The FA finally published its 314-page report of written reasons for the Lucas Paqueta match fixing case, and it is pretty damming for the FA.
Here we summarise it in just over six hundred words, so you don’t have to read all 314 pages.
The Football Association (FA) charged Lucas Paquetá with alleged spot-fixing, claiming he deliberately sought yellow cards in four Premier League matches between 2022 and 2023. The case was built on unusual betting patterns with a total of 253 bettors wagering almost £47,000 across the four matches, generating approximately £167,000 in profit. The FA linked at least 27 bettors directly or indirectly to Paquetá., placing successful bets on him to be booked. The FA argued that the scale, timing, and confidence of these bets indicated inside information originating from the player.
Most Read on West Ham News
Paqueta wipes tears from his eyes during the Spurs game
The FA relied on circumstantial evidence, structured around 10 factors:
Direct or indirect links between Paquetá and 27 bettors.
Highly unusual betting activity focused solely on his bookings in the four matches.
No similar suspicious betting on his other bookings.
The improbability of bettors winning without prior knowledge.
On-field performance analysis suggesting he deliberately sought cards.
Paquetá’s silence in early interviews and late cooperation with phone data.
Mobile phone analysis (though expert disagreements weakened this).
Support from a Brazilian parliamentary report (CPI).
Paquetá categorically denied wrongdoing. He explained that he and his wife are deeply religious people who have no interest in betting and once turned down a gambling sponsor who approached them. He explained he speaks to his mother in Brazil almost daily, but does not speak to other members of his family due to rifts since he left Brazil.
His defence rested on several pillars:
Style of play: Known for physical, risk-taking challenges, he received bookings at a normal career rate (about 1 in 4 matches).
Expert testimony: Referee Mark Clattenburg and former West Ham manager David Moyes testified that his cautions were within normal play. Moyes said Paquetá even asked to skip one of the alleged games to avoid risking a transfer to Manchester City, contradicting the idea he would deliberately seek a card.
Data analysis: Independent experts (including MRKT Insights and Benjamin Paterson) found his fouls were consistent with his playing profile. They argued that low-probability outcomes (like multiple friends betting correctly) can occur naturally.
Betting context: Defence experts highlighted the limited scope of the IBIA data (capturing only 13–32% of the Brazilian market). They suggested unusual betting could be explained by “hot tips” or insider gossip circulating in Brazil, without Paquetá’s involvement.
Paquetá initially gave “no comment” in his first two interviews and delayed providing his phone, drawing suspicion. However, his expert later showed that deleted data could not be tied to misconduct, and his legal team initially advised him to say ‘no comment’ in early interviews.
Man City back in for Paqueta
David Moyes testified in defence of Paqueta
The Regulatory Commission concluded:
No direct evidence: Unlike previous cases, there were no phone records or messages showing Paquetá colluded with bettors.
Betting data inconclusive: Patterns suggested unusual confidence but could also be explained by tip-sharing and gambler behaviour. The FA’s reliance on limited Brazilian data left gaps.
On-field evidence insufficient: His bookings could not be proven deliberate. Each incident was within the referee’s discretion and aligned with his typical style of play.
Expert weaknesses: The FA did not call an independent betting expert. Their reliance on an internal investigator undermined credibility. SPIS’s analysis was judged too subjective. The defence’s experts, while imperfect, raised a reasonable doubt.
Failure to cooperate: While Paquetá’s limited answers raised suspicion, he ultimately complied through written statements. The Commission gave little weight to adverse inferences from his silence.
The Commission found that the FA failed to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. The charges of deliberate spot-fixing were not proven. The suspicious betting activity was more likely linked to the spread of “hot tips” in Brazil than to deliberate manipulation by Paquetá.