EFL explain Southampton Spygate punishment in full with written reason | Football | Sport

The EFL have released its written reasons for expelling Southampton from the play-off final over Spygate. Their punishment, including a four-point deduction next season, was unanimously agreed upon by the independent disciplinary committee that met after Saints were charged by the league.

Southampton admitted all charges against them, hoping co-operation would aid them in their bid to avoid a severe sporting sanction. However, they unsuccessfully argued that there was no sporting advantage to spying on three different clubs, and tried to argue for the same punishment as Leeds under Marcelo Bielsa, which was a £200,000 fine.

It has now come to light that Southampton have furthermore been reprimanded for compelling a junior member of staff to carry out the spying operation. It is understood the staff member was placed under pressure despite believing the act to be ‘morally wrong’.

Within its determination, the commission set out the reasoning behind Saints being removed from the play-off final. Crucially, the reward on offer for succeeding in the play-offs played a significant role and meant that a sporting punishment was considered necessary in their judgement.

It was concluded that a point deduction during the season could lead clubs to regard the breaches as ‘a risk worth taking’, while a financial penalty would carry little weight given the vast riches on offer for Premier League promotion. The commission noted that: “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 and analysis of footage and observations.”

Important deliberations can be found below: “37. We consider that a particular aggravating feature, which distinguishes Charges 1 and 2 from the other charges, was the willingness of the Respondent to act in breach of Regulation 127 in a competition which is one of the most prestigious and important in English Football. It has not only reputational significance but considerable financial consequences and benefits for a club in the event of success in the competition and promotion to the Premier League.

“38. The integrity of the Play-Off competition was seriously violated, and the actions of the Respondent constituted a deliberate attempt to obtain an unfair advantage. For that reason, Charges 1 and 2 attract a much more serious sanction which in this case must result in expulsion from the Competition. We have considered whether a lesser sanction would be possible or appropriate while achieving the aim of the rule which has been breached. Were this event to take place during the regular season a points deduction or other sanction could be applied which would strip any sporting advantage and achieve the aims of the rule by making such activities not worth the risk. In the Play-Offs such a position is not possible. Points deductions for the regular season might still be a risk worth taking if it enhanced the possibility of promotion. A financial penalty, as proposed by the Respondent would not be effective at this stage in the competition since the financial rewards on offer for a team which is promoted to the Premier League through the PlayOffs would render any penalty meaningless. Perversely this may act as an incentive for clubs to breach Regulation 127 and pay the fine in an effort to increase the chance of promotion.

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

“40. In addition to the sporting sanctions a reprimand is considered appropriate in the present case because of the way in which junior members of staff were put under pressure to carry out activities which they felt were, at the least, morally wrong. Such staff were in a vulnerable position without job security and with limited ability to object to, or resist the instructions given to them.”