'Spygate' has dominated the narrative surrounding this season's Championship playoffs, and a plethora of information, allegations and opinions have been thrust into the media over the past few days.
Here, Flashscore collates all the key information, rulings, statements, and what might happen next.
What is 'Spygate'?
The term 'Spygate' or 'Spygate 2.0' refers to Middlesbrough's allegations against playoff rivals Southampton, who have been accused of sending a member of staff to spy on their training session on Thursday, May 7th.
The 2.0 element stems from when Leeds were caught doing something similar to Derby in 2019. That situation has been used as a reference point for a lot of the discourse around Southampton and Middlesbrough this time around.
Middlesbrough reported to the EFL that someone they believed to be an analyst working for Southampton was filming their training session at Rockliffe Hall, where their training pitches are located, next to a luxury spa and golf course.
Plenty of dramatic details have been speculated online, but the most reliable information suggests that their training session was filmed, and the individual fled after being confronted by club staff.
BBC Sport report that Middlesbrough's club photographer took pictures of the individual, and they allegedly matched up the photos to someone on Southampton's website before filing a complaint to the EFL.
Images have since been leaked showing the individual appearing to record the session using his iPhone.
What have the parties involved said?
Middlesbrough have yet to release an official statement, but their complaint to the EFL was acknowledged, and the governing body confirmed they had charged Southampton with a breach of their regulations.
"Southampton Football Club has today been charged with a breach of EFL Regulations, and the matter will be referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission," a statement read.
"This follows a request from the EFL for the Club’s observations after a complaint from Middlesbrough relating to alleged unauthorised filming on private property ahead of the two Clubs meeting in Saturday’s Sky Bet Championship Play-Off Semi-Final First Leg.
"EFL Regulation 3.4, which requires Clubs to act towards each other with the utmost good faith; and
"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."
Southampton responded by saying that they acknowledged the alleged rule breaches and would fully cooperate with the EFL throughout the process.
All of that came before the two clubs drew 0-0 in the first leg of their playoff semi-final at the Riverside Stadium on Saturday (May 9th).
The match offered the first chance for the club's managers to make their own comments to the media.
Middlesbrough boss Kim Hellberg made his feelings clear about the whole situation.
"I think every club in the Championship should be angry about this.
"Some people say it doesn't give you a big advantage. That's wrong. It's a massive advantage. Without it, it would have been impossible for them to know our shape in the first half. We have never used that shape before today.
"I feel sorry for Southampton's supporters and players. They are brilliant and do not deserve to have this thrown back at them.
"They had nothing to do with it, but someone at Southampton has made the decision to go and cheat. That's clear. It's just wrong."
Southampton manager Tonda Eckert took a different approach and said the club had made its statement and no more needed to be added.
When questions about 'Spygate' persisted after the match, he walked out of his press conference, and there was no pre-match press conference for the second leg.
It has been reported by The Telegraph that Southampton have accepted the charge, but claim that the individual was acting of his own accord in a 'lone wolf' manner - although this has not been officially confirmed by the club or the EFL.
Ahead of the second leg, Southampton released the following statement:
"The club is fully cooperating with the EFL and the Disciplinary Commission, whilst also undertaking an internal review to ensure that all facts and context are properly understood.
"Given the intensity of the fixture schedule and the short turnaround between matches, we have requested time to complete that process thoroughly and responsibly.
"We understand the discussion and speculation that has followed over recent days, but we also believe it is important that the full context is established before conclusions are drawn."
Southampton won the second leg of their playoff clash to book a spot in the final against Hull City following a 2-1 triumph at St Mary's Stadium - with Shea Charles netting the winner in extra-time.
Boro boss Hellberg was understandably frustrated after the match and let his feelings be known once again - but Eckert walked out of his press conference for a second time after refusing to answer the question 'Are you a cheat?'
The EFL have now confirmed that a hearing will take place on or before Tuesday, May 19th, where Southampton's actions will be discussed and possibly punished.
"The Independent Disciplinary Commission hearing will take place on or before Tuesday, 19 May. The exact date remains under discussion and is expected to be confirmed shortly.
"The Commission will issue its decision as soon as possible following consideration of the relevant submissions and evidence. As the proceedings are being conducted by an Independent Disciplinary Commission, the EFL does not control the proposed timetable.
"Notwithstanding this, the EFL continues to plan on the basis that the Championship Play-Off Final will take place as scheduled on Saturday 23 May, with the kick-off time confirmed as 4.30 pm (BST).
"Supporters should, however, be aware that the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings may yet result in changes to the fixture.
"The EFL has a number of contingency plans should they be required, which also includes consideration of any appeal process, if required."
This statement leaves plenty open to interpretation - and the fact they haven't ruled out the fixture being rearranged suggests no punishment is yet off the table.
Both Southampton and Hull have released ticket information to supporters despite the outcome of the hearing still being unknown.
What are the potential punishments?
This is where we can look back to the original 'Spygate' between Leeds and Derby in 2019.
Back then, the rules on observing an opponent's training sessions were not so clear, and Leeds ended up with a £200,000 fine, with new regulations put in place to deter spying in the future, the same rules Southampton are now alleged to have breached.
A 14-day period would usually apply for the Saints to respond, but the EFL have fast-tracked the case due to the timing of the playoffs.
The alleged incident occurred just two days before the first leg of the semi-final, and a resolution of some sort would surely be needed well in advance of the final, which is set to be played at Wembley Stadium on Saturday, May 23rd.
The EFL won't comment on an active case, but given Leeds were fined before the specific rules existed, it can be expected that Southampton will likely face at least a fine.
Since they have allegedly breached official rules, it's unclear as to whether or not the EFL will raise the level of punishment.
Another high-profile spying case occurred at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, where Canada's women's football team were caught using a drone to spy on their New Zealand rivals, which resulted in a £189,000 fine, a six-point deduction and three members of staff being banned from football for a year.
Any immediate punishment for Southampton is yet to be announced.
Are other clubs involved?
A report from The Guardian says that other Championship clubs also suspect that they were spied on by Southampton, and have approached Middlesbrough to inform them.
The report says that clubs were surprised at 'the ease with which Southampton adapted to supposedly unexpected team shapes and appeared able to second-guess set-piece routines' - although it also adds that this could have been down to the skillset of manager Eckert, who has experience as an analyst with the German national team.
It remains unclear if anything will come from these extra suspicions, and nothing official has been said yet.
