Southampton's Eckert authorised spying, commission says

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".

The first determination is perhaps the most damning. It indicated a pattern of behaviour.

The independent disciplinary commission said: "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 made submissions which they said proved the information had not altered the team selection, nor had it resulted in sporting advantage, shown by the poor first-half performance at Middlesbrough. This was rejected.

The most damning section for the Southampton head coach was in the second determination of the judgement.

This said the German not only knew about the spying, but also had given his blessing.

Eckert was shown to have approved spying on Oxford to discover their formation after they had just changed manager.

In the case of Middlesbrough, he wanted to find out about the availability of a certain player - presumably Hayden Hackney, who had been out injured for several weeks.

The commission said: "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."