Spygate: The Repercussions for Football Clubs and Bettors

By Kevin Pullein

Southampton will play another season in the Championship. It is their fault, they did something underhand. They will suffer the consequences – but so did many people who had backed them to win promotion to the Premier League.

Let us start by recapping what happened.

Southampton qualified for the 2025-26 Championship playoffs and faced Middlesbrough in the semi-finals.

On 7th May, two days before the first leg, a Southampton analyst was seen spying on a Middlesbrough training session. On 8th May Southampton were charged with breaking two EFL regulations.  One was general, the other specific. They were:

“3.4 In all matters and transactions relating to The League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and The League with the utmost good faith…”

And:

“127.1 … 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.”

The first leg between Middlesbrough and Southampton was drawn 0-0. On 12th May, after extra time, Southampton won the second leg 2-1.

A week later, on 19th May, an EFL Disciplinary Commission expelled Southampton from the playoffs and reinstated Middlesbrough. They also deducted four points from Southampton’s total for the next regular season. The following day a League Arbitration Panel rejected an appeal by Southampton. On 23rd May Middlesbrough played in the final and lost 1-0 to Hull, who were promoted.

Where off-field interventions and betting disputes collide

Some bookmakers made discretionary payments or refunds. Others did not. We received complaints about two markets: to be promoted and to qualify from the semi-final between Southampton and Middlesbrough.

We said that some bets on promotion should be voided: those struck after the semi-finals had been completed but before Southampton were expelled. Between those dates there were only two teams in the market: Southampton and the winners of the other semi-final, Hull. We said these bets were for a contest that did not take place. After Southampton were kicked out and Middlesbrough ushered back in, it became possible for the market to be won by a team who had not been in the market. We said this would be unfair.

But we also said that other bets on promotion should stand. For those bets, the market winner was a team who had been in the market, and each team in the market could have been the winner.

Middlesbrough backers therefore got two bites of the cherry. Middlesbrough lost their semi-final but still played in the final and could have won promotion. Hull backers also enjoyed a sweeter sensation. According to bookmakers, Hull were more likely to beat Middlesbrough than they would have been to beat Southampton.

But Southampton backers were left with a sour taste in their mouth. Many asked for their bets to be voided, arguing that they should not lose because of something that happened off the pitch.

A lot of bets, though, can be affected by developments off the pitch. At the end of the regular season Leicester were relegated from the Championship because of a points deduction. Without it they would have stayed up. Three seasons before the same thing had happened to Reading. Because of those off-field decisions some bets became losers, but others became winners. Off-field punishments are not universally bad for bettors – they hinder some but help others. They are part of the rough and tumble of betting. Usually we do not feel it is unfair for bets to be settled on what has actually happened, irrespective of why that has happened.

The other market we received complaints about was qualification from the semi-final between Southampton and Middlesbrough.

Principles of betting fairness

Among the principles we always try to apply are these: if there are no winning bets in a market there should not be any losing bets, and if a market was designed for only one winning selection there should not be two winning selections. Breaking the first principle would be unfair to bettors, breaking the second principle would be unfair to bookmakers.

We have to remind some bookmakers of the first when a match is abandoned. If a market has not been fully resolved and there are no winning bets there should not be any losing bets. All bets should be void. If play stopped in the second half there will be some bets in the half-time/full-time market that could no longer have won. But they should still be voided, not settled as lost, because the match did not finish and there were no winning bets. There are bettors who get a fortunate refund. Either some bets win and other bets lose, or all bets are void.

The second principle becomes relevant when a result is overturned after an investigation.

It was known that Southampton were subject to disciplinary proceedings, which would have to be completed fairly soon. But often it is not known if anyone will later be thrown out of or put back into a competition. And when hearings and appeals begin, they can drag on for ages. We still do not know who in the fulness of time the record books will say were declared winners of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations. Will it be Morocco or Senegal? The Court of Arbitration for Sport will listen to further arguments in October.

Identifying a fair point for irreversible bet settlement

There is an old convention in most sports that bets are settled on the result when an event has finished, and not resettled if the result is changed afterwards. It is not perfect, but it is less imperfect than any of the alternatives.

If a bookmaker has paid one set of bettors they would never be able to get all the money back – and they would not be thanked for trying. This could be days, weeks, months, even years afterwards. When a result is overturned, some bookmakers volunteer to pay a second set of bettors. It is their choice. We do not feel they should be forced to. They have already paid one winning selection in a market intended for only one winning selection.

Anyone who had backed Southampton to qualify from their semi-final was paid after the final whistle in extra time of the second leg. A week later many who had backed Middlesbrough asked to be paid as well. Most were not, and we agreed that they should not be. We could understand their disappointment, but we could not think of a fair and practical way of removing their disappointment.

There are always losers and winners. And not only in betting. On 16th August Southampton will start this Championship campaign at Watford. On 22nd August Hull will start this Premier League campaign at home to Manchester United.