Can Tonda Eckert take charge against Pompey? Here’s what FA rules say.

Southampton and their supporters remain stuck in uncertainty nearly five months after the club were removed from the play-off final, with the ongoing Football Association investigation into Tonda Eckert creating yet more questions ahead of the eagerly anticipated clash with Portsmouth.

Eckert was charged by the FA with three alleged breaches of Rule E3.1 following an investigation into claims that Southampton had been involved in spying on other clubs. The situation has now entered another period of waiting, with no verdict announced despite Eckert attending a formal hearing.

The controversy originally began in May when the EFL took action against Southampton. The club were removed from the play-off final only days before the Wembley match, leaving supporters who had already arranged travel and accommodation facing significant disruption.

Southampton’s supporters have subsequently questioned the speed of the EFL process, arguing that the regulations should have allowed more time for evidence to be gathered, considered and challenged. What followed was a rapid disciplinary procedure which resulted in the club being expelled before the final.

The FA investigation has been markedly different.

After being interviewed by the FA for around four hours in July, Eckert was formally charged with three breaches of Rule E3.1. He later attended the FA’s headquarters on September 24, when the case was considered by a regulatory commission.

According to the explanation provided by the Daily Echo, the FA’s disciplinary process is governed by Section 9 of its Handbook. Following the initial charge, the individual concerned is required to respond, either admitting or denying the allegations, while also providing supporting evidence.

The FA can then gather additional evidence and make it available to both the regulatory commission and the person charged. The individual is given an opportunity to respond before the commission proceeds with the case.

A regulatory commission is then appointed. It consists of an experienced chairperson, a football panel member and a legal panel member.

In Eckert’s case, the commission arranged a hearing during the international break. Eckert was required to attend, although he had the right to legal representation. He was also able to present his defence and evidence before the commission considered whether the charges had been proven.

That hearing took place on September 24.

The major question now concerns how long the commission is allowed to take before announcing its decision.

The FA regulations state that the commission should notify the parties of its final decision “as soon as reasonably practicable”. However, there is apparently no specific maximum period within which a verdict must be delivered if a decision is not reached during the hearing itself.

That means the fact that no verdict has been announced almost two weeks after Eckert’s hearing does not necessarily mean the FA has breached its own rules.

If a decision is reached during the hearing, the commission is expected to communicate it immediately. But where further deliberation is required, the regulations do not establish a fixed deadline.

Once the decision is eventually delivered, another potential complication could arise.

Eckert would have seven days to consider whether to appeal the decision. The appeal process then provides a further period for the formal appeal to be submitted, meaning the entire period could stretch to around 14 days from notification of the original verdict.

An appeal would subsequently require another three-person panel to be assembled to consider the case.

This is particularly important because of Southampton’s upcoming meeting with Portsmouth.

If Eckert had already received a decision on September 24, he could have been approaching the end of the appeal process by now. However, that is not what appears to have happened, with no punishment publicly confirmed.

If a verdict were announced immediately, Eckert could still potentially enter an appeal process before any final outcome. Whether any punishment would take immediate effect or be suspended while an appeal was considered could also become significant.

For Southampton supporters, therefore, the biggest issue is simply whether the FA has reached a decision.

At present, there appears to be no confirmation that a verdict has been formally delivered to Eckert or Southampton. Until that happens, the manager remains in a position to lead the team.

There is also a wider argument over whether the FA should have jurisdiction in the first place. The original spying regulations relate specifically to EFL clubs and contain restrictions concerning the period immediately before matches. Critics have questioned whether conduct covered by those EFL rules automatically amounts to misconduct under FA regulations.

That legal question could potentially explain why the process has taken longer than expected, although there has been no official confirmation that jurisdiction is responsible for the delay.

For now, Southampton supporters are left waiting.

Unless the FA announces a decision and imposes an immediate sanction before the fixture, the current situation indicates that Eckert should remain available to take charge against Portsmouth.

However, what happens after that derby remains unclear. Until the FA publishes its decision and any subsequent appeal arrangements are known, Southampton’s managerial situation will continue to hang over the club.

If you want, I can also turn this into a more dramatic 800-word Facebook-style football article with a stronger opening and 3 fan-reaction questions.