West Ham Online

"Sport Bible New report on Lucas Paqueta's spot-fixing charges reveals how much of next season West Ham star can play There has been an update on Paqueta's case. Alex Brotherton Lucas Paqueta will be free to play for West Ham for most of next season despite facing spot-fixing charges. Paqueta has been charged by the Football Association with four separate instances of spot-fixing. The 28-year-old stands accused of deliberately getting himself booked during four Premier League matches. It is one of the most serious cases of spot-fixing involving a top-flight player in England, and could land Paqueta with a lengthy ban. However, the Brazil international can continue to play until the disciplinary process has been completed. According to The Times, the outcome of the process could be delayed until the end of the 2024-25 season or beyond. That is due to the complexity of the case; Paqueta's lawyers say it will take many months to secure all the witness statements and relevant information they need for their defence. That's because the case spans three countries - England, Brazil and Spain - and involves a large number of people. The charges allege that Paqueta got himself booked during matches against Leicester City, Aston Villa, Leeds United and Bournemouth over the past two seasons so that “one or more persons” could profit financially. The investigation that preceded the charges took eight months. In September 2023, Brazilian outlet Globo reported that suspicious gambling patterns were identified in Brazil relating to Paqueta being booked against Aston Villa in March that year. The bets were reportedly made using West Ham's shirt sponsor Betway, via accounts belonging to people linked to Paqueta. The FA initially gave the player until June 3 to respond to the charges, but his lawyers were granted an extension. English football's governing body has refused to put a timescale on the case. Paqueta has been linked with a move to Brazilian giants Flamengo this summer, but this latest development will give encouragement to new West Ham boss Julen Lopetegui that he can use the midfielderthis season."

 

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025, 14:14 You just know what the FA will say if West Ham/Paqueta pursue a claim, don't you?

"Sue us and you're effectively suing the 19 other clubs who, along with you, sit at the top table of this organisation. We'll have to pass on whatever you win to them in increased costs".

Lose and they'll hold a grudge bigger, stronger and longer that a washerwoman against the Met Office who goes outside to bring in her laundry only to find it lying in next door's vegetable garden.

You just know what the FA will say if West Ham/Paqueta pursue a claim, don't you?

"Sue us and you're effectively suing the 19 other clubs who, along with you, sit at the top table of this organisation. We'll have to pass on whatever you win to them in increased costs".

Lose and they'll hold a grudge bigger, stronger and longer that a washerwoman against the Met Office who goes outside to bring in her laundry only to find it lying in next door's vegetable garden.

"he appears to suggest that if you're looking for spot fixing, you should be looking at the referees who made these calls."

been saying it for a long time. many are corrupt as fuck

the midget, and the player need to take them to court. the useless cunts need to be deterred from potentially ruining more careers without substantial evidence

Just saying that FA has been incompetent is not enough.
Clearly, the officials within the FA who have overseen this debacle need to be named and brought to account.
An interesting documentary in the waiting?

BRANDED wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025, 20:47 2 FUCKING YEARS. They are imbeciles

Spot fixing by refs would be quite easy
Gambler asks for 6+ yellows in a game and ref could oblige comfortably by being a bit strict on late tackles etc

Paqueta does like a bit of play acting & falling over but do often feel he is treated harshly. Possibly due to the first part of that sentence 
That said it never seemed to restrict Kane getting endless free kicks after flopping to the ground 

I'm starting to see why Gladiators wanted Mark Clattenberg as their referee.

Gank wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025, 11:27

El Scorchio" wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025, 10:57

Gank wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025, 10:42 Yep, I cannot stand Moyes but he did the right thing here (not of his own free will, mind). 

The real stinger in the case looks to be Mark Clattenberg's evidence. Having looked at it in a bit more detail, he goes further than saying that Paqueta did not behave in any way that would have aroused his suspicion - he appears to suggest that if you're looking for spot fixing, you should be looking at the referees who made these calls.

Am I reading something that isn't there or has anyone else taken this inference from his comments?

Said he thought two of them weren't even yellows either didn't he?

He did, he was explicit about that. Then an unusual turn of phrase, which I can't exactly remember but to paraphrase, "if you're looking for unusual activities regarding yellow cards, this player is not the one acting peculiarly"

El Scorchio" wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025, 10:57

Gank wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025, 10:42 Yep, I cannot stand Moyes but he did the right thing here (not of his own free will, mind). 

The real stinger in the case looks to be Mark Clattenberg's evidence. Having looked at it in a bit more detail, he goes further than saying that Paqueta did not behave in any way that would have aroused his suspicion - he appears to suggest that if you're looking for spot fixing, you should be looking at the referees who made these calls.

Am I reading something that isn't there or has anyone else taken this inference from his comments?

Said he thought two of them weren't even yellows either didn't he?

Gank wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025, 10:42 Yep, I cannot stand Moyes but he did the right thing here (not of his own free will, mind). 

The real stinger in the case looks to be Mark Clattenberg's evidence. Having looked at it in a bit more detail, he goes further than saying that Paqueta did not behave in any way that would have aroused his suspicion - he appears to suggest that if you're looking for spot fixing, you should be looking at the referees who made these calls.

Am I reading something that isn't there or has anyone else taken this inference from his comments?

