Sports law experts at Knights believe that whatever the outcome of today’s appeal hearing, this is unlikely to be the end of the matter.
The second-tier side were charged by the EFL after they admitted spying on three of their opponents this season – including Middlesbrough, who they beat in the play-off semi-final.
The club were charged with breaching two EFL regulations:
- EFL Regulation 3.4; which requires clubs to act towards each other with the utmost good faith
- EFL Regulation 127; which prohibits any club from observing, or attempting to observe, another club’s training session within 72 hours of a scheduled match between the two clubs
As well as being expelled from the final, Southampton have also been docked four points ahead of the start of next season.
This is the first time an EFL club has been charged under the new Regulation 127. Leeds United faced a similar set of allegations in 2019 but there was not specific “spying” prohibition written into the league rules and regulations at the time.
Andrew Broadbent is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution team at Knights. He said:
“Southampton have lodged an appeal which will be heard today (20 May 2026) by a separate League Arbitration Panel. Under EFL Regulation 96.5, this panel have authority to uphold the original decision, overturn, set aside or substitute the ruling, or order a full rehearing.
“The EFL Regulations do not, subject to very narrow exceptions, allow for appeal to outside bodies such the European Court of Arbitration for Sport and so, in principle at least, all involved should know where they stand after the appeal is concluded. However, it appears likely that claims might follow, and it is expected that the Football Association will step in to investigate - and potentially punish - the individuals involved.
“Understandably, some commentators have referred to when Leeds United admitted to spying on Derby County in 2019. On that occasion, Leeds received a £200,000 fine with no further punishment being handed out.
“However, Leeds was only charged under the wider "good faith" EFL Regulation 3.4. The regulation relating specifically to "spying" was subsequently introduced on the back of the Leeds incident.
As to the fact that Southampton have admitted to spying on other opponents this season, it should be noted that Marcelo Bielsa, Leeds manager at the time, admitted that Leeds had spied on all of their opponents in the relevant season. However, he maintained that no specific rules had been broken – Southampton do not, of course, have the benefit of such an argument given the introduction of Regulation 127.”
Senior Associate Daniel Baker says the outcome, in terms of liability, is unsurprising:
“The sanction is one of the heaviest available to the Commission – with the club appeal suggesting they believe the sanction to be disproportionate given the severity of the offence and the sporting advantage gained.
“This is an extraordinary case as, if a Southampton appeal is unsuccessful, the impact will be devastating, economically ruinous and far-reaching.
“Not only will the club immediately lose the financial opportunities that promotion to the Premier League offers but the decision is significantly damaging in terms of reputation and integrity – with further disciplinary proceedings potentially on the cards as a result.
"Supporters of all clubs involved are stuck in a state of limbo and many will be significantly out of pocket given travel and accommodation arrangements made ahead of the final. The uncertainty is causing financial hardship to many.”
He adds:
“The EFL Handbook is not prescriptive in terms of the sanction applicable for a breach of Regulation 127, hence why expectations varied in terms of the expected sanction. It appears that any discount applied in terms of mitigation and Southampton admitting the charges ultimately did not save Southampton from the heaviest sanction being consider appropriate by the Commission.
“Whilst full details of the Commission’s decision and written reasons have not, at the time of writing, been published, making it difficult to know the prospects of the appeal, Southampton will likely focus on the proportionality of the expulsion sanction decision. Southampton might contend that the Commission rushed its decision (it was reported that Southampton sought and were denied additional time to investigate the matter), that the sanction decision was procedurally flawed and/or that the sanction was unprecedented in terms of its severity.
“Any outcome with the appeal is likely to have far-reaching consequences either way. The appeal panel will either side with the original Commission decision in terms of the focus on integrity, the need to set a firm precedent setting out the consequences of engaging in such conduct in the future and reject the appeal, or the sanction may be reduced to a lesser and alternative sporting sanction.”