Premier League
By Staff Writer — 1 June 2026
Southampton were expelled from the Championship play-offs and deducted four points for the 2026-27 season.
New WhatsApp messages have revealed how Southampton orchestrated a spying campaign against their Championship rivals.
Junior members of staff told the independent disciplinary commission how head coach Tonda Eckert had placed them “under extreme pressure” to carry out a task they were clearly uncomfortable with and felt was morally wrong.
The exchanges are detailed in the written reasons of the League Arbitration Panel, which was appointed to hear Southampton’s appeal against being expelled from the Championship play-offs and deducted four points from next season.
Saints had pleaded guilty to charges of spying on Oxford United and Ipswich Town in the regular season, and then Middlesbrough before the play-off semi-final.
In the written reasons of the punishment, Southampton’s conduct was described as a “contrived and determined plan from the top down”, which head coach Eckert had approved.
Now WhatsApp messages revealed in the League Arbitration Panel’s report show how the plan was orchestrated.
A junior analyst sent to observe Oxford United train before their December fixture with Southampton sent a message to colleagues saying: “I didn’t really have an option and wasn’t provided an opportunity to say no. I was an intern and was doing what I was told.”
When he sent details from that session back to his boss, he received a WhatsApp reading: “You legend. Manager loved it.”
Upon being asked to carry out a second spying mission on Ipswich he expressed concern but was told that “the boss is adamant that someone needs to go”.
Upon being caught, another analyst at the club sent a message to his colleague saying: “I said all along I was never happy about it all & it wasn’t right but no one listened to me!”
The document goes on to explain how the intern was caught by staff at Middlesbrough as he spied on their training session in the build-up to their play-off semi-final in May.
It reveals how he discovered Southampton had been accused of spying while he was still on a train coming back from Middlesbrough.
And it details how Southampton then attempted to delete images of the intern from the internet.
A junior analyst intern was sent to Oxford’s training ground for two days before the teams met on 26 December. Their opponents had changed manager, sacking Gary Rowett, and Eckert wanted to know what formation they would play under caretaker Craig Short.
In his evidence, the junior analyst intern said: “I didn’t really have an option and wasn’t provided an opportunity to say no. I was an intern and was doing what I was told.”
It was added that another analyst had lost their job earlier in the season, and this added pressure to perform tasks they might be uncomfortable with.
The intern sent updates, photographs and videos to the Southampton coaching staff.
From his observation, he knew Oxford were going to play with a back four, not a back five. A predicted Oxford line-up was prepared on the basis of the observations made by the junior analyst intern.
The same predicted team sheet was sent to Eckert, which included a section entitled “key messages”, which appear to be gleaned from the junior analyst intern’s observations.
The junior analyst intern then had a telephone conversation with Eckert to discuss what he had seen.
During his evidence, Eckert denied viewing the footage and insisted the information had no impact on the match preparation.
But a WhatsApp message sent from an analyst to the junior analyst intern read: “Try and make out as much as you can please. You legend. Manager loved it.”
Southampton met Ipswich in the penultimate game of the season, with both teams going for second place.
In preparation, Ipswich trained at Eastleigh Football Club.
One of the first-team coaches told another analyst that Eckert said at an earlier match preparation meeting that “someone should go to Eastleigh to look at Ipswich”.
The assistant coach approached the junior analyst intern about travelling to Eastleigh “as the boss is adamant that someone needs to go”.
The junior analyst intern felt uncomfortable doing this and said “no” to the suggestion.
Another analyst said in his evidence that he grouped himself with the younger members of the analysis team who were being pressurised into carrying out the spying, and he felt pressurised himself.
This other analyst asked to be provided with an Eastleigh kit and a legend - an explanation of his supposed role at the National League club - and made the trip to observe the training sessions.
Someone present at Eastleigh that day video-recorded the whole session and it was sent to Southampton. From that footage, Southampton were able to predict the exact Ipswich team for the fixture.
Eckert claimed that he understood that someone from Eastleigh had sent CCTV footage of the Ipswich training session to someone at Southampton, the existence of which Eckert knew only a couple of hours before kick-off.
Southampton were faced with a trip to Middlesbrough for the first leg of the play-off semi-final on 9 May.
Eckert was particularly interested in finding out if Middlesbrough’s star player, and Championship player of the year, Hayden Hackney, was training or not. There were differing reports as to his fitness. It was agreed that someone would be identified to go to Middlesbrough’s training ground.
Despite saying he did not want to carry out the Ipswich mission, the junior analyst intern was again identified as the person who should make the trip.
The junior analyst intern said that he felt under extreme pressure because of the context of the importance of the game for the club. He feared that he might be dismissed by the club or it might otherwise adversely affect his career if he did not do what was asked of him.
He felt he had been criticised for the information he provided about Oxford, with Southampton having lost that match 2-1.
