Southampton are dealing with the consequences of their expulsion from the play-offs by the EFL.

The league charged the Saints for spying, and an independent committee decided to remove the team from the fight for promotion to the Premier League.

Middlesbrough claimed that they had captured a Hampshire staff member filming their pre-match training session ahead of the first leg of their semi-final meeting.

Boro produced photographic evidence of a man standing beside a tree with a phone, filming their training field prior to the two clubs’ encounter at the Riverside.

Tonda Eckert’s team won 2-1 on aggregate against the Teesside club, but their chances of returning to the top division are ended after they also lost on appeal.

Kim Hellberg’s team has taken their position, and they will meet Hull City this weekend, with both clubs hoping to return to the Premier League for the first time since 2017.

The EFL has released the formal reasons for Southampton’s play-off ejection.

The EFL has released written reasons for their decision to expel Southampton from the play-offs, dismissing evidence presented by the club that information obtained through spying was not used to inform their strategy for the three games in which they admitted to using these tactics.

The Saints acknowledged to spying on Oxford United, Ipswich Town, and Middlesbrough, with Eckert criticised by the commission for his active involvement in the practice, as well as his claim that he was uninformed of the EFL’s spying laws.

“It involved far more than innocent activity and a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff to conduct the clandestine observations at the direction of senior personnel,” the commission wrote, via the Daily Mail.

“The footage and observations were transmitted, disseminated internally, and analyzed.

“The Commission is not persuaded that this is an exceptional case in which there is evidence that the material was not used and hence provided no sports benefit.

“The Commission believes that the evidence shows that the findings of the observations were incorporated into the team’s analysis, discussed with Mr Eckert and others, and sought to inform the match strategy.”

“Mr Eckert recognized, as he must, that sensitive information such as team selection and injuries is something a club would like to keep private in the lead-up to a game. He also said that he had explicitly authorized the observations to gather information about formation (in the Oxford incident) and the availability of a key player (in the Middlesbrough incident).

“We were unconvinced by some of (Southampton’s) witnesses’ claims that they were uninformed that their acts violated the rules.

“(Southampton) is a member of the EFL and has agreed to be bound by the Rules.”

Eckert’s job at Southampton is now jeopardised as a result of the controversy, and the 33-year-old may face a ban from football.

The Football Association has launched an inquiry into the individuals involved in the matter, with the commission’s written reasons for its decision implicating the 33-year-old in the practice of spying.

Eckert took on his first management post last November, when he replaced Will Still on an interim basis.

He soon gained a permanent role after only a few weeks, and he led Hampshire to fourth place in the Championship table.

However, Eckert’s position is now in peril, and he may be fired by the club as a result of the level of fury he is experiencing.

Southampton has also received a four-point deduction punishment for next season, putting them at the bottom of the table before a single ball has been kicked.

Tonda Eckert’s career in management would never recover from the Southampton case.

Eckert had swiftly established himself as a promising young coach at Southampton, but this scandal has undone all of that.

If the 33-year-old ever wants to return to management after the consequences from this case, prospective new teams will be hesitant to trust him.

The potential of a football ban from the FA is devastating to his career, and the independent commission’s written reasons construct a picture that does not represent Eckert in a positive light.

Defending his position by claiming he was unaware of the rules was a weak explanation, and it’s no wonder that the commission rejected it during the hearing.