“I thought you would have written about the Beckham crisis.”
When the word ‘gate’ is attached to something in the news, it inevitably means lots of people are talking about it and that it poses a significant reputational threat.
And Spygate is no exception.
It is a story that has filled column inches and dominated airtime, social media feeds and WhatsApp groups.
We are, of course, talking about Southampton FC and how it was kicked out of a final, said to be worth more than £200 million, after spying on its rivals.
What happened?
Essentially, Southampton – known (at least up until now) as the Saints – were charged with watching training sessions involving fellow Championship clubs Oxford United and Ipswich Town.
And filming Middlesbrough – somewhat comically from behind a tree - ahead of facing them in the end-of-season play-offs that offer promotion to the promised land of the Premier League.
An independent commission that heard the case expelled Southampton from the play-off final and reinstated Middlesbrough. The Saints were also handed a four-point deduction for next season.
Southampton appealed, but this was rejected the following day.
How has Southampton responded to the crisis?
Not great.
There was little initial communication, which, as is always the case, left a vacuum for speculation and rumour to take over.
And what it did say felt short and procedural.
Its initial response said: “We can confirm that we will be fully cooperating with the league throughout this process.
"Given the ongoing nature of the matter, the club is unable to comment any further at this time."
When the club requested more time to conduct an internal investigation, Phil Parsons, the club’s CEO, said: “The club is fully co-operating with the EFL and the disciplinary commission, while 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.”
It feels like it has been influenced more by lawyers than comms professionals, and is why it falls flat. There is no acknowledgement of the fans, what they might be thinking and feeling, or their concerns.
There should have been some empathy and compassion for their situation. As we said in another recent blog, put people before process.
From this statement, things got worse.
Facing the media after the first leg of the playoffs, manager Tonda Eckert was asked multiple times if he sent a performance analyst to a Middlesbrough training session. His attempted deflections resulted in an argument between the journalists and comms team member about whether questions were being answered.
In a subsequent press conference, after the Saints felt they had booked their place in the playoff final, the manager was asked if he was a “cheat”.
He stormed out of the press conference, and the Southampton press officers criticised the journalist, saying: “Thank you very much, show some respect. That’s all we ask. Well done.”
That is an interesting way to handle the inevitable difficult and sometimes personal media questions that are asked during a crisis.
But the bit that really got me was still to come – the club’s initial response to the sanctions being imposed on May 20.
In a club statement, Mr Parsons said: “What happened was wrong. The club has admitted breaches of EFL Regulations 3.4 and 127. We are sorry to the other clubs involved, and most of all to the Southampton supporters whose extraordinary loyalty and support this season deserved better from the club.”
I like the accountability and the apology, although more could have been made of the ‘sorry’.
But it then descends into whataboutery – never a good crisis communication look.
“On the appeal itself: we accept that there should be a sanction,” it said.
“What we cannot accept is a sanction which bears no proportion to the offence. Whereas Leeds United was fined £200,000 for a similar offence, Southampton has been denied the opportunity to compete in a game worth more than £200 million and one which means so much to our staff, players and supporters.”
It added: “We believe the financial consequence of yesterday's ruling makes it, by a very considerable distance, the largest penalty ever imposed on an English football club.”
It compared the decision to several punishments handed to other clubs over the years, including a 30-point deduction handed to Luton in 2008/9 and Chelsea being fined £10.75 million in March.
It said: “The largest financial penalty ever levied by the Premier League, against Chelsea in March of this year, was £10.75 million, and was accompanied by no sporting sanction whatsoever despite involving £47.5 million in undisclosed payments over seven years.”
For me, this misses the mark. By a distance.
I know opinions are divided on whether the punishment fits the crime in this instance.
But presenting yourself as some kind of victim is an uncomfortable crisis communication approach.
Even if you overlook the fact Luton’s punishment threatened to end the club, this sort of explanation and comparisons starts to feel like an excuse and not the response of an organisation that genuinely believes it has done the wrong thing.
When its appeal against the penalty was rejected, a new statement was released with a similar theme.
It said: “While we fully acknowledge the seriousness of this matter and the scrutiny that has followed, the club has consistently believed the original sporting sanction was disproportionate.”
It added: "Southampton Football Club has a proud history and strong foundations, but it is clear that trust now needs to be rebuilt. That work begins immediately.”
It’s a good job that work starts immediately to rebuild trust.
As we often say when advising and providing crisis communication guidance to our clients, trust is hard to build and easily lost.
The football world is, of course, a little different. Fans are incredibly loyal and tend to forgive their clubs for most wrongdoing. They will feel embarrassed and humiliated now, but when the new season starts, they will be back cheering the team on. I’d forgive my club pretty much any wrongdoing.
But, like it or not, football is not just about the fans.
There is a whole commercial element.
On the club’s website, I can see 16 commercial partners listed, ranging from a sports company and energy drink brand to a bank and a cruise company.
How many of those are now reconsidering those deals, concerned that being associated with the club at the centre of Spygate could damage their reputations?
The final whistle
The Southampton scandal offers plenty of crisis communication food for thought.
It reinforces the strategic crisis media management advice we offer to our clients:
- Make sure you are crisis-ready, even if you don’t see reputational issues on the horizon.
- Don’t hide behind policy and procedure when the worst happens. Put people first.
- Respond quickly. Don’t allow rumour, speculation and misinformation to fill the void. Get ahead of the story.
- Have spokespeople with the skills and confidence to face the media under the most intense pressure.
As for Southampton, it might just be time to rethink the Saints nickname.
Media First are media and communications training specialists with more than 40 years of experience.
We have a team of trainers, each with decades of experience working as journalists, presenters, communications coaches and media trainers.
Find out more about our crisis communication training courses.
