I am clearly swimming against the tide here, but honesty compels me to enter a dissenting view. There is a touch of devil's advocacy in what I'm going to say; I do find this usage somewhat infelicitous, but I find some of the comments here excessively censorious.

The censoriousness echoes Fowler, who thundered in 1926: "The use of equally as instead of either equally or as by itself is an illiterate tautology [...] These should be corrected by using equally alone where a comparison is not expressed within the sentence, and as alone where it is."

In his revision of Fowler's guide, R. W. Burchfield quotes this and comments that "the echoes of his condemnation rumble on".

Fowler was not the first to reject this usage on the grounds of redundancy. In his Vulgarisms & Other Errors of Speech (Philadelphia, 1869), Richard Meade Bache had commented:

"As good as means equally good; therefore, equally as good as means equally, equally good.
[...]
In the common phrase, "equally as good as,"—one can strike out both as's, or else strike out equally."
https://books.google.es/books?id=TQkSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137&dq="e...

On the other hand, Merriam-Webster's usage guide takes a much more indulgent view:

"Equally as is certainly not ‘illiterate,’ and its redundancy is more apparent than real. We would describe it as an idiomatic phrase that is equivalent to just as and that is widely regarded as redundant."

It adds, however, that "its reputation is bad enough to make it relatively rare in edited prose", and advises writers to avoid it, not so much because it is bad as because language commentators don't like it:

"This innocuous phrase has drawn more vehement criticism than is warranted, but you may well want to prefer just as in your writing or to use equally by itself for emphasis where your construction permits it."

Quoted (mostly) from: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/06/equally-as.html

Merriam-Webster is of course American, but the arguments on this usage are equally applicable to British (or Irish) English. I find these views sensible.

"Equally as ____ as" is a long-established usage which has been fairly common in written English since the eighteenth century at least. Here's one example, from Hansard in 1817:

"Surely then the sinking fund, which instead of bettering the condition of the country, left it equally as bad as when it found it, deserved no such name."
https://books.google.es/books?id=C_mE0bKjbigC&pg=PA28&dq="eq...

Modern examples are plentiful in quite respectable sources. Here's one from an article by the Health Editor of the Guardian in April this year:

"However, they established that mindfulness-based therapy is equally as good as drugs, which could offer a new option for those who do not want to be on medication for years."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/mindfulness-b...

And in academic writing, to take just one striking example, "equally as good as" is used no fewer than seventeen times in three pages in an essay by John Broome, Emeritus White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford University, in an essay entitled "Incommensurable Values", published by OUP in a Festschrift for James Griffin.
https://books.google.es/books?id=_Hy5Rng9L3QC&pg=PA26&dq="eq...

It would perhaps be worth considering why Broome chose this expression, to which he devotes very close attention, rather than just "as good as". I find it hard to believe that he was confused about what he was saying. His essay was read before publication by five other philosophers, whom he names, by the editors of the volume, and (presumably) by OUP's copy-editors. If the expression is "illiterate", this is rather alarming.

It is not clear to me that "the two teams were as good as each other" or "the two teams were equally good" are in fact exactly equivalent to what has been written (or perhaps said) here:

"The two teams were equally good" would normally be taken to mean that both teams were good, and to an equal degree, but that is not what the writer/speaker means: he/she is expressing equality of merit, not degree of merit. It may be that both teams were mediocre or bad, but equally so, and in that case "equally good" will not convey the desired meaning.

"The two teams were as good as each other" seems to say what is meant without redundancy, and therefore seems preferable, but it lacks an emphasis the speaker/writer desires to give: not just more or less as good as each other, but equally so. Despite what Meade Bache wrote in 1856, "as good as" does not, in practice, always express exact equality; it can express approximate equality.

I think this is why "just as good as each other" is generally regarded as acceptable and not tautologous. If we can use "just" here, why can't we use "equally"? People have been doing so for a long time and still do. I don't see why they shouldn't, and I don't see why we should necessarily follow language commentators in allowing cold logic to override all other linguistic considerations.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day16 mins (2015-08-25 23:08:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I've gone on far too long already, but what, pray, is the argument for saying that this is OK in speech, but not in writing? Michele has shown that this may in fact be speech anyway, but in any case, if it is wrong it is wrong. I don't think it is wrong; I think the worst you could say of it is that it is inelegant. And if something is idiomatic speech, and not actually ungrammatical, why shouldn't it be used in sports journalism?