Lucas Paqueta is in talks with his legal team over suing the FA as the bombshell written judgement of his spot-fixing trial exposed damning flaws in the governing body’s case.
The mammoth 314-page document published on Wednesday revealed how an independent commission had branded aspects of the FA’s failed case against the West Ham forward ‘surprising’, ‘concerning’ and ‘contradictory’.
It also accused the FA of failing to call ‘independent’ experts for the most important parts of the trial while their KC also went on to openly disagree with the evidence of their chief witness.
This latest embarrassing judgement comes just a day after the FA were forced to pay more than £100,000 to Nottingham Forest after losing a landmark legal battle over allegations one of its appeal panel chairs may have been ‘biased’ against the club.
West Ham forward Paqueta was sensationally cleared in July of four counts of deliberately picking up yellow cards to influence betting matches after a two-year FA investigation that cost the Brazilian a big-money move to Man City and nearly his career.
The 28-year-old’s £85million deal collapsed when Daily Mail Sport revealed in August 2023 that the West Ham midfielder was under investigation with the FA pushing for a lifetime ban if found guilty.
The FA has published written reasons for Lucas Paqueta being cleared of spot-fixing charges
Paqueta had been charged with purposefully picking up yellow cards in order to influence betting markets – with four counts of spot‑fixing and a further two of obstructing an FA investigation
A 314-page report detailing the case has been published by the FA after he was cleared in July
The head of Paqueta’s legal team told Daily Mail Sport the West Ham star feels ‘aggrieved’ at what the FA put him through and is now considering legal action.
‘It’s certainly something that is at the forefront of our minds and those discussions are ongoing,’ said Alistair Campbell, partner at London firm Level. ‘I can’t say we’re about to run off to court but it’s something that’s under consideration.
‘It’s a judgement that’s quite critical of the FA at some points but there are other points where it says you can see why suspicion was raised.
‘The driving factor behind this will be what it’s cost Lucas in terms of his career and potential earnings. That is significant. He was on the verge of a move to Man City when this first happened and they went on to win the Premier League that year. There’s an empty space in his trophy cabinet that can’t be filled by an exoneration and by some recompense.
‘He definitely feel aggrieved. The judgement is comprehensively exonerates him so the ultimate decision will rest with Lucas but we will certainly be exploring all possibilities.’
The FA confirmed they would not be appealing the decision to clear Paqueta of the four counts of deliberately picking up yellow cards.
‘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,’ the governing body said in a statement.
Paqueta was also found guilty on two charges of failing to co-operate with the investigation, for which the Brazilian is expected to be hit with a fine instead of a ban with the commission indicating that any sanction would likely be ‘at the lower end of the scale’.
Paqueta posted this picture of him with his wife Maria Fournier after being cleared
The FA’s case hinged on Paqueta’s connection to 27 individuals out of 253 who placed ‘suspicious’ bets on the Brazilian in one or more of the relevant matches and made nearly £170,000 profit from stakes of around £47,000. The trial also focused on Paqueta’s performance, mobile phone analysis and evidence from a Brazilian political inquiry.
However, the commission found that the unusual betting activity was more likely the result of ‘hot tips’ or ‘perceived inside information’ spreading among Paqueta’s friends and family in Brazil, who had discussed betting on him. The fluctuating number of bets placed, and the differing wagers with no one placing the maximum possible stakes, also suggested it was not an example of spot-fixing.
Seventeen suspicious bets were placed on his first yellow card against Leicester in November 2022, 249 for the second against Aston Villa in March 2023, 87 against Leeds in May 2023 and 189 against Bournemouth in August 2023.
The commission found it ‘defies logic’ for people to be so ‘loose’ with such information and for the vast fluctuation of bets.
Mobile phone evidence also failed to show any evidence of betting discussion on either of Paqueta’s phones. The FA initially suggested Paqueta may have deleted crucial information but expert analysis showed that not to be the case. Paqueta even recovered deleted messages that showed no evidence of spot-fixing, which was ‘a salient reminder to the commission not to jump to conclusions and the dangers of drawing adverse inferences from events unknown’.
‘The data we have seen, in the commission’s view seriously undermines the suggestion made by the FA that the motivation for the player was a misguided attempt to give his family members or friends an advantage when considered in the context of his generosity, income and lack of interest in betting,’ read the judgement.
Former West Ham boss David Moyes and ex-referee Mark Clattenburg were also called as witnesses on Paqueta’s behalf and helped the commission conclude that nothing in his on-field conduct advanced the FA’s case that he was deliberately booked.
Paqueta’s rate of yellow cards remained steady before, during and after the period under investigation.
Paqueta pictured at West Ham’s London Stadium with his wife Maria, who admitted the couple have been ‘living this nightmare for two years’ in an emotional statement in May
The FA called its own betting integrity officer Tom Astley as its chief witness, who was ultimately found not to be an ‘independent’ witness on what was ‘the most important element of the case’ due to the fact he was an employee of the governing body.
They even at one point distanced themselves from Astley’s evidence that the betting patterns were ‘highly orchestrated’. The FA’s leading council said they disagreed with that view, which was seen as ‘concerning’ by the commission.
‘From the commission’s perspective the evidence presented by the FA on the betting data had an obvious flaw, namely the lack of an independent expert assessment of that data,’ read the judgement. ‘That the FA chose to advance the most important element of its case without any such independent expert assessment of it was, in the commission’s view, surprising,’
The FA’s expert on performance was also not seen as independent as he had been involved in the investigation before Paqueta was charged.
Their case was also slammed as ‘contradictory’ after their evidence on the one hand claiming Paqueta was hiding his attempts to get booked while on the other suggesting he was ‘chasing a card’.
Paqueta’s final caution, against Bournemouth in August 2023, was also called into question. Manchester City were courting Paqueta at the time and the West Ham playmaker asked to skip the trip to the Vitality Stadium.
‘Firstly, he asked Mr Moyes not to play in the fixture; secondly, he did not get involved in any situations in the final 20 minutes to get himself booked; and thirdly, it would be highly unlikely that he had waited until the 93rd minute to get his illicit booking,’ the judgement added. ‘If it is accepted by the commission that in this particular match, he obviously was not trying to deliberately get booked.’
The judgement is also critical of the FA on the two counts of failing to co-operate with the investigation. Paqueta was initially advised to answer ‘no comment’ but then, once the FA provided him with further information, offered to answer any further questions. The FA, according to the commission, then refused to ask any, even before the player was charged.
Paqueta’s former West Ham boss David Moyes was among those to testify in his defence
‘The commission wishes to record its surprise that at the investigation stage if what were clearly serious matters which could, and did, lead to serious charges which in turn led to a commission hearing lasting 20 days, the FA were apparently not interested in what the player had to say, notwithstanding his stance, taken on advice, in the first interview,’ they said.
Nick De Marco KC, who also acted on Paqueta’s behalf added: ‘Running to over 300 pages, the decision is understood to be the longest sports-related judgment 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 FA’s history. It is a careful, forensic decision.’
