![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/0_Southampton-v-Middlesbrough-EFL-Sky-Bet-Championship-Play-Off-Semi-Final-Second-Leg-Football-St.jp.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nSouthampton will soon face a hearing for the charges for alleged spying on Middlesbrough training<\/p>\n
The EFL Puma match ball ahead of a play-off match(Image: Simon Dael\/Shutterstock)<\/p>\n
The EFL hearing for Southampton will get under way in the coming days, with Middlesbrough<\/a>\u2019s appeal to intervene being rejected by the independent disciplinary commission.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t a legal case, but to make an understandable comparison, if it were: Middlesbrough are the victim – their evidence will be heard, but they won\u2019t take the witness stand.<\/p>\n The EFL are the prosecutor, while Southampton are the defendant. The independent disciplinary commission are the judge and jury.<\/p>\n While expressing their regret at not being allowed to present their evidence in person in a statement on Friday, Boro<\/a> also called for the EFL to pursue the harshest possible punishment on Southampton – expulsion from the play-offs.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s fair to say that, from Boro\u2019s point of view, a case from earlier this season sets an interesting precedent that would mean, if the EFL don\u2019t do exactly that, then they would face serious scrutiny.<\/p>\n The case in question is that of Swindon Town and the charges they faced for fielding two ineligible players in the EFL Trophy match. The written reasons published after the hearing of that case – in which the independent disciplinary commission ultimately decided to expel Swindon from the competition – tell us a lot about Southampton\u2019s upcoming hearing, and what we might expect.<\/p>\n First of all in Swindon\u2019s case, they ultimately accepted the charges they faced. Their defence in mitigation was that both instances were merely administrative errors. They hadn\u2019t intended to breach regulations or gain an unsporting advantage.<\/p>\n The written reasons explain that the EFL submitted their referral that the club should be expelled from the competition. The reasons they set out for this were interesting, and relevant to Southampton\u2019s case.<\/p>\n The EFL reminded that principles were set in: the decision in Derby v. EFL (SR\/017\/2020), in which it was decided that \u2018any sanction should serve four purposes: (i) punish the Club for the breach; (ii) vindicate other clubs which had not engaged in conduct that breached the rules; (iii) deter future breaches of the rules, whether the relevant club or by other clubs; and (iv) restore and preserve public confidence in the fairness of EFL competitions\u2019.<\/p>\n The EFL acknowledged that their regulations state that \u2018any sanction should go no further than that which is necessary and proportionate\u2019, they said that the final purpose: public confidence in the fairness of EFL competitions\u2019 was most important.<\/p>\n Swindon\u2019s argument that it was an error, not a deliberate attempt to cheat, mattered little. The disciplinary commission found in favour of the EFL and Swindon were expelled from the EFL Trophy. The team they beat in the game in question, Luton Town, were subsequently reinstated for the quarter final. They subsequently went on to win the whole competition.<\/p>\n In its reasons for its decision, the disciplinary commission acknowledged Swindon\u2019s genuine remorse, but noted, \u2018its focus has been in particular, but not exclusively, on the key issue of the public confidence in the fairness of this season’s EFL Trophy.\u2019<\/p>\n It went on to add: \u201cIn the circumstances, and notwithstanding the points of mitigation submitted by the Club, a fine alone would not be a ‘balanced’ outcome or ‘meet the aim’ of public confidence in a fair competition in this season’s EFL Trophy.\u201d<\/p>\n While Southampton\u2019s alleged offence is a different breach of EFL regulations, it would be fairly argued theirs should be considered worse. Whereas Swindon\u2019s was an administrative error, if proven, Southampton\u2019s would be a premeditated attempt to gain an unfair advantage.<\/p>\n While the EFL won\u2019t get to decide what the potential punishment for Southampton should be if the charges are proven, they decide what they should push the disciplinary commission to do.<\/p>\n The Swindon case ultimately sets a precedent that should put pressure on the EFL to push for Southampton\u2019s expulsion from the play-offs. If not, both Boro and Swindon would have the right to feel particularly aggrieved.<\/p>\n Here at TeessideLive, we are dedicated to bringing you the best Middlesbrough FC<\/a> coverage and analysis.<\/p>\n Make sure you don’t miss out on the latest Boro news by joining our free WhatsApp group. You can get all the breaking news and best analysis sent straight to your phone by clicking here<\/a> to subscribe.<\/p>\n Your information will be hidden, you’ll only ever receive messages from the Teesside Live sports team, and you can leave any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose ‘Exit group’. If you\u2019re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice<\/a>.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/0_Middlesbrough-v-Birmingham-City-Sky-Bet-Championship.jpg\")
Middlesbrough Whatsapp and Newsletter signup<\/p>\n