but such initiatives remain sporadic and underdeveloped. Within Latvia, club-to-club relationships often play a larger role. For instance, RFS frequently loans or re-signs players with BFC Daugavpils, creating situations where regulations are stretched and competitive balance is questioned. Rather than using partnerships to expand internationally, clubs have largely leveraged them domestically to reduce costs or maintain control over local talent.
Sporting Departments in Europe often operate on clear KPIs: league performance, transfer market success, academy integration, and financial sustainability. In Latvia, however, KPIs are less formalised and often tied directly to immediate league position. For clubs with ambitions of European competition, like Riga FC and RFS, investment is more aggressive, but still focused on short-term qualification goals. Mid-table clubs lack coherent KPIs altogether, trapped between survival and vague ambitions of player sales. Without structured objectives, Sporting Departments cannot benchmark success or justify long-term investments. Interestingly, Sporting Directors in Latvia are rarely replaced, even when performance stagnates. RFS and Riga FC have maintained the same Sporting Directors for years, in stark contrast to the higher-pressure environments of Europe, where poor performance often results in structural changes. This reflects the more relationship-oriented culture of Latvian football, where trust and personal connections frequently outweigh performance-based evaluations.
There is also a reputational dimension. European clubs now assess potential partners not just on finances or results, but on governance and structure. A Latvian club that can demonstrate a functioning Sporting Department – complete with KPIs, scouting frameworks, and measurable results becomes a more attractive partner for international academies, investors, and even agents seeking development pathways for players. Conversely, the absence of such structures signals risk and instability. In a football economy increasingly interconnected through data-sharing platforms, reputational credibility is itself a form of capital.
What Latvia illustrates most clearly is how football structures mirror wider economic and cultural realities. In Europe’s top leagues, Sporting Departments have grown into miniature corporations: multi-million-euro ecosystems staffed by analysts, medical specialists, psychologists, and international scouts. The budgets of these departments often rival the entire operating costs of a Latvian club or even more. For example, a mid-table Bundesliga club like Mainz 05 invests over €5 million annually in recruitment and scouting. Yet, the lesson is not simply about resources. The Scandinavian leagues, operating with budgets far closer to Latvia’s, have managed to professionalize Sporting Departments through strategic focus, clear KPIs, and an emphasis on export markets. FC Nordsjælland in Denmark, for instance, turned a Ghanaian academy partnership into a sustainable pipeline that not only fuels first-team performance but generates consistent transfer income. Their model proves that even without vast budgets, smaller leagues can weaponize structure and vision.
While most European clubs are busy chasing marginal gains through nutrition tweaks, GPS tracking, or marginal xG improvements, the smartest ones are quietly building structural advantages in talent acquisition. The most fertile ground is also the most underexplored: Africa. The continent has the youngest population in the world, a deep passion for football, and an abundance of raw talent that is both undervalued and under-scouted. Clubs like FC Nordsjælland in Denmark or KRC Genk in Belgium have proven that a strategic, structured investment in African academies can become a long-term competitive edge. These partnerships do not just produce talent, they create sustainable revenue streams through player sales, international visibility, and reputational capital. In the Baltics, however, this mindset has not yet taken root. The barriers are real: limited financial resources, a lack of on-the-ground scouting infrastructure, and a tendency to rely heavily on agents and existing contacts. Too often, clubs wait for talent to arrive at their doorstep rather than proactively building pipelines. This reactive model not only limits competitiveness but also leaves clubs exposed to inflated transfer fees and inconsistent recruitment outcomes. Establishing partnerships with academies, investing in volunteer scouting networks, or even co-developing talent identification projects could position a club as a regional leader in recruitment. The upside is not just sporting – it’s financial, reputational, and structural. In a market where every euro counts, accessing undervalued talent pools could be the single smartest strategic decision a Baltic club makes.
Latvian football stands at a crossroads. While top clubs like RFS and Riga FC have taken initial steps towards professionalism, the broader structure of Sporting Departments remains informal, locally focused, and under-resourced. Sporting Directors lack authority, scouting is fragmented, and international pipelines are virtually absent. For Latvia to progress, clubs must embrace the Sporting Department not as an optional luxury, but as the central pillar of long-term football success. The challenge lies not in replicating the budgets of European giants, but in adopting their mindset: treating the Sporting Department as a strategic investment, not an afterthought.