I suddenly really like Mark Clattenberg.
 

Yep, I cannot stand Moyes but he did the right thing here (not of his own free will, mind). 

The real stinger in the case looks to be Mark Clattenberg's evidence. Having looked at it in a bit more detail, he goes further than saying that Paqueta did not behave in any way that would have aroused his suspicion - he appears to suggest that if you're looking for spot fixing, you should be looking at the referees who made these calls.

Am I reading something that isn't there or has anyone else taken this inference from his comments?

I cannot quite believe the FA pushed this as far as they did, based on what they confirm themselves as “entirely circumstantial evidence”. 

And for two years!

That has to be one of the weakest cases I’ve seen. Fair play to Moyes for ridiculing the evidence against the four alleged dubious yellow cards.

I hope both parties do go after them. 

2 FUCKING YEARS. They are imbeciles

Heres a summary of the judgement (credit West Ham Way) for those that can't be bothered to wade through:

Paqueta Case Summarised

Thank you to Matthew Bedwell who has summarised the Lucas Paqueta court finding from over 300 pages into the key parts for us all to read. FA Official Statement (3 September 2025)

The independent Regulatory Commission’s full written judgment has been published, detailing the reasoning behind their verdict. 

The FA will not appeal the Commission’s decision to dismiss the spot-fixing allegations under Rule E5 as “not proven.” The Commission upheld two breaches of Rule F3—failure to comply with obligations to answer questions or provide information.

Sanctions for these will be decided and published “at the earliest opportunity.” 

Spot-Fixing Charges – Rule E5

Paquetá faced four alleged incidents of intentionally receiving yellow cards to influence betting markets, spanning matches against Leicester City, Aston Villa, Leeds United, and Bournemouth.   

The Commission cleared him on all counts. The ruling specifically criticized the FA’s case for relying only on circumstantial evidence, failing to present independent expert analysis, and exhibiting internal contradictions. 

Misconduct – Rule F3

Two charges involving Paquetá’s failure to cooperate with the FA—specifically in failing to answer questions or provide requested information—were upheld.   The expected sanction is a six-figure fine, likely around £150,000, rather than a playing ban.   

Commentary suggests the fine may equate to about one week’s wages for Paquetá. Uncertainty remains over whether the FA will cover Paquetá’s legal fees, which reportedly may exceed £1 million. 

Key Reasons Behind the “Not Proven” Verdict 

1. Heavy Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence  The commission’s judgment highlighted that the FA’s case was built solely on indirect indicators—like betting patterns—not direct proof of wrongdoing. There was no communication, confession, or documented collusion linking Paquetá to spot-fixing. Without a “smoking gun,” the panel couldn’t establish intent.  

2. Absence of Independent Expert Analysis  Instead of calling on a neutral betting integrity expert, the FA relied on its in-house investigator—who had existing business ties with the FA. The commission flagged this as a major misstep.  

3. Contradictions Within the FA’s Own Team  

Notably, the lead counsel for the FA expressed disagreement with the FA’s primary witness, who claimed the betting patterns were “highly orchestrated.” These internal inconsistencies gave the commission the sense that the FA was unclear about the case it was presenting.  

4. Defence Offered Convincing, Plausible Explanations  

Paquetá’s defense contended that—He’s an aggressive, foul-prone midfielder, prone to getting booked under normal circumstances.

A betting volume of 253 wagers totaling £47,000 was not substantial enough to confirm spot-fixing—it could have reflected his playing style or general betting speculation.

His former manager David Moyes and ex-referee Mark Clattenburg testified that his bookings fell within the usual pattern for him.   

These explanations introduced reasonable doubt, blocking a definitive finding of guilt on the balance of probabilities. 

5. Procedural Lapses by the FA  

The commission also raised concerns over fairness and due process:

It was “concerning” that the FA didn’t pursue a second interview with Paquetá despite his willingness to cooperate once disclosures were provided.

Overall, there was a perception that the FA wasn’t genuinely interested in hearing his side of the story. In essence, the Regulatory Commission found that the evidence did not meet the required standard of the balance of probabilities to prove that Paquetá deliberately sought bookings for betting purposes. Combined with procedural notable flaws, the case could not be sustained—leading to the “not proven” verdict. Could Paquetá or West Ham sue the FA?  Possible GroundsLoss of earnings / career damage

Paquetá’s £85m move to Manchester City in 2023 fell through largely because of the ongoing FA investigation. He could argue the FA’s conduct cost him higher wages, bonuses, and career opportunities.

Defamation / reputational damage

Being publicly accused of spot-fixing damaged his reputation internationally, potentially affecting sponsorships and endorsements.

Negligence / flawed process

The Commission itself criticized the FA for relying on circumstantial evidence, not using independent experts, and showing internal contradictions. That could support a claim of negligent investigation.

Challenges

FA’s governing role:

The FA is the sport’s regulatory body. Players and clubs are contractually bound by FA rules, which usually include clauses limiting liability when disciplinary action is taken in “good faith.”

High legal threshold:

To win damages, Paquetá would need to prove not just that the FA was wrong, but that their conduct was so unreasonable it went beyond a fair regulatory process.

“Not proven” vs. “innocent”:

He was cleared because the case wasn’t proven, not because the FA was found to have acted maliciously. That weakens