The English Football Association has confirmed it will not appeal against the decision to clear West Ham United midfielder Lucas Paqueta of spot-fixing after its handling of the case was strongly criticised by the independent panel that heard the matter.
In a 314-page judgment published on Wednesday, the three-person panel slammed the governing body for failing to call independent witnesses, trying to retrofit evidence to suit its arguments and “unattractively” attacking the testimony of Paqueta’s independent betting expert.
The ruling was particularly critical of the FA’s betting integrity investigator Tom Astley, whose evidence was so flawed its own lead counsel, Jonathan Laidlaw KC, disagreed with it, a stance the panel described as “concerning”.
There was also having criticism of “performance integrity reports” the FA commissioned from a supplier in order to demonstrate that Paqueta had successfully tried to get himself booked in four matches between November 2022 and August 2023.
The FA’s case against the 28-year-old Brazilian hinged on its belief that these games attracted unusual spikes in betting activity in Paqueta’s homeland, including 27 individuals linked to the player.
Paqueta’s defence was that there was nothing unusual about him picking up cautions, there was no evidence that he had ever discussed betting or yellow cards with anyone and the links between the betting activity and the four games were examples of “confirmation bias”.
Having listened to huge amounts of oral and written testimony, from 18 witnesses, the panel unanimously dismissed the four spot-fixing charges, describing the FA’s case as “contradictory” in parts and at times “defying logic”.
In short, it agreed with Paqueta’s barrister Nick De Marco KC that the more likely explanation for the increased number of bets on whether he would get a yellow card or not is that he spoke to his mother almost every day and she would then pass on vague comments about his mood to customers of her hair salon in Rio de Janeiro. These innocuous conversations would become “hot tips” that Paqueta knew nothing about.
While the panel was unimpressed with the FA’s witnesses, it found former West Ham manager David Moyes, former Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg and probability expert Bob Smith, an actuary, far more compelling.
The only success for the FA, in what was clearly a long and expensive investigation, was in persuading the panel to find Paqueta guilty of two non-cooperation charges for refusing to give detailed answers during an early interview.
However, the panel, which was chaired by retired circuit judge Philip Sycamore and included former England winger turned solicitor Stuart Ripley, said Paqueta was clearly acting under legal advice so any sanction for his refusal to engage will be “at the lower end of the scale”.
That sanction is still to be determined, as is the award of costs, but the latter is very likely to result in the FA picking up a large bill, with potential compensation for Paqueta, who missed out on a possible move to Manchester City as a result of these charges, to follow.
Paqueta was linked with a move to Aston Villa late in the transfer window but appeared to demonstrate his commitment to West Ham after scoring in Sunday’s win at Nottingham Forest
Confirmation of the Paqueta defeat comes only 24 hours after it was revealed the FA lost an arbitration hearing with Nottingham Forest over its decision to appoint Graeme McPherson KC as the chairman of an appeal panel in a case involving the club. A separate panel agreed with Forest that McPherson should stand down because of the possibility that he is biased against them, and told the FA to pick up the six-figure costs of the tribunal.
In a short statement about the Paqueta ruling, the FA said it “will not be appealing against the alleged breaches” of its betting rules but remained “committed to ensuring that the integrity of football is maintained, and full and thorough investigations will always be conducted into serious allegations”.
But in a post on X, Paqueta’s barrister De Marco said the decision “is understood to be the longest sports-related judgement ever issued in the world – a reflection of how serious the case was, the amount of evidence deployed in what was the biggest case in The FAs’ history, and one of the most momentous in my own career”.
He added that it is a “careful, forensic decision” which he urged people, and expressed his delight for “my client Lucas” and gratitude to the rest of Paqueta’s legal team.
“This judgment shows that Lucas had to go to great lengths to prove his innocence,” Alastair Campbell, partner at Level and the head of Paqueta’s legal team, said. “Only by taking such a comprehensive approach was he able to demonstrate that so-called ‘suspicious’ betting patterns did not indicate spot-fixing, and that his performances in the relevant matches were not those of a player trying to be carded.
“We are still making submissions in relation to the non-cooperation charge. But in a case where his entire career was at risk, Lucas is unquestionably the successful party. It’s fantastic to see him playing so well without this burden — he has his mojo back.”
Campbell later told Sky that suing the FA was “under consideration”, adding that “nothing is off the table”.
Though charges against Paqueta for alleged breaches of betting regulations were found “not proven” on July 31, the independent commission did find that two further rule breaches, effectively relating to the player’s co-operation with the FA’s investigation, could be proven and “will decide an appropriate sanction for these breaches at the earliest opportunity”. These breaches of FA Rule F3 are in relation to Paqueta’s alleged failures to comply with his obligations to answer questions and provide information to the investigation.
(Photos: Dan Istitene/Getty Images)
