The notion of one football club spying on another evokes images of traditional espionage: elusive figures lurking in the shadows, scaling trees, and snapping pictures with long lenses.
However, as Middlesbrough has discovered, sometimes the act of spying can be surprisingly simple.
Recently, the EFL charged Southampton for allegedly spying on their Championship play-off rivals just 48 hours ahead of their semi-final first-leg clash at Riverside Stadium.
This incident recalls a similar situation from 2019, involving Leeds United‘s manager, Marcelo Bielsa, who admitted to sending staff to spy on every team throughout the season.
So, what exactly transpired at Middlesbrough’s training facilities? And what sort of consequences should Southampton anticipate?
What did Southampton allegedly do?
The alleged spy traversed from the golf club to a vantage point overlooking Middlesbrough’s training pitches before he was detected.
Middlesbrough trains at Rockliffe Hall, a vast facility located near Darlington that also serves as a luxury hotel and golf resort owned by Chairman Steve Gibson. Its public accessibility makes clandestine observation rather less challenging.
According to sources from the BBC, on Thursday morning, a supposed spy, reportedly a Southampton analyst, parked at the golf club and made his way to an elevated area overlooking the training fields.
While some reports suggest the alleged spy was hiding in the bushes, the situation may not be as dramatic. Sources indicated that the individual stood at the top of the hill adjacent to the training grounds, providing an unobstructed view of the pitches—ideal for not-so-secret observation.
Eyewitness accounts suggest the suspicious figure was taking videos on his phone while wearing in-ear headphones, leading Middlesbrough staff to suspect he might have been live-streaming the training session.
According to the BBC, when a Middlesbrough staff member approached the individual, he did not identify himself, quickly deleted content from his phone, and fled into the golf club. He then reportedly changed his clothes in the bathroom before making a hasty exit.
Middlesbrough’s photographer captured images of the individual and allegedly identified him using a profile from Southampton’s website, while CCTV footage likely corroborates the account. Furious, Middlesbrough reported the incident to the EFL.
Since Southampton’s squad was not scheduled to fly north until Friday, this suggests the spying was a preemptive strategy.
What punishment might Southampton face?
Proven instances of spying are rare in football, with the phenomenon becoming more noticeable post-2019 when Leeds United was fined £200,000 for “not acting in good faith” by observing opponents’ training sessions ahead of matches.
Leeds’ Bielsa openly acknowledged the action and even covered the fine himself. Before then, no specific regulations existed to address spying in football.
In response, the EFL established rule 127, prohibiting clubs from observing or attempting to observe another team’s training sessions within 72 hours of a match.
On Friday, Southampton was charged with violating rule 127 and rule 3.4, which requires clubs to treat each other with the utmost good faith. Typically, clubs have 14 days to respond to such charges; however, the EFL has requested that an independent disciplinary commission expedite the case.
While it remains unclear what penalties the EFL could impose if the allegations are substantiated, Leeds’ fine serves as a precedent, albeit predating specific regulations.
At present, there appears to be no indication that Southampton could be disqualified from the play-offs.
Football’s most renowned spying incident occurred during the 2024 Olympics in Paris, when New Zealand’s women’s team noticed a drone flying above their training prior to their match against Canada. French police traced the drone back to a member of Canada’s staff, resulting in the head coach being suspended and two staff members were sent home. Additionally, FIFA docked six points from Canada and fined Canada Soccer 200,000 Swiss francs (£189,000). The suspended coach and staff members received a one-year ban from football.
How do clubs secure their training grounds?
Middlesbrough’s experience highlights how effectively safeguarding training sessions depends significantly on the surrounding environment.
Rockliffe Hall’s open leisure facilities make it difficult to maintain a secure base for training. The adjacent hill further complicates establishing privacy, making it evident that screens alone would not suffice.
Conversely, top Premier League clubs invest substantially in security. Gaining any insight into Manchester United training at Carrington would require a high-powered lens, particularly given the upgrades made since the anti-Glazer protests in 2021 that prompted enhanced security measures.
Mansions with expansive perimeters enclosed by high fences and dense shrubs surround their training grounds. Clubs are also aware of drone threats—both using them in their training and taking precautions to ban them from nearby airspace.
At Chelsea, electric gates, fencing, and thick hedges collectively deter unauthorized access to their Cobham training facilities. They even employ curtains to block views from a nearby railway bridge, although reports indicate that they still faced trespassers as recently as May 2025.
Arsenal employs security personnel at their training ground, fortified with high fences and shrubbery for added protection. Similarly, Manchester City’s facility boasts fortified walls and around 3,000 meters of security fencing, ensuring that outsiders cannot view any activities without security clearance.
Liverpool’s AXA Training Centre is well-guarded with specialized fencing that enhances privacy for training sessions.
Teams preparing for international competition often use screens to safeguard their training sessions against prying eyes. For instance, during the 2018 World Cup in Russia, England raised the height of their security fences from six feet to thirteen feet to deter unwanted observers.
Ultimately, as demonstrated by Middlesbrough’s predicament, effective protection against spying largely hinges on one’s environment.