Freshly released documents have shed more light on Southampton’s controversial spying operation, with evidence suggesting head coach Tonda Eckert played a significant role in initiating the practice.

The club was removed from last season’s Championship playoff race after being found guilty of monitoring training sessions conducted by Oxford United, Ipswich Town, and Middlesbrough. While an investigation by the Football Association remains ongoing, the latest findings from the arbitration panel that dismissed Southampton’s appeal appear to strengthen claims that the initiative originated from within the coaching staff.

Oxford Mission Began the Operation

According to the written findings of the English Football League arbitration panel, the first surveillance assignment took place before Southampton’s Boxing Day meeting with Oxford United.

The report states that Eckert raised the possibility of sending someone to watch Oxford’s training sessions in order to assess the team’s likely setup and determine whether midfielder Cameron Brannagan would be available for selection.

During disciplinary proceedings, Eckert reportedly claimed he had not realized such conduct breached regulations.

The panel explained that the idea was discussed during a meeting involving Southampton’s analysis department. An analyst subsequently identified an intern who would carry out the assignment.

In testimony submitted to investigators, the intern stated he felt unable to refuse the request. He said there was effectively no opportunity to decline and that he believed compliance was expected.

Information Gathered and Shared

After attending two Oxford training sessions, the intern reportedly sent photographs, videos, and regular updates back to Southampton.

The material included observations related to tactical organization and potential team selection choices.

Although Eckert maintained that he never viewed the recorded footage, the panel noted that he held a telephone conversation with the intern after the surveillance work had been completed.

Further evidence included a WhatsApp message from a member of the analysis department encouraging the intern to collect as much information as possible. The message also stated that the “manager loved it,” suggesting the operation had received approval from senior figures.

Ipswich Surveillance Request Rejected by Intern

A second incident occurred in April when Southampton prepared to face Ipswich Town.

With Ipswich training at nearby Eastleigh’s facilities ahead of the match, the same intern was allegedly asked to monitor the session. According to his evidence, he was informed that “the boss is adamant that someone needs to go.”

This time, however, the intern refused the task.

An academy analyst was then selected instead and recorded footage of the training session.

Eckert later told investigators that he only became aware of the footage around two hours before kick-off. He also claimed he believed the material had been captured through Eastleigh’s CCTV system rather than through direct surveillance.

Middlesbrough Incident Became Public

The third and most high-profile case involved Middlesbrough.

The original intern ultimately accepted the assignment, later arguing that refusing could have placed his position within the club at risk. The panel also reported that Eckert criticized him for not immediately travelling north after agreeing to undertake the mission.

The operation eventually attracted widespread attention when the intern was discovered filming Middlesbrough’s training session.

According to the findings, he remained at the location awaiting instructions from Eckert regarding when he should return home. When no such direction arrived, he left independently and boarded a train. It was during that journey that he first became aware of allegations surrounding Southampton’s conduct.

Eckert later argued before the commission that the recordings offered little value because they were filmed from a considerable distance and suffered from poor image quality.

Appeal Rejected as FA Investigation Continues

Southampton’s attempt to overturn its punishment ultimately failed.

The club had challenged both its exclusion from the Championship playoffs and a four-point deduction that will apply during the following Championship campaign. However, the arbitration panel upheld the sanctions.

In its reasoning, the panel concluded that Southampton had gained a sporting advantage through the spying activities, while emphasizing that gaining an advantage is not necessarily the same as achieving success on the pitch.

The panel also pointed to previous cases that justified imposing severe sporting penalties in similar circumstances.

Meanwhile, the Football Association’s investigation remains active, meaning further developments could still emerge from one of English football’s most controversial off-field scandals in recent years.