Could Southampton be kicked out of play-offs over Spygate?

For Southampton, it must be business as usual - even if the celebrations on Tuesday were, for obvious reasons, slightly muted.

On Wednesday morning, the club launched a play-off final merchandise range on their website, though there was no promotion across social media.

Tickets for the final will go on sale on Thursday morning - for a match their fans might end up not attending.

At least Saints head coach Tonda Eckert can carry on with some semblance of normality. He has a game to prepare for.

Boro remain in a state of limbo until the independent disciplinary commission convenes.

Rather than continuing to train, BBC Sport understands that the immediate plan is for the players to be given a few days off.

The squad will have to remain on call. They cannot jet off to Dubai, Ibiza or any of the other regular haunts of football stars.

From the outset, Boro have made it clear they expect Southampton to get a sporting sanction. A fine will not be enough to quell their anger.

Boro owner Steve Gibson has reportedly engaged the services of Nick de Marco, the sports lawyer with a record of delivering results in hearings involving the game's governing bodies.

De Marco was recently heavily involved in making sure Sheffield Wednesday would start next season on zero points, when it seemed certain they would get a 15-point deduction.

This time De Marco would be arguing in favour of a penalty, rather than trying to get one removed.

If Gibson does not get the result he wants with the independent disciplinary commission, matters may not end there.

In 2021, Boro launched legal proceedings against Derby County. They claimed the Rams' financial breaches had cost them a play-off place in 2018-19.

The two parties eventually reached a "resolution", which BBC Sport believes resulted in Boro being paid £2m.

If Southampton keep their place in the play-offs, it would be no surprise if Gibson pursued the same route for compensation.

What options are open to the independent disciplinary commission?

Image caption,

Middlesbrough boss Kim Hellberg believes action must be taken against Southampton

The EFL is desperate for the uncertainty to end.

But this is now in the hands of an independent disciplinary commission.

The process is managed by Sport Resolutions, an independent mediation company.

The panel is made up for three members. The chair is usually a judge, lawyer or barrister who is a KC or QC. They sit with two side members who are sports lawyers, barristers or mediators.

Appointments are based on suitability and availability, especially in cases like this which need to be heard quickly.

The independent disciplinary commission will determine the exact timeline - but this is never made public.

But it is highly unlikely the play-off final could be rearranged. Wembley is booked up the following weekend, after which players will head off on international duty.

So this must be sorted well before 23 May.

The EFL has asked for an expedited hearing, while Southampton have argued they need more time to hold an internal review.

The first hearing needs to take place sooner rather than later, as all parties categorised by the independent disciplinary commission as holding an interest must have the right of appeal - and that could include Middlesbrough.

Any ruling from an appeal is considered final. EFL rules do not permit the case to be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Then there is the logistical nightmare of Boro potentially having to sell a ticket allocation at short notice.

The question now is what a suitable sanction will be - if Southampton are found to be guilty.

No one can predict what the outcome can be, because there is no direct precedent.

The independent disciplinary commission will, in effect, be creating it - which adds further significance to their decision.

Unlike, say, a profit and sustainability hearing, there is no framework or sliding scale of offence-to-sanction. This is completely new.

When Leeds United were found guilty of spying on Derby seven years ago, they were fined £200,000.

But there are a couple of crucial differences.

Firstly, in 2019 there was no rule which outlawed watching the opposition train before a game.

Leeds could only be charged with breaching regulation E.4, which says clubs must act in the "utmost good faith" to one another.

As a result, the EFL brought in regulation 127, which specifically states "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".

Southampton are charged with breaching both, and they have made no attempt to deny the allegations.

Then there is the timing. Leeds boss Marcelo Bielsa was caught sending a member of his staff to Derby's training ground in the middle of January, hardly a crucial point of the season.

But Saints stand accused of spying on their opponents before one of the most important games of the season, a play-off semi-final.

The feeling at Boro is that if Saints go on to beat Hull and win promotion, the Premier League millions will more than offset any fine.

Boro want Southampton thrown out of the play-offs.

That would most likely be facilitated by Boro being given a default 3-0 win for the first leg, and therefore a 4-2 aggregate victory.

It is rare in English football, but in 2002 West Bromwich Albion were awarded a 3-0 win after their game against Sheffield United was abandoned.

The Blades had three players sent off, and two others went off injured who could not be replaced, which left them below the minimum seven players.

Another option is a points penalty. This could be seen as a halfway house, whereby the independent disciplinary commission dodges the nuclear option of banishing Southampton from the play-offs but still applies a sporting sanction.

If Saints get promoted, the EFL would not be able to apply the penalty in the top flight itself, but it can recommend to the Premier League board that the deduction is carried over.

The independent disciplinary commission must find a punishment which is fair but also acts as a deterrent to any other club who might try to spy - especially before a game of such magnitude.

Could Southampton's coaching staff face sanctions?

Southampton have been tight-lipped throughout, with the club's media officer shutting down attempts to question Eckert.

And the coaching staff do have questions to answer.

Who knew what, and when? Was there a live stream? Was it uploaded anywhere?

Southampton may try to argue that the spy was acting as a lone wolf, who took it upon himself to travel up to the Rockliffe Park training base 24 hours before the squad flew up.

Hellberg clearly disagrees. He insisted after Tuesday's game that "there's someone who makes decisions to go and try to cheat".

There is a precedent from perhaps football's most high-profile case of spying, from the 2024 Olympics women's tournament in Paris.

Fifa deducted six points from Canada after they were found to have spied on New Zealand using a drone.

World football's governing body also banned three members of Canada's staff, including the head coach, from all football for a year.

Could the independent disciplinary commission deliver hand bans to members of the Southampton coaching staff too?

One argument is that Southampton's fans do not deserve this. That they have followed their team all season, and across 48 games their team have earned the right to play for a place in the Premier League.

Yet without sporting sanctions, it risks creating a Wild West where clubs can pretty much do what they want.

Is there any real punishment if Saints are in the Premier League next season?

How this all ends is anyone's guess.