What is Spygate 2.0? Middlesbrough make complaint against Southampton over ‘unauthorised filming’ before Championship play-offs | OneFootball

The Championship play-offs are here and ‘Spygate 2.0’ has arrived to pack more drama into the Middlesbrough vs Southampton semi-final tie.

There is now greater intrigue surrounding the tie after Boro lodged a complaint against Saints following claims that they spied on training sessions, with the English Football League (EFL) launching an investigation into the allegations.

The sides meet in the Championship play-offs, with the first leg of the semi-final at the Riverside Stadium on Saturday before the return leg at St Mary's Stadium on Tuesday.

The dispute between the clubs brings back memories from 2019 when Marcelo Bielsa’s Leeds United were fined £200,000 by the EFL.

A Leeds member of staff was caught acting suspiciously outside Derby County’s training ground before facing Frank Lampard’s side on 10 January, with the club later apologising.

BBC Sport is reporting that the incident involves a Southampton performance analyst, with the specific nature of the allegations thought to centre around filming and pictures taken to record tactics on Thursday morning.

The staff member was reportedly caught and ordered to delete the footage before being ordered to leave the Rockliffe Park training base. Southampton have been contacted for comment.

open image in gallery

Che Adams of Southampton is challenged by Lukas Engel of Middlesbrough (Getty)

EFL rules specify that "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".

Manager Marcelo Bielsa later admitted when discussing the 2019 incident that he sent a member of staff to watch training sessions of every opponent during the 2018/19 season, with the EFL stating that Leeds failed to treat teams with “good faith”.

Though Bielsa maintains the club did not cheat, and that the decision to observe opponents was merely down to stupidity.

“I observed all the rivals we played against and watched the training sessions of all opponents,” said the Argentine.

“So why did I send someone to watch them? Just because I thought I wasn’t violating the norm. All the information I need to clarify [my tactics] I gather without watching the training session of the opponent … but we feel guilty if we don’t work enough. Watching it [the opponents training] allows us to have less anxiety and, in my case, I am stupid enough to allow this kind of behaviour.”

open image in gallery

Marcelo Bielsa and Frank Lampard fell out over the incident in 2019 (PA)

What has the EFL said?

An EFL statement released on Thursday evening read: "The EFL has written to Southampton FC requesting their observations following a complaint from Middlesbrough FC relating to alleged unauthorised filming ahead of the two clubs meeting in Saturday's Championship play-off semi-final first leg.

"The alleged incident is said to have taken place on Middlesbrough's private property by an individual identified to be associated with Southampton.

"The League is treating this matter as potential misconduct under EFL regulations and will be making no further comment at this time."

What are the EFL’s rules about observing opposition training?

The EFL rule 127 covers "Prohibited Conduct - Observing Training Sessions", and specifies: "Without prejudice to the requirements of Regulation 3.4 (that each Club shall behave towards each other Club with the utmost good faith), 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 scheduled to be played between those respective Clubs."

Regulation 3.4 adds: "In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other and the league with the utmost good faith."

What are the consequences of a team found guilty of spying on opponents?

Leeds were eventually fined £200,000 by the EFL over ‘Spygate 1.0,’ with EFL chief executive Shaun Harvey outlining that the punishment would act as “a clear deterrent” over future conduct in the league.