𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

“It is the closest analogy I can give. But there is a huge difference between being kicked out of the FA Cup and, in monetary terms, the biggest game in football.”

Have there been any precedents?

There have been other incidents in which promotion or the result of a knockout match have been overridden by off-field misdemeanours, but none were deliberate or malicious breaches.

In 1990, Swindon Town were denied promotion to the top division despite winning the play-off final 1-0 against Sunderland. Chairman Gary Herbert admitted 36 charges involving illegal payments to players over five years and Sunderland were promoted instead. Newcastle claimed they should have been promoted as the highest league finishers behind Swindon.

This year, Swindon were kicked out of the EFL Trophy for fielding two ineligible players. Oliver Clarke, who was serving a seven-game suspension, came on as a sub while Aaron Drinan, who started the second half, was not named on the official team sheet. A 2-1 victory was instead recorded as a 3-0 walkover.

In 2014, Cardiff submitted a complaint to the Premier League that their starting line-up had been illegally obtained by Crystal Palace, who had defeated them 3-0, but Palace were only handed a £25,000 fine.

Cardiff complained after their 3-0 defeat to Crystal Palace in 2014 (Steve Bardens/Getty Images)

Given the vast sums clubs in the Premier League earn when TV revenue and prize money is considered, the call to expel Southampton was momentous.

“I can understand why they have reached this sanction,” Chapman added. “Did I for one moment think they would? Probably not. I think most people are surprised. I think they should have postponed the second leg, dealt with the hearing and then they would have had more options available to them.”

Why were Southampton handed two punishments?

Middlesbrough had made clear their intention to sue for loss of opportunity if a meaningful sporting sanction was not administered.

The EFL was able to successfully argue that, as the breaches against Ipswich and Oxford happened in the regular league season and the spying against Middlesbrough happened during the play-off period, they occurred in effect in two separate competitions.

It is why Southampton received two separate punishments.

“It was too late to impose a sporting sanction for the in-season offences, so the panel needed to look at a points deduction for next season,” Chapman said. “Whereas, for cheating in the play-offs, there was still a chance to impose a sporting sanction. They have a very wide range of powers, no different to the Manchester City case where the range of outcomes span expulsion from the Premier League to a slap on the wrist.”

Although there was no domestic comparison available, the scandal that dogged Canada women in 2024 did offer a precedent.

As the reigning Olympic champions, Canada were found to have operated a sophisticated spying operation on their opponents New Zealand by flying drones over their training sessions. They were docked six points, ending their Olympic hopes, with head coach Bev Priestman and two members of her staff banned from football for 12 months by FIFA after an investigation found it had also happened at previous tournaments.

“It is idiotic from Southampton and an easy decision is to refuse the appeal,” says one criminal lawyer looking at the case, who asked to remain anonymous to protect their position.

“The Canada scenario is key to this, establishes a base line and Southampton seemed to have gone further. The rules are also much better codified now and the conduct of Southampton was systemic. At least three times, and planned.”

What are the implications of this decision for Southampton?

Talks are scheduled to take place today between the club’s Serbian owner, Dragan Solak, staff and players.

The futures of manager Tonda Eckert and sporting director Johannes Spors are in major doubt, and The Athletic has been told by multiple sources that many staff members have been left furious at how events have unfolded.

Sport Republic CEO Rasmus Ankersen has not been on the ground much at all, having taken a step back from Southampton in the last year with most of his focus geared towards Turkish club Goztepe, but Southampton’s statement issued on Wednesday promised a thorough review of the club’s culture.

Many Southampton players who remained at the club after relegation last season were subject to relegation clauses that saw their wages cut. Promotion would have provided restoration to their former salary levels or a big bump, and some staff were in line for big paydays, too, all of which will now go unrealised.

It has opened possibility of players potentially suing their own club for lost earnings and some players are already speaking with the PFA to assess their options. Agencies, too, have been seeking to understand the menu of options at their disposal.

Dragan Solak is meeting Southampton players and staff on Thursday (Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

“I’m not sure we are going to see a raft of players suing Southampton for compensation, even if the PFA might argue it,” said Chapman. “Theoretically you can sue for compensation, but there are all sorts of complicated legal hurdles and legal principles like causation and remoteness of damages.

“You would have to argue what would have happened but for the unlawful conduct of the employer. It is quite difficult as there is not a clear rule breach, unlike with the club rule which means the EFL didn’t need to prove the spying caused any benefit.

“They will say we have lost out on that pay rise but they have only, at best, lost out on a 50 per cent chance of that pay rise. They would have to demonstrate that they would have got there.”

They may face the same issue that Nottingham Forest did in their case against a Premier League-imposed points deduction in 2024 when their argument that they delayed the sale of Brennan Johnson until after the PSR accounting deadline because of his importance to the team did not succeed.

What could be more likely is a triggering of clause 11.1 in the standard contract for professional players in England, which states that a player can terminate their contract by 14 days’ notice in writing to the club if the club “shall be guilty of serious or persistent breach of the terms and conditions of this contract…”.

“A good player on a three-year contract who has a market value of £10m could make a strong argument to terminate their contract for what is called just cause,” says Chapman.

“Saying that your employer has cheated and denied you the chance to play in the biggest game in football is a pretty reasonable argument. That could put them in a position as a free agent where they can command a very good deal. Rather than try to sue them for a load of money and all the complexities of that, I wonder if we might see some players considering whether to just terminate and get a good signing-on fee elsewhere.”

There could also be implications for Southampton’s sponsors and commercial partners who could, according to Street, “look at their options, including termination or claims for breach of any reputational damage clauses that sponsors often insist upon”.

What are the implications for the EFL?

Just as the appeal shut down one legal headache, it opened up the potential for several more challenges.

Although Hull will play in Saturday’s final, clubs sources have told The Athletic that they do not believe the EFL’s rules allow for a losing club to be reinstated in these circumstances. As Southampton’s appeal process played out, Hull sought legal advice on whether they should be awarded a walkover as only they have made it to Wembley on sporting merit (they beat Millwall 2-0 on aggregate in the semi-final).

Owner Acun Ilicali gave an interview to Sky Sports on Wednesday outlining how his team have been disadvantaged by the delay in knowing their opponent.

“When you look at the picture, it doesn’t seem too fair that we don’t know who we play and we just focus on Southampton for eight, nine days. And of course, now in two days, we have to change everything.”

There is also the potential that Wrexham could launch a legal challenge on the basis that they finished seventh and were next in line to enter the play-offs, although that is understood to be unlikely.

Ipswich and Oxford could also have a case, but the latter were relegated by a margin of four points so even a default victory being retrospectively applied would not change their fate, and Ipswich won automatic promotion.

Another possible complication is if any more evidence emerges of further spying on teams who missed out on automatic promotion or qualification for the play-offs. With the revenues involved so vast, the attraction to sue is obvious.

“We will have to be ready for anything,” said an EFL source.

Southampton admitted to spying on Ipswich in April (Warren Little/Getty Images)

A contributing factor to Middlesbrough’s anger at Southampton is the fact the latter were already in receipt of Premier League parachute payments. These are worth £49m this season, which Boro believe already bestows them an advantage over the majority of the league.

One EFL chief executive, speaking anonymously to protect their position, posited a novel way to redress that imbalance next season with Southampton due to receive their second payment of £40m this summer.

“Sporting integrity is the core of any league, so violating that needs to be addressed,” they say. “I also think a fine equal to their remaining parachute payment for next season would be a good way of balancing that sporting integrity for next season and not just points.

“I think it’s fair they were expelled, but it means they remain in the Championship next season with another year of the parachute payment benefit, so that doesn’t really help the other clubs still in the league.”

There is another knock-on effect of Southampton not returning to the Premier League at the first time of asking. Had they won promotion, the second year of parachute payments would have been recycled across the top division — a dividend of £2m per team. Those clubs will now not receive that payment.

How has the verdict been received within football?

Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish’s X post of an exploding head emoji captured the feeling across most of English football.

The Athletic has spoken to a wide range of figures within the sport, from executive level to players, to gauge reaction, although all wanted to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the case.

One Premier League executive said: “They’ve been massive d***heads and bought a ticket for the punishment lottery, especially post-Leeds. But the punishment is absolutely massive and is a big headaches for the EFL. Can they re-legislate the whole league?

“I do have sympathy for the EFL. There’s a rule and Saints cheated in the play-offs, a separate competition. What could they do? Cheating ahead of a £200m tournament is bad but here’s a £500k fine? That would be open season for everyone else to do it.”

An EFL sporting director said they were “glad they have gone hard, but it also seems very harsh” but a lawyer with experience in regulatory cases believes the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.

“I didn’t see any way Middlesbrough would get back in because there were so many off-ramps for the EFL,” they said. “I don’t think many neutrals would have complained had they been heavily fined and given a points deduction next year. Considering the Leeds case, it seems so draconian.

Marcelo Bielsa admitted to ordering spying on Derby in 2019 (Lindsey Parnaby/AFP via Getty Images)

“The specific law makes it easier to find a breach, but it doesn’t then follow that the sanction has to be this heavy. It is more or less saying that had the analyst not done that, Middlesbrough would have won the game, but that is so hard to prove.”

There is universal sympathy with the Southampton players.

“It’s nuts,” says one Championship player. “I really feel for the players as it has absolutely nothing to do with them. They risk the loss of life-changing earnings. I don’t know why they couldn’t have just immediately banned those involved and let the players do their bit.”

What kind of precedent does this set legally?

The primary concern among lawyers is about how quickly this process has been fast-tracked. Had this not happened in the play-off bubble, it would have been no surprise for the process to have taken months to complete.

“In this case both the original commission and the appeals panel has had to rush through a decision,” says Chapman. “They may well have done a brilliant job in the circumstances but I’d be amazed if we don’t see satellite litigation coming from the consequences.