Territorial disputes, wars and diplomatic tensions have forced football authorities to prevent some countries from meeting in competitive fixtures

Football is often celebrated as the world’s universal language, a sport capable of bringing people together regardless of nationality, religion, ethnicity or political affiliation.

But the game has never been completely insulated from international politics.

In Europe, some political disputes are so deeply rooted that UEFA has had to intervene in the organisation of its competitions, preventing certain national teams from being drawn against one another.

The restrictions are not necessarily blanket bans on the countries ever playing a football match. Instead, UEFA has, in several competitions, classified particular pairings as prohibited clashes, meaning they cannot be placed in the same qualifying group.

The reasons range from unresolved territorial disputes and diplomatic hostility to concerns about security.

UEFA’s official draw documentation has, at different times, identified pairings including Armenia and Azerbaijan, Gibraltar and Spain, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia, Kosovo and Russia, and Ukraine and Russia as prohibited clashes. 

The situation illustrates how events outside football can ultimately determine who can — and cannot — meet on the pitch.

1. Spain vs Gibraltar

The dispute between Spain and Gibraltar is one of Europe’s longest-running territorial disagreements.

Gibraltar has been under British control since 1713, following the Treaty of Utrecht, although Spain continues to claim sovereignty over the territory.

Gibraltar’s political status has consequently remained a sensitive issue between Britain and Spain.

The dispute eventually found its way into European football.

UEFA has repeatedly prevented Spain and Gibraltar from being drawn into the same qualifying group. UEFA explicitly identified the pairing as a prohibited clash in its competition draw procedures.

That does not mean the two football associations are completely outside the same football ecosystem. Gibraltar became a UEFA member in 2013 and has since participated in European competitions.

But when the political sensitivity of the relationship is taken into account, UEFA has chosen to prevent the national teams from being placed in the same qualifying groups.

The issue became particularly visible when Gibraltar entered UEFA’s competitions and Spain’s political claim over the territory remained unresolved.

In other words, the football restriction reflects a dispute that existed long before either team stepped onto the pitch.

2. Armenia vs Azerbaijan

The Armenia-Azerbaijan rivalry is considerably more serious because it is rooted in decades of territorial conflict and armed confrontation.

At the centre of the dispute is Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan but historically populated largely by ethnic Armenians.

The dispute produced years of political tension and armed conflict, including major fighting in 2020 and renewed military action in 2023.

Football has not escaped the consequences.

UEFA has repeatedly treated Armenia and Azerbaijan as a prohibited pairing in its competition draws. The restriction was included in UEFA’s procedures for major qualifying competitions. 

The political dispute has also affected individual footballers.

Armenian international Henrikh Mkhitaryan did not play in Arsenal’s 2019 Europa League final against Chelsea in Baku because of security concerns surrounding his participation in Azerbaijan.

The incident demonstrated that geopolitical tensions can affect not only the organisation of competitions but also the careers of individual players.

3. Kosovo vs Serbia

Few football relationships in Europe are as politically sensitive as Kosovo and Serbia.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, but Serbia continues to reject the declaration and considers Kosovo part of its territory.

The dispute has remained a major political issue in the Balkans.

UEFA therefore treats Kosovo-Serbia as a prohibited pairing in relevant competition draws.

The restriction has a practical purpose: preventing a sporting contest from becoming a potential flashpoint for wider political confrontation.

UEFA has previously included Kosovo and Serbia among the teams that cannot be drawn into the same group. 

For football authorities, the calculation is straightforward. A high-profile competitive match between the two sides could attract enormous political attention, potentially increasing security risks around the stadium and beyond.

4. Kosovo vs Bosnia and Herzegovina

Kosovo’s relationship with Bosnia and Herzegovina presents another complicated political situation.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has not recognised Kosovo’s independence, while internal political divisions within Bosnia have also influenced its position on the issue.

UEFA has consequently treated Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina as another prohibited pairing.

The restriction has appeared in UEFA’s competition draw procedures, including the Euro 2024 qualifying process. 

