'Spygate' has dominated the narrative surrounding this season's Championship play-offs and a plethora of information, allegations and opinions have been thrust into the media.
Here, Flashscore collates all the key information, rulings, statements and outcomes.
What is 'Spygate'?
The term 'Spygate' or 'Spygate 2.0' refers to Middlesbrough's allegations against play-off 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?
The first official recognition of Spygate was when the EFL publicly acknowledged Middlesbrough's complaint 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 play-off 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.
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 play-off 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?'
Middlesbrough then called for Southampton to be removed from the play-offs completely in a strong statement from the club.
"The conduct at issue, namely the observation and recording of our training session ahead of a fixture of such significance, goes to the heart of sporting integrity and fair competition.
"In these circumstances, the only appropriate response is a sporting sanction which would prevent Southampton FC from participating in the EFL Championship play-off final.
"We remain hopeful that the EFL, as regulator, will pursue such a sanction before the Disciplinary Commission in order to protect the integrity of the game, safeguard all member clubs, and deter any attempt in the future to obtain an unfair and unlawful advantage in pursuit of promotion to the Premier League."
The official hearing took place on Tuesday, 19th May - just four days before the scheduled play-off final - to determine what punishment Southampton might face.
The result of the hearing was quickly spread online, with Southampton admitting to multiple breaches of filming other clubs' training sessions, meaning their spying went beyond just the first leg against Middlesbrough.
Various reports have revealed that Southampton also admitted to spying ahead of fixtures with Oxford (December 2025) and Ipswich (April 2026).
As a result, the Saints have been expelled from the play-off final and handed a four-point deduction for the start of next season. Middlesbrough will take their place in the final against Hull, still to be played as planned on Saturday, 23rd May.
What happens next, and is the punishment fair?
Southampton appealed the decision, but the ruling was upheld and they will not be reinstated to the play-off final.
The FA are now investigating Southampton, which could result in bans for any individuals that are found to have been involved in the 'Spygate' scandal.
Some reports have even stated the Saints players could look into legal action against their own club due to the potential loss of earnings after being expelled - missing out on a key chance at Premier League football and the possible pay rises that come with it.
Regarding whether the punishment is fair, 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 have breached.
A 14-day period would have applied for the Saints to respond, but the EFL fast-tracked the case due to the timing of the play-offs.
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.
No fines or bans have been announced for Southampton at the time of writing, but they have been expelled from the play-offs and handed a point deduction for next season.