Eckert admitted authorising the spying on rival teams
Southampton's spying on rival clubs was authorised by head coach Tonda Eckert. was a "contrived and determined plan from the top down to gain a competitive advantage", an independent disciplinary commission says.
The commission also criticised the club's "deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff" to "conduct the clandestine observation".
Saints wereexpelled from the Championship play-offsafter admitting observing opponents' training sessions. have been deducted four points in the Championship next season.
Written reasons explaining the commission's finding have now been published by the English Football League.
Eckert "accepted that he had specifically authorised the observations". which had "seriously violated" the integrity of the competition, the commission said in the explanation of why it applied such a serious sanction.
In addition to the expulsion and point penalty punishments, a reprimand was also imposed on Southampton.
This was not just because other teams had been spied on,. "because of the way in which junior members of staff were put under pressure to carry out activities which they felt were morally wrong", the commission stated.
The whole matter only arose after a junior member of staff was spotted secretly watching Middlesbrough at their training ground.
Spygate: Who is Tonda Eckert and can he keep his job?
Southampton admitted spying on three rivals' training sessions – Oxford United. Ipswich Town earlier in the season, and then Middlesbrough before the first leg of the play-off semi-finals.
Their expulsion from the play-offs meant Middlesbrough - who they beat in the semi-final – were reinstated. They will meet Hull City in Saturday's final, for a place in the Premier League.
Southampton were unsuccessful in an appeal against the decision.
In the club's initial response to the EFL, Southampton said the conduct was not part of the culture at St Mary's. that no video was captured, transmitted, shared or analysed. Southampton subsequently acknowledged this was inaccurate, said the commission, which stated the reality was that "the opposite was the case".
Southampton are also said to have "placed reliance" on a previous sanction handed down to Leeds United, whoreceived a £200,000 finefor spying on opponents,. the panel pointed out that was before the regulations Southampton had breached were introduced.
The first determination is perhaps the most damning. It indicated a pattern of behaviour.
The independent disciplinary commission said: "We have concluded that there was, on the part of the respondent [Southampton], a contrived. determined plan from the top down to gain a competitive advantage in competitions of real significance by deliberate attendance at opposition training grounds for the purpose of obtaining tactical and selection information.
"It involved far more than innocent activity. a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff to conduct the clandestine observations at the direction of senior personnel.
"There was transmission and internal dissemination and analysis of footage and observations."
Southampton made submissions which they said proved the information had not altered the team selection. nor had it resulted in sporting advantage, shown by the poor first-half performance at Middlesbrough. This was rejected.
The most damning section for the Southampton head coach comes in the second determination of the judgement.
This states the German not only knew about the spying, but also had given his blessing.
Eckert was shown to have approved spying on Oxford to discover their formation after they had just changed manager.
In the case of Middlesbrough. he wanted to find out about the availability of a certain player - presumably Hayden Hackney, who had been out injured for several weeks.
The commission said: "Mr Eckert accepted that he had specifically authorised the observations to obtain information about formation (in the Oxford incident). about the availability of a key player (in the Middlesbrough incident).
"Such information could only be sought in order to factor it into strategy. [and] whether the information confirms a strategy, is disregarded as unreliable or leads to a change of strategy does not, in our view alter the wrong which is committed when such information is sought.
"It is inherent in having information which your opponent would wish to keep private that you have a sporting advantage."
As Southampton did not win any of the three games. there was an argument that the club had achieved no sporting success.
However, the independent commission rejected this.
It argued that "sporting advantage is different from sporting success".
By this. the commission meant that the act of trying to gain information through spying, with the intention of gaining an advantage, was a standalone consideration.
A team going on to win, lose or draw does not matter in relation to the intention.
The commission considered that Southampton had been co-operative. had shown remorse, but noted this had been "tempered by an initial misleading response".
The day after the club had sent a spy to Middlesbrough, Southampton "provided inaccurate information, suggesting that the conduct was not part of SFC's culture. that no video footage was captured, transmitted, shared or analysed, when in fact the opposite was the case".
In addition. the independent disciplinary commission said it was "unimpressed" that Southampton tried to claim members of staff did not know about regulation 127, which states a team must not try to observe an opponent in training within 72 hours of a fixture.
It noted: "The respondent [Southampton] is a member of the EFL and has agreed to be bound by the rules."
Boro boss relieved 'right thing done' over Spygate
FA opens Southampton investigation over Spygate
Latest Southampton news and analysis
Listen to Southampton content on BBC Sounds
Discussion
Sign in to join the thread, react, and share images.