The important point is that UEFA’s restrictions are competition-specific and can change depending on the teams involved, the competition and decisions of the UEFA Executive Committee.

Indeed, UEFA’s current 2026–27 Nations League draw information still identifies Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a prohibited clash. 

5. Kosovo vs Russia

The political relationship between Kosovo and Russia is also highly sensitive.

Russia does not recognise Kosovo’s independence and has maintained support for Serbia’s position.

The football authorities have therefore taken specific measures to prevent the two teams from meeting.

In 2019, UEFA’s Emergency Panel formally decided that teams from Kosovo and Russia should be kept apart in UEFA competitions because of the security risks surrounding potential matches.

UEFA also ruled that two already-scheduled women’s qualifying fixtures involving the countries should be played at neutral venues. 

That decision demonstrates an important distinction between ordinary competition-draw restrictions and a situation where UEFA has assessed an actual fixture as presenting significant security concerns.

6. Ukraine vs Russia

The Russia-Ukraine case is perhaps the clearest example of football being overwhelmed by war.

The relationship between the two countries deteriorated dramatically following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Initially, FIFA introduced measures preventing international competitions from being played on Russian territory and requiring Russian teams to play under modified conditions.

But the measures escalated rapidly.

On February 28, 2022, FIFA and UEFA jointly announced the suspension of all Russian national teams and clubs from their competitions until further notice. 

That decision effectively removed Russian teams from the international and European football calendar.

UEFA had already identified Ukraine and Russia as a prohibited pairing in earlier competition draw procedures. 

The consequences have gone far beyond the national team.

Ukrainian clubs have faced major disruption to domestic competitions, players have been displaced and football infrastructure has been affected by the wider war.

For Ukraine, football has increasingly become intertwined with national identity, resilience and the country’s international representation.

Why Does UEFA Separate These Teams?

The answer is not simply politics.

Security is a major factor.

UEFA’s regulations place significant responsibility on host associations for safety and security before, during and after matches. The organisation can also alter venues, dates or kick-off times where safety and security concerns arise. 

A football match involving politically hostile countries can create risks beyond the stadium.

Supporters from opposing sides may clash. Political demonstrations can emerge. Players can become targets of abuse or intimidation, while the match itself can become a platform for nationalist or political messaging.

UEFA’s objective is therefore not necessarily to settle political disputes but to prevent football competitions from becoming another arena in which those disputes are fought.

Football Has Always Had a Political Side

Although football governing bodies often insist that sport and politics should remain separate, history demonstrates that the two frequently intersect.

National teams represent countries.

Their flags are displayed.

Their anthems are played.

Millions of supporters identify emotionally with their national teams.

That makes international football fundamentally different from an ordinary sporting contest.

When two countries have unresolved territorial disputes, diplomatic hostility or an active war between them, a football match can carry a significance far beyond the 90 minutes played on the pitch.

This is why UEFA’s prohibited-clash system exists.

It is also why the organisation has occasionally required matches to be played at neutral venues or changed arrangements when security considerations demanded it.

Not Every Political Rivalry Leads to a Ban

It is important, however, not to assume that every country with political disagreements is prevented from playing another.

UEFA’s restrictions are based on decisions taken by its governing bodies and the circumstances surrounding particular competitions.

The list can therefore change.

For example, UEFA’s 2026–27 Nations League draw currently lists Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a prohibited pairing, while other historic restrictions may not apply in a particular competition simply because the teams are not eligible to meet in the same league or draw. 

The system is therefore better understood as risk management within football competitions, rather than a universal political blacklist.

When the Pitch Becomes a Political Boundary

The cases of Spain and Gibraltar, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Kosovo and Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Russia, and Russia and Ukraine reveal an uncomfortable reality.

Football can unite people, but it cannot always erase the conflicts that divide them.

Sometimes the political reality outside the stadium is simply too powerful for the sporting authorities to ignore.

In those circumstances, keeping two teams apart may be less about denying football to supporters and more about protecting players, fans and the integrity of the competition.

The irony is that a sport celebrated for bringing nations together can sometimes be forced to acknowledge just how deeply those nations remain divided.