Independent Commission Finds Eckert Approved Southampton's Spying
Southampton’s head coach Tonda Eckert authorised spying on rival clubs, according to an independent disciplinary commission which described the scheme as a "contrived and determined plan from the top down." The commission also criticised the club for involving junior staff members in "conducting the clandestine observation," calling this approach "deplorable."
The Saints were expelled from the Championship play-offs after admitting to observing opponents’ training sessions and were deducted four points for the 2026-27 Championship season. The English Football League (EFL) has now published the written reasons explaining the commission’s findings.
Eckert, the 33-year-old German rookie manager who took charge mid-season, "accepted that he had specifically authorised the observations." The commission stated such spying "seriously violated" the integrity of the competition, justifying the severe sanctions imposed.
In addition to the expulsion and points deduction, Southampton received a reprimand not only for the spying itself but also because "junior members of staff were put under pressure" to participate, the commission noted. The issue came to light after a junior staff member was spotted secretly watching Middlesbrough’s training ground.
Spygate: Who is Tonda Eckert and Can He Keep His Job?
Tonda Eckert is at the centre of the Spygate scandal involving Southampton.
Southampton admitted to spying on three rivals’ training sessions: Oxford United and Ipswich Town earlier in the season, and Middlesbrough before the first leg of the play-off semi-finals. Their expulsion from the play-offs led to Middlesbrough, whom Southampton had beaten in the semi-final, being reinstated. Middlesbrough will face Hull City in the final on Saturday for a place in the Premier League.
Initially, Southampton denied that any video was captured or analysed but later acknowledged this was not true. Their appeal against removal from the play-offs was unsuccessful. The club argued reliance on a previous sanction given to Leeds United, who were fined £200,000 for spying in 2019, but the commission pointed out that Leeds’ case occurred before the introduction of the regulations Southampton breached.
'Contrived and Determined from the Top Down'
The commission’s first determination was particularly damning, indicating a pattern of behaviour. It stated:
"We have concluded that there was, on the part of the respondent [Southampton], a contrived and determined plan from the top down to gain a competitive advantage in competitions of real significance by deliberate attendance at opposition training grounds for the purpose of obtaining tactical and selection information.
It involved far more than innocent activity and a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff to conduct the clandestine observations at the direction of senior personnel.
There was transmission and internal dissemination and analysis of footage and observations."
Southampton submitted evidence claiming the information obtained did not alter team selection or provide sporting advantage, citing their poor first-half performance against Middlesbrough. The commission rejected this argument.
Eckert 'Specifically Authorised' Spying
The second determination focused on Eckert’s role, stating he not only knew about the spying but had approved it. He authorised spying on Oxford to discover their formation after a managerial change and sought information on the availability of a key Middlesbrough player, presumably Hayden Hackney, who had been injured for several weeks.
"Mr Eckert accepted that he had specifically authorised the observations to obtain information about formation (in the Oxford incident) and about the availability of a key player (in the Middlesbrough incident).
Such information could only be sought in order to factor it into strategy, [and] whether the information confirms a strategy, is disregarded as unreliable or leads to a change of strategy does not, in our view alter the wrong which is committed when such information is sought.
It is inherent in having information which your opponent would wish to keep private that you have a sporting advantage."
'Sporting Advantage' a Key Consideration
Southampton argued they gained no sporting success since they did not win any of the three games where spying occurred. The commission rejected this, explaining that "sporting advantage is different from sporting success." The act of seeking information through spying with the intent to gain advantage is independently significant, regardless of match outcomes.
Remorse, but Only After Misleading the EFL
The commission acknowledged Southampton’s cooperation and remorse but noted it was "tempered by an initial misleading response." The day after sending a spy to Middlesbrough, Southampton provided inaccurate information suggesting the conduct was not part of the club’s culture and that no video footage was captured, transmitted, shared, or analysed, which was false.
The commission was also "unimpressed" by Southampton’s claim that staff were unaware of regulation 127, which prohibits observing an opponent’s training within 72 hours of a fixture. It emphasized that Southampton, as an EFL member, had agreed to abide by the rules.
Junior Staff 'Put Under Pressure'
The commission criticized the use of interns for spying, imposing an additional reprimand because "junior members of staff were put under pressure to carry out activities which they felt were, at the least, morally wrong." It noted:
"Such staff were in a vulnerable position without job security and with limited ability to object to, or resist the instructions given to them."
The intern who attended Oxford and Middlesbrough training gave evidence describing the pressure experienced and declined to spy on Ipswich Town. Another individual was sent to watch Ipswich on 28 April, visiting Eastleigh Football Club where Ipswich were training on the day of the game, eight hours before kick-off. It was admitted that "footage and information obtained was shared" with Southampton staff.
How the Sanction Was Reached
The EFL argued for a severe sporting sanction including expulsion from the play-offs, financial penalties, and points deductions. A financial sanction was ultimately deemed unnecessary.
The breaches were divided into two parts: offences during the league season and a separate charge for the play-off fixture. The commission started with a baseline of three points per incident, totaling six points for the league season offences. This was reduced to four points due to Southampton’s acceptance of charges, remorse, and provision of information related to spying on Oxford and Ipswich.
Regarding the play-offs, the commission determined that the "integrity of the competition was seriously violated," warranting expulsion from the competition. They reasoned that the prospect of promotion to the Premier League would render any fine "meaningless," and a further points deduction was unnecessary to achieve the rule’s deterrent effect.
- Boro boss relieved 'right thing done' over Spygate
- FA opens Southampton investigation over Spygate
- Latest Southampton news and analysis
- Listen to Southampton content on
