An independent commission member rejected accusations of bias on Friday after Southampton was expelled from the play-offs for spying on a Middlesbrough training session.
The allegations surfaced due to his single appearance as a player for Middlesbrough 33 years ago.
David Winnie, a former professional footballer who now works as a solicitor, served on the three-person disciplinary panel.
The commission penalized Southampton after discovering that head coach Tonda Eckert authorized staff to spy on Middlesbrough, alongside prior training sessions held by Oxford and Ipswich.
Winnie dismissed the online criticism regarding his past connection to Middlesbrough and defended his position on the independent panel.
"The suggestion that a single appearance for Middlesbrough Football Club more than three decades ago could in any way influence my judgment as a member of an independent disciplinary commission is wholly without foundation," stated Winnie, who serves as a partner and head of sports at Gilson Gray LLP.
The legal professional emphasized that his brief playing history had no impact on the case and affirmed that the panel followed strict regulatory protocols during the hearings.
"My involvement with the club consisted of one professional appearance approximately 33 years ago and has no bearing whatsoever on my ability to approach these proceedings impartially and objectively," added Winnie.
According to Winnie, the panel analyzed all evidence thoroughly, and neither Southampton nor Middlesbrough raised objections about his role before the proceedings started.
"As with all commission members, my duty was to consider only the evidence, the applicable EFL regulations, and the submissions advanced by the parties.
The decision reached was unanimous and followed detailed legal argument, documentary evidence, witness testimony and careful deliberation by an experienced independent panel," Winnie explained.
He noted that formal channels were available for either club to challenge the composition of the board if any legitimate concerns existed.
"At no stage was any issue raised by either party regarding my independence or suitability to sit on the commission.
Had there been any legitimate basis for concern, the appropriate procedures existed for that to be addressed before the hearing proceeded," stated Winnie.
He concluded his remarks on the panel's neutrality by stating that their sole focus was to enforce the rules governing the competition.
"Professional integrity in these proceedings is paramount.
My role was to uphold the integrity of the competition and apply the regulations fairly, without fear or favour, and that is precisely what the commission did," Winnie said.
An intern caught at the Middlesbrough training ground told the panel he felt pressured to perform the surveillance.
The commission described the involvement of junior staff members in these operations as particularly deplorable.
Winnie acknowledged the severe impact of the ruling on English football but maintained that regulations must be applied regardless of a club's reputation.
"The commission's duty was not to consider popularity, reputation or consequence in isolation, but to uphold the integrity of the competition and apply the regulations fairly, independently and without fear or favour," Winnie remarked.
The disciplinary board determined that the spying operations were a coordinated effort by Southampton to secure an unfair advantage during the high-stakes English football tournament.
"The commission unanimously concluded that the conduct in question represented a deliberate and organised attempt to obtain a competitive advantage in breach of fundamental principles of sporting integrity and good faith," Winnie stated.
He highlighted the importance of maintaining public trust among fans, players, and clubs regarding fair competition.
"Football depends upon public trust.
Supporters, clubs, players and stakeholders must have confidence that competitions are conducted on a level playing field," Winnie noted.
The decision targets repeated regulatory infractions occurring within a financially significant tournament, according to the panel's findings.
"This outcome reflects the seriousness with which the commission viewed repeated breaches of the regulations, particularly within the context of one of the most financially and competitively significant competitions in English football.
The message is clear: cheating, in any form, has no place in the game and will not be tolerated," Winnie warned.
Winnie concluded by stating that the harsh penalty was required to safeguard the future credibility of the sport.
"Whilst the sanctions imposed are severe, the commission considered them necessary, proportionate and essential to protect the integrity and credibility of English football moving forward," Winnie said.
The English Football League (EFL) has been contacted for comment regarding the commission's ruling and the subsequent statements.