The junior analyst is quoted as telling the commission: “With them all telling me they want more out of it than what I got at Oxford as got it wrong etc they clearly don’t think my word is good enough so wallop there’s your footage.”
Southampton’s operations manager booked flights and two nights’ accommodation.
The junior analyst intern was shown drone footage of the Middlesbrough training facilities so that he could get an idea of where to stand.
He flew up to Middlesbrough on Wednesday, 6 May, but was told that Eckert was unhappy he did not fly up on the Tuesday so that he could see the Wednesday training session.
Three videos of Middlesbrough’s training were recorded on his phone from behind a tree.
Four people at the training ground began walking towards the junior analyst intern, and he sent the videos he had gathered to another analyst who subsequently passed the information to Eckert - including the projected Middlesbrough line-up.
When one of the four men caught up with him, the junior analyst intern said he was “just watching” and he was asked to delete the videos, which he did.
He then walked on to a nearby golf clubhouse where he changed and deleted his LinkedIn profile because he was worried that Middlesbrough would recognise him from that.
The junior analyst intern went back to his hotel and awaited permission from Eckert to return home. When this didn’t come, he left of his own accord and caught a train. It was while he was on the train that he learned from news on the internet that Southampton had been caught “spying” on Middlesbrough.
An analyst suggested the Southampton media team should be asked to take down or hide the manager of the month pictures online, because the junior analyst intern featured in the background. The analyst said: “The only way they can put his face from CCTV with [Southampton] as he’s deleted his LinkedIn picture. Just got to hope they won’t put the 2 together.”
Eckert was asked whether he wished to see the videos, and he said he did.
Eckert claimed the videos were of poor quality, taken from a far distance and it was difficult to work out who was who – and, so, they were of no benefit to him.
The League Arbitration Panel was damning about Southampton’s conduct not only through the spying, but also because the club initially provided misleading information.
On 8 May, the club admitted that a member of staff was in Middlesbrough, but they claimed it was “a very junior member of the analysis department” and he “was not instructed by any members of senior club staff”.
Southampton added that “no footage was captured, transmitted, shared or analysed” and that “senior executives and first team manager have not endorsed this”.
This proved to be untrue when the English Football League requested all relevant emails, messages and telephone calls between members of the analysis team, plus relevant bank/credit card statements for the junior analyst intern and the club.
On 12 May, the club apologised for inaccuracies and admitted that the trip was, as the panel’s report describes, “carried out at the request of Mr Eckert”, that three videos had been sent and there had been discussions with the head coach on WhatsApp about the content.
On 17 May, the club were charged with spying on Oxford and Ipswich and unsuccessfully tried to prevent those being consolidated in the same hearing.
The League Arbitration Panel found that it was “clear beyond any doubt that Southampton intended to obtain a sporting advantage over their league rivals by cheating”.
Southampton lost to Oxford and drew with Ipswich and Middlesbrough.
Lord Pannick, representing Southampton, proposed that if no sporting advantage had been obtained - because Saints did not win - then it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to impose any sporting sanction.
This was rejected because “information from the observations had been passed to the senior coaching team at the club, and it had been used in preparation for those matches”.
While the commission accepted the club’s remorse, that mitigation was tempered by the initial misleading response to the Middlesbrough allegations.
It was also “unimpressed” by some of the club’s witnesses, including Eckert, who said they were unaware spying was against the regulations when it was clear the opposite was true.
At one stage, another analyst messaged the junior analyst intern and said: “I said all along I was never happy about it all & it wasn’t right but no one listened to me!”
Southampton placed particular reliance on a £200,000 fine given to Leeds United for spying on Derby in 2019, but the commission suggested that sanction was excessively lenient.
The commission, with the play-offs in mind, was “sensitive to the importance, prestige and potential financial value of that knock-out competition” and that meant a non-sporting sanction “would be at best ineffective, if not positively perverse”.
It added: “Public confidence in the integrity of sport… is paramount. Cheating undermines that confidence. Here, the Middlesbrough incident seriously violated the integrity of the play-off knock out competition.”
In a statement released on Monday, Southampton said they would “reflect carefully on the published reasons, review its internal processes and ensure that governance, oversight and decision-making procedures are strengthened as a result”.
Southampton added: “We accept that the club breached the relevant regulations, and we recognise that the disciplinary bodies were entitled to conclude that proof of sporting advantage was not necessary in order to establish a serious offence.”
But the club also criticised the composition of the independent disciplinary commission, saying: “What is harder to accept is that similar scrutiny does not appear to have been applied to the composition of the disciplinary panel itself, given the apparent historic and indirect connections of two panel members to Middlesbrough.”
David Winnie, head of sport at Gilson Gray LLP, played one game on loan at Middlesbrough in 1994. Winnie had denied any questions about his impartiality.
Another panellist, Lydia Banerjee, works for Littleton Chambers, which in 2018 was contracted for legal work by Middlesbrough.
