Newly published WhatsApp exchanges in the League Arbitration Panel’s written reasons lay out how Southampton organised a coordinated spying campaign on Championship rivals and put junior staff under severe pressure to carry it out.
The panel was appointed to consider Southampton’s appeal after the club was expelled from the Championship play-offs and given a four-point deduction for next season following admissions that they spied on Oxford United and Ipswich Town in the regular season, and on Middlesbrough ahead of the play-off semi-final.
Those messages — and witness accounts from junior analysts — portray a top-down operation approved by head coach Tonda Eckert and emphasise how an intern felt compelled to take part despite moral reservations.
The intern, a junior analyst, told the commission he “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.” He was sent to Oxford’s training ground for two days before the match on 26 December to establish the likely formation under caretaker manager Craig Short. He photographed and filmed sessions and sent updates back to the coaching staff. From those observations Southampton prepared a predicted line-up showing Oxford would play with a back four.
One analyst’s WhatsApp reply to the intern after the Oxford trip read: “You legend. Manager loved it.” The message is cited by the panel as evidence the information was valued by senior staff. Eckert denied viewing the footage and said it had no effect on match preparations, but the panel found the material was passed to the senior coaching team and used in the build-up to matches.
Ahead of the penultimate fixture against Ipswich, staff were told someone should go to Ipswich’s Eastleigh training base. The intern said he was uncomfortable and refused; another analyst travelled to Eastleigh, claiming a role at the non-league club to watch and record the session. That footage reportedly enabled Southampton to predict Ipswich’s exact team for the match. Eckert later said he understood that CCTV footage from Eastleigh reached Southampton a few hours before kick-off.
For the first leg of the Middlesbrough play-off semi-final on 9 May, the club wanted confirmation whether Middlesbrough’s key player Hayden Hackney was training. Despite previously refusing the Ipswich task, the intern was again chosen. Southampton’s operations manager booked flights and accommodation, and the intern was shown drone footage of the training site to help him know where to stand. He flew to Middlesbrough, filmed training from behind a tree and sent three videos to an analyst who then passed them to Eckert along with a projected line-up.
The intern was confronted by four people at the training ground, asked to delete the videos, and did so. He then deleted his LinkedIn profile, fearing recognition, and returned to his hotel. Without clear permission to leave, he eventually caught a train home and learned from online reports during the journey that Southampton had been accused of spying. Analysts discussed asking the club’s media team to remove or hide manager-of-the-month photos in which the intern appeared.
One colleague later messaged: “I said all along I was never happy about it all & it wasn’t right but no one listened to me!” Another investigator noted the intern felt pressure because an analyst had lost their job earlier in the season and he feared the consequences of refusal.
The League Arbitration Panel was highly critical not only of the surveillance itself but of the club’s initial response. On 8 May Southampton acknowledged a staff member had been in Middlesbrough but described them as “a very junior member of the analysis department” who “was not instructed by any members of senior club staff,” and denied that any footage was captured or shared. When the EFL requested relevant communications and bank records, those claims proved false. On 12 May the club apologised for inaccuracies and admitted the trip had been “carried out at the request of Mr Eckert,” that three videos had been sent and that there had been WhatsApp discussions with the head coach.
The panel concluded it was “clear beyond any doubt that Southampton intended to obtain a sporting advantage over their league rivals by cheating.” The commission rejected the club’s argument — made by Lord Pannick — that no sporting sanction was appropriate because Southampton had not benefited on the pitch: Saints lost to Oxford and drew with Ipswich and Middlesbrough. The panel pointed out information from the observations had been used in match preparation and stressed the need to protect the integrity of the play-off competition, describing the Middlesbrough incident as a serious violation.
The panel also criticised the club’s initial misleading statements and expressed reservations about the credibility of some witnesses, including Eckert, who claimed ignorance of the regulations despite evidence to the contrary. Southampton had sought to draw on precedent — a £200,000 fine imposed on Leeds United in 2019 for spying — but the commission regarded that sanction as insufficient and sensitive to the special status and stakes of the play-offs.
In a statement, 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.” The club accepted it breached the regulations and acknowledged the disciplinary bodies were entitled to conclude that proof of sporting advantage was not necessary to establish a serious offence. Southampton also criticised the composition of the independent disciplinary commission, pointing to historic and indirect connections between two panel members and Middlesbrough: David Winnie, who once played on loan at Middlesbrough, and Lydia Banerjee, whose chambers previously did legal work for the club. Both have denied questions about impartiality.
The WhatsApp exchanges and witness statements published in the panel’s report paint a picture of a planned, top-down operation that relied on junior staff taking risky assignments under pressure — and of a club that initially attempted to downplay or deny senior involvement before admitting the truth.
