Baltic boycotts expose holes in FAI case for playing Israel

Between 2024 and May of this year, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia opted out of competitive fixtures when drawn against Belarus in qualifiers. Their punishments were 3-0 defeats and, in one case, a small fine of €5,000. That seems a small price to pay for taking a stand.

SSE Airtricity League Premier Division, Tallaght Stadium, Dublin 7/8/2026 Shamrock Rovers vs Dundalk Rovers' fans with a ‘Stop The Game’ banner Mandatory Credit ©INPHO/Ryan Byrne

In their seven-page sales pitch to members seeking support to proceed with the Israel fixtures, the FAI stressed that none of Uefa’s 55 members had boycotted matches against the country found to have committed genocide.

That doesn’t mean that members haven’t forfeited fixtures against opponents on grounds of principle.

A trawl through records over recent years shows that three countries refused to line out against Belarus, on account of their coalescing with Russia on the invasion of Ukraine from 2022.

While Fifa and Uefa removed Russia amid pressure from members, they applied the same restriction as they did on Israel post-2023, the switching of ‘home’ fixtures to neutral territories.

Between 2024 and May of this year, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia opted out of competitive fixtures when drawn against the Belarusians in qualifiers.

Their punishment for the forfeitures?

3-0 defeats and, in one case, a small fine of €5,000.

That seems a small price to pay for taking a stand.

An Armageddon picture was portrayed by the FAI board to the voters of the General Assembly ahead of the July 8 ballot which ultimately prevailed by 68% majority, 75 votes to 32.

Without any specific sanctions being obtained from Uefa, apart from the 3-0 defeats, the association highlighted the risk of seeding plummeting and, potentially, expulsion from the competition.

To emphasise the point to those representing all strands of the game, this line was included in bold: “If Ireland is not competing on the international stage, the whole game will feel it.” 

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia continued to operate on the international stage following their boycotts.

The first of these withdrawals entailed Lithuania refusing to play Women’s Euro 2025 qualifiers against Belarus in the summer of 2024, the games a week apart.

Uefa imposed the sanction after Lithuania were deemed to have “forfeited” the games, being the nation “responsible for the match not taking place”.

That their stance ended Lithuania’s prospects of emerging from the pool into a play-offs was considered secondary, as was their action aiding the Belarusians’ march to the summit. They have never qualified for a major tournament.

Lithuanian FA president Edgaras Stankevicius made their position clear from the moment the draw in March 2022 pitted them against a nation they share a border with.

“They can impose walkovers, penalties, but we will not play,” Stankevicius said.

“While in Switzerland, I had a brief conversation with Uefa. Our position is principled. From what I was able to find out, the official regulations do not specify what to do with a team that refuses to play matches.” 

Lithuania were joined by Estonia in March of this year by forfeiting fixtures in the Euro U17 women’s mini-tournament.

Of the three opponents in the four-nation group, only the hosts Malta agreed to face Belarus. Their federation’s attempts to justify fulfilment centred on the 'MFA believing that international sport movement should remain united'.

Accordingly, both of the boycotters were hit with ‘technical’ 3-0 defeats by Uefa and nothing more. They were the only ‘victories’ recorded by Belarus, the six points and, more importantly, six goals sufficient to edge out the Maltese and Estonians for promotion to League A.

The most recent display of morals was in May when the Latvian FA wouldn’t entertain the notion of sharing a pitch with Belarus for a men’s U19 Euro qualifier in San Marino. Uefa have the 3-0 match marked on their website as ‘abandoned’.

Undoubtedly, a senior men’s competitive fixture carries a superior profile but that still doesn’t guarantee Uefa would treat Ireland any differently to those subject to disciplinary procedures already for handing walkovers.

Of course, the centralised broadcasting deal places a higher onus but the granular detail is 20% of their annual monies being sacrificed.

Some proactivity by the FAI after the draw was made in February could have sourced alternative friendly opponents on the dates of September 27 and October 4  but they were wedded to fulfilling, as illustrated by remarks made after last year’s annual general meeting.

The very fact Euro 2028 co-hosting was referenced in the prospectus underlines how far-fetched the FAI’s argument is. Lest we forget, the successful bidder for six games was the country and stadium, not necessarily the FAI.

The notion that Uefa would strip Ireland of that right because of a gesture they, as an umbrella organisation, were unwilling to stomach truly encapsulates how compassion and rationale long ago departed the FAI debate.