Southampton's Eckert authorised spying, panel says

Southampton manager Tonda Eckert in blue coat and black zip-up top

Image source, Getty ImagesImage caption,

Eckert admitted authorising the spying on rival teams

Published56 minutes ago

Southampton's spying on rival clubs was authorised by head coach Tonda Eckert and was a "contrived and determined plan from the top down to gain a competitive advantage", an independent disciplinary panel says.

The panel also criticised the club's "deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff" to "conduct the clandestine observation".

Saints were expelled from the Championship play-offs after admitting observing opponents' training sessions and have been deducted four points in the Championship next season.

Written reasons explaining the panel's finding have now been published by the English Football League.

Eckert "accepted that he had specifically authorised the observations", which had "seriously violated" the integrity of the competition, the panel said when explaining why it had applied such a serious sanction.

In addition to the expulsion and point penalty punishments, a reprimand was also imposed on Southampton.

This was not just because other teams had been spied on, but "because of the way in which junior members of staff were put under pressure to carry out activities which they felt were morally wrong", the panel stated.

The whole matter only arose after a junior member of staff was spotted secretly watching Middlesbrough at their training ground.

Southampton admitted spying on three rivals' training sessions – Oxford United and Ipswich Town earlier in the season, and then Middlesbrough before the first leg of the play-off semi-finals.

Their expulsion from the play-offs meant Middlesbrough - who they beat in the semi-final – were reinstated. They will meet Hull City in Saturday's final, for a place in the Premier League.

Southampton were unsuccessful in an appeal against the decision.

In the club's initial response to the EFL, Southampton said the conduct was not part of the culture at St Mary's and that no video was captured, transmitted, shared or analysed. Southampton subsequently acknowledged this was inaccurate, said the panel, which stated the reality was that "the opposite was the case".

More to follow.