FA criticised for ‘obvious flaw’ in spot-fixing case of West Ham’s Lucas Paquetá

The Football Association has been criticised strongly by the regulatory commission that cleared Lucas Paquetá of spot-fixing charges, over its failure to provide an independent assessment of the betting data on the West Ham player receiving yellow cards.

A 314-page report by the commission that heard Paquetá’s case was published on Wednesday and makes damning reading for the FA, with its evidence criticised for containing “an obvious flaw, namely the lack of an independent assessment of the data”.

Nick De Marco KC, who represented Paquetá, wrote on X that the report was “understood to be the longest sports-related judgment ever issued in the world, a reflection of how serious the case was, and the amount of evidence deployed in the biggest case in the FA’s history”.

The FA charged Paquetá with four counts of spot-fixing in May 2024 after a 10-month investigation into bookings he received in four Premier League matches. Its case centred on connections between the Brazilian and 27 of the 253 individuals who placed apparently suspicious bets on him to be booked in one or more of the four games, with combined bets of £47,000 bringing a profit of £167,000.

The commission concluded there was no evidence of corruption and that the unusual betting patterns were more likely explained by the “rather random passing of ‘hot tips’ or perceived ‘inside information’ within Brazil than a spot-fix”.

The three-person panel accepted Paquetá’s testimony that there was frequently talk of betting, including on the player himself, among his family and friends, and that it would defy logic for individuals involved in a spot-fix to be so “loose” with relevant information and tips. It also noted that the FA failed to find any mention of the case or any discussion of betting on two mobile phones belonging to Paquetá which it seized as evidence.

The commission’s report is particularly damning of the FA betting integrity investigator, Tom Astley, who was also the governing body’s chief witness. The failure to produce an independent assessment of the betting data is described as “surprising” and the commission noted that the FA appeared to contradict the statements of its main witness.

Jonathan Laidlaw KC, the FA’s main prosecutor, disagreed with Astley’s description of the betting patterns as “highly orchestrated”, a difference of interpretation the commission concluded was concerning. “The clear appearance given to the commission was that the FA was not altogether certain what case it was presenting against the player,” it said.

The commission reviewed bet‑by‑bet data for 33 individuals and concluded there was no evidence of a spot-fix. The report notes that the bettors did not place the maximum stake permitted, which would be expected if there were a spot-fix, and the fluctuating number of bets on each of the four matches was also interpreted as the bettors acting on tips rather than attempting a fix.

Paquetá’s on-field performance was also analysed by the commission, with his former manager at West Ham, David Moyes, and the former referee Mark Clattenburg giving evidence on his behalf. Clattenburg described Paquetá’s on-field actions during the four matches as “entirely within the normal range of actions for this player”, and the defence team also produced evidence showing that the rate at which he received yellow cards remained consistent before, during and after the games in question, which took place in the 2022-23 season and at the start of the 2023-24 campaign.

The commission also questioned the independence of the FA’s expert witness on performance, Jack Johnson of Stats Perform Integrity Services, because it has a commercial relationship with the governing body. Johnson was accused of “confirmation bias” for failing to consider Paquetá’s conduct in isolation from what he had been told about suspicious betting.

As reported by the Guardian on Tuesday, Paquetá is facing a separate sanctions hearing after being found guilty of two lesser charges of failing to fully cooperate with the FA’s investigation. The commission’s report reveals that Paquetá subsequently offered to answer any questions from the FA, only for it to decline to ask any.

“The commission wishes to record its surprise that at the investigation stage of what were clearly serious matters … the FA were apparently not interested in what the player had to say, notwithstanding his stance, taken on advice, in the first interview,” the report says. Paquetá gave evidence at the hearing.

The FA has no plans to appeal. “The FA is committed to ensuring that the integrity of football is maintained, and full and thorough investigations will always be conducted into serious allegations of rule breaches,” it said in a statement.

Alastair Campbell, a partner at the law firm Level and the head of Paquetá’s legal team, said on Wednesday: “The evidence not only showed he has no interest in gambling whatsoever, but confirmed that his integrity as both a player and a person is beyond doubt.

“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.”