Hearing that one football club has spied on another “conjures images of classic, covert espionage”, said the BBC. But, as Middlesbrough have found out, sometimes it’s “not that difficult”.
The English Football League has charged Southampton with spying on their opponents two days before the first leg of the Championship play-off semi-final on Tuesday. Middlesbrough claim the supposed spy was a Southampton analyst observing a training session.
Southampton then beat Middlesbrough in extra-time of the second leg to progress to the play-off final at Wembley, but the Middlesbrough manager, Kim Hellberg, has accused them of trying to cheat in what has become known as “spygate”.
‘Understandably incensed’
Southampton have launched an internal review to “ensure that all facts and context are properly understood” before “conclusions are drawn”, said chief executive Phil Parsons. “Given the intensity of the fixture schedule and the short turnaround between matches, we have requested time to complete that process thoroughly and responsibly.”
But the club have “not tried to fight the accusation that they tried to gain an unfair advantage”, said The Telegraph. They reportedly claimed the analyst was “acting on his own initiative and had not been instructed to travel to Rockliffe Hall hotel, adjacent to Boro’s training ground, to spy on Kim Hellberg and his players”. Middlesbrough, though, were “understandably incensed” after their media team “caught the spy lurking near some bushes with professional surveillance equipment”.
Boro have also “been led to believe by whistleblowers that this is not the first time Southampton have spied on their opponents’ training sessions”.
Cases of spying were “practically unheard of” until 2019, said the BBC, when Leeds United boss Marcelo Bielsa admitted he had sent a member of staff to spy on “every team they played that season”.
At that time, there was no specific regulation against spying; “bullish” Bielsa “even paid the fine himself”. The EFL then introduced rule 127: “no club shall directly or indirectly observe (or attempt to observe) another club’s training session in the period of 72 hours prior to any match”.
That’s what Southampton have been charged with breaching, as well as rule 3.4: clubs must “act towards each other with the utmost good faith”.
But perhaps the “most high-profile case of spying” was during the 2024 Olympics in Paris, when New Zealand’s women’s football team spotted a drone above their training session before their game against Canada. French police found its operator: a member of Canada’s staff.
That it was Canada who “performed such an egregious breach of the rules”, a country “known for its people being polite, respectful, laidback and just terribly nice”, added to “the ironic drama”, said The Athletic.
‘Tainted triumph’
Back in the Championship, “spygate 2.0 has become the biggest crisis in play-off history”, said The Independent. And it risks being “Spygate £200 million”, the potential value of a place in the Premier League, if – as predicted – Southampton beat Hull in the final at Wembley on 23 May. If they do, it will be a “tainted triumph”.
The EFL is in an “impossible position”; Southampton would usually have 14 days to respond to the charges, but the EFL has asked the independent disciplinary commission to fast-track the case, given the time pressure. There are also “logistical issues as well as moral ones”.
The “nuclear option” – expelling Southampton from the play-offs – creates “an almighty mess”. But finding them guilty and fining them would cost far less than the prize for promotion, which isn’t likely to “assuage Middlesbrough”.
Meanwhile, Middlesbrough are in “limbo”, continuing to train in case they have to take Southampton’s place in the play-offs. Southampton or the EFL could also appeal any verdict, but Middlesbrough cannot, although they could pursue legal action.
Some Southampton fans are planning to go to Wembley “dressed as hedges or carrying binoculars”. But for Boro and the EFL “this is no laughing matter”.