Top News

Southampton manager Tonda Eckert has confessed to authorising the spying operation that ultimately saw his club expelled from the play-offs.

An independent disciplinary commission, which decided to remove Southampton from the play-offs and impose a four-point deduction for next season, stated that senior officials had endorsed the spying plan as part of a “contrived and determined plan from the top down”.

The commission strongly criticised the club’s conduct, accusing Southampton of acting deplorably by pressuring intern William Salt—who was photographed filming a Middlesbrough training session—into complying with the scheme, exploiting his vulnerable position and lack of job security.

In its written report outlining the reasons behind the sanctions, the commission said Southampton had “seriously violated” the integrity of the play-offs, warranting a severe sporting penalty.

Southampton admitted to multiple breaches of English Football League (EFL) regulations after also spying on Oxford United and Ipswich Town before facing them. The hearing revealed that Salt had refused to spy on Ipswich.

During the disciplinary proceedings, Eckert acknowledged that he wanted to discover Oxford’s tactical approach—particularly as it was their first match under caretaker manager Craig Short following Gary Rowett’s dismissal—and to determine whether Middlesbrough midfielder Hayden Hackney would be fit for the first leg of the semi-final at the Riverside Stadium.

The commission determined that Eckert had intended to shape his tactical plans using information obtained through unlawful means.

The panel wrote: “The observations were authorised at a senior level and the task was delegated to the intern in connection with the Middlesbrough (MFC) and Oxford United (OU) incidents. He refused to be involved in the Ipswich Town (IT) matter.

“The information gathered from these observations was incorporated into the team’s analysis, discussed with Mr Eckert and others, and used to guide the strategy for the match.

“Mr Eckert admitted that he had specifically authorised these observations to acquire details about the formation (in the OU incident) and the availability of a key player (in the MFC incident). Such information could only have been sought to influence match strategy. Possessing information that an opponent intends to keep confidential naturally provides a competitive advantage.

“Junior staff members were pressured to engage in activities they considered morally wrong and were placed in a vulnerable position without job security.”

Southampton argued that they were unaware of the regulations prohibiting the observation of rival clubs’ training sessions—rules introduced after Leeds United were caught spying on Derby County in 2019—and maintained that they were obliged to comply with EFL laws.

The Football Association (FA) has now launched an investigation into Southampton, which could result in disciplinary charges against Eckert.

However, the independent disciplinary panel concluded that a financial penalty alone would not have been appropriate, given the enormous potential value of promotion.

They emphasised: “Public confidence was paramount. We concluded there was a calculated and deliberate effort from senior management to gain a competitive edge. This went far beyond an innocent mistake and represented a particularly deplorable practice, using junior employees to carry out covert assignments under the direction of senior figures. The integrity of the play-off competition was gravely compromised.”