Tonda Eckert admitted he authorised the spying scandal that ended up with Southampton being kicked out of the play-offs.
The independent disciplinary commission who decided to expel Southampton from the play-offs and give them a four-point deduction for next season said senior figures gave their backing to the spying scheme in a “contrived and determined plan from the top down”.
And they accused Southampton of behaving deplorably by putting William Salt – the intern pictured filming a Middlesbrough training session – under pressure to carry out their wishes and taking advantage of his lack of job security.
The commission published their written reasons for the punishment doled out to Southampton and said they had “seriously violated” the integrity of the play-offs and that it required a serious sporting sanction.
Southampton pleaded guilty to multiple breaches of breaching EFL rules after also spying on Oxford United and Ipswich Town before matches against them – and the commission heard that Salt refused to spy on Ipswich.
Manager Eckert admitted in the disciplinary hearing that he wanted to find out which tactics Oxford would play – in their first match under caretaker manager Craig Short, following the sacking of Gary Rowett – and whether Middlesbrough midfielder Hayden Hackney would be fit for the semi-final first leg at the Riverside.
The commission also concluded that Eckert wanted to base his gameplan for the matches around information gathered in an illegal fashion.
The commission wrote: “The observations were authorised at a senior level and the task was delegated to the intern in relation to the MFC and OU incident. He declined to be involved in the IT incident.
“The output of the observations fed into analysis conducted by the team, it was discussed with Mr Eckert and others and it was sought as to inform strategy for the match.
“Mr Eckert accepted that he had specifically authorised the observations to obtain information about formation (in the OU incident) and the about the availability of a key player (in the MFC incident). Such information could only be sought in order to factor it into strategy. It is inherent in having information which your opponent would wish to keep private that you have a sporting advantage.
“Junior members of staff were put under pressure to carry out activities they felt were, at the least, morally wrong. Such staff were in a vulnerable position without job security.”
Southampton had claimed they were unaware of the rules about observing other clubs’ training sessions – brought in after Leeds spied on Derby in 2019 – and said they had to be bound by EFL rules.
The FA are now investigating Southampton, which could lead to charges for Eckert.
But the independent disciplinary commission said they had concluded a fine would not have been a sufficient punishment given the value of promotion.
They added: “Public confidence was paramount. We have concluded there was a contrived and determined part from the top down to gain a competitive advantage. It involved far more than an innocent activity and a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members to conduct the clandestine activities of at the direction of senior personnel. The integrity of the play-off competition was seriously violated.”
