The EFL has released its written reasons which led to Southampton’s expulsion from the Championship play-offs following the Spygate scandal, Town having been one of the clubs the Saints sent a representative to covertly observe, contrary to EFL regulations.

Southampton admitted to spying on their opposition ahead of three matches, the penultimate game of the season against the Blues, a fixture with Oxford in December and ahead of the play-off semi-final against Middlesbrough.

While the Saints admitted the charges to an Independent Disciplinary Commission, made up of chair His Honour Phillip Sycamore CBE, Lydia Banerj and David Winnie, they appealed against severity of the sanction, a four-point deduction next season in addition to their play-off exit.

The written reasons outline further details of the incident relating to Town, which occurred at National League’s Eastleigh’s training ground, the Blues having travelled south, when the Saints’ representative was dressed in Spitfires’ kit.

“As to the IT [Ipswich Town] incident, the respondent [Southampton] played ITFC in an EFL Championship fixture at St Mary’s Stadium on 28 April 2026 at 20.00 hours,” it reads.

“On the day of the fixture at approximately midday, an individual associated with the respondent, on the instructions of the respondent’s coaching and analytical staff, attended Eastleigh Football Club where ITFC were training.

“The footage and information obtained was shared within the respondent. The fixture ended in a 2-2 draw. The EFL charged the respondent in relation to the incident on 17 May 2026.”

It adds: “The EFL submitted that the evidence supported the view that the observations were authorised at a senior level and that the task was delegated to the intern in relation to the MFC [Middlesbrough] incident and the OU [Oxford] incident [understood to have been Will Salt]. He declined to be involved in the IT incident. We heard evidence from the intern who described the pressure he was placed under.”

The Saints faced two charges in relation to each of the three clubs they admitted having spied upon.

In Town’s case: “Charge 5: It is alleged that SFC is in breach of EFL regulation 3.4 of the EFL regulations 2025/26 for failing to act towards another club ITFC with the utmost good faith; and

“Charge 6: It is alleged that SFC is in breach of EFL regulation 127 of the EFL regulations 2025/26 for directly or indirectly observing (or attempting to observe) ITFC’s training session in the period of 72 hours prior to a match scheduled to be played between the club and ITFC.”

The Commission opted to treat the Middlesbrough play-off incident, which led to the expulsion, separately to spying on Town and Oxford in the regular Championship season.

“So far as the remaining charges are concerned, we took a starting point of a three points per incident,” the written reasons continue.

“As indicated above, a sanction at this level achieves the aim of the rule since it effectively makes breach of regulation 127 a zero-sum game.

“The six-point deduction was mitigated to four points to reflect the available mitigation, including the respondent’s acceptance of the charges, co-operation (although it is not accepted that this was unqualified) and their proffering of information in relation to the OU incident and IT incident (although we accept that they were on notice from the initial letter of 8 May that the EFL were investigating another incident and so these admissions were not entirely unprompted). We did not consider that a financial sanction was required in addition.”

The Commission was in no doubt that Saints’ management were behind the spying: “We have concluded that there was, on the part of the respondent, 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 boss Tonda Eckert admitted he had been behind the spying incidents.

“Mr Eckert accepted, as he must, that information such as team selection and injuries is sensitive information which a club would wish to keep private in the build up to a game.

“He also accepted that he had specifically authorised the observations to obtain information about formation (in the OU incident) and about the availability of a key player (in the MFC incident [probably Hayden Hackney]).

“Such information could only be sought in order to factor it into strategy, 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.”

Photo: Matchday Images