May 28 – The controversy surrounding the Southampton spygate case that saw the club kicked out of the Championship play-off final for the Premier League by the English Football League (EFL) and given a four-point deduction for the start of next season, is not dying down.
At the weekend news broke that one of the three-person independent commission that recommended the sanction was a former Middlesbrough player turn sports lawyer, David Winnie, who played one match on loan for Middlesbrough in 1994.
In a separate complaint to the EFL Southampton fan Dave Davies lists multiple examples of Middlesbrough having engaged in exclusive contracts to research, develop and utilize AI and Machine Learning to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other clubs.
He argues that Middlesbrough have long been in breach of EFL law124.1 which states: “No Club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in League matches or matches in any other recognised competition.”
The Southampton spygate case is becoming a major challenge to the EFL’s governance and the integrity of it disciplinary function. It is a case that now goes to the heart of the fundamental legal concept of Natural Justice that frames procedural fairness.
In Winnie’s case it is hard to believe that his connection with Middlesbrough, no matter how brief, and rather than recuse himself from the independent panel, he chose to sit on it. It is unclear whether those who appointed the panel knew he had been a Middlesbrough player.
Winnie rejects claims of bias, saying that his appearance for Middlesbrough had no bearing on his ability to judge the case objectively based on the evidence and EFL regulations.
Former Kings Council and High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn, who has never played for Southampton but is a fan of the club, in two different Op-eds published by Insideworldfootball questions both the EFL’s judgement which he calls a “substantial injustice” and the remarkable presence of Winnie on the independent panel which “gives the appearance of bias”.
He writes in his Op-ed: “I think that Mr Winnie’s previous connection with Middlesbrough as an actual player is such that he should be deemed to have an interest in the result of the proceedings, leading to his automatic disqualification and the setting aside of the decision of the tribunal without any further investigation.
“Mr Winnie had a duty of disclosure, and it is quite wrong for him to suggest that the burden was on Southampton to discover his connection and then make an objection.”
See:
Op-ed: Sir Nicholas Mostyn. Southampton FC – Admiral Byng is shot again
Op-ed addendum: Demonising Saints and the appearance of bias
Davies’ complaint to the EFL argues that “the technology that Teesside University in partnership with Middlesbrough FC have developed seems to be far in advance of anything available to other clubs and therefore enables an unfair competitive advantage over other teams who do not have this technology.”
He also highlights text from one of the research partners engaged by Middlesbrough saying:
“Middlesbrough FC gains a competitive edge by combining supervised machine learning with business intelligence dashboards, developed in collaboration with Teesside University. This framework helps the coaching staff predict match outcomes, track tactical patterns, identify undervalued talent, and monitor physiological data to prevent player injuries.”
Davies goes on to reference a Middlesbrough statement that the accusation of spying “goes to the heart of sporting integrity and fair competition. In these circumstances, the only appropriate response is a sporting sanction which would prevent Southampton FC from participating in the EFL Championship play-off final.”
Davies, who filed his initial complaint to the EFL before the play-off semi-final between Saints and Boro was played, says that “the statement made by Middlesbrough FC is absurd when it is not yet known of there was any tactical advantage; Middlesbrough’s FC tactic has been to have no set formation etc as detailed in the many online posts about their tactics, and their statement that they went to other clubs training grounds to copy ideas. It is a further breach of rule 3.4 for Middlesbrough to be initiating an effective trial by media without the full facts being known publicly.”
The FA is now reviewing the case. They will need to do so carefully as the legality, morality and scale of the EFL’s decision and the multiple (and deliberate?) procedural failures goes to the heart of whether the EFL is fit for purpose when it comes to governing the high stakes business of its league.
Southampton have been bloodied, viciously beaten and given a governing body sanction the scale and real-world impact of which no other club in English football has ever received before. The FA could compound this further with their investigation and any subsequent sanction – it would perhaps follow the despotic way the world is run in these uncertain times.
So far Southampton have largely kept their own council, but even in the soft underbelly of the South of England there is a fury and a sense of injustice that is unlikely to be contained.
Contact the writer of this story at [email protected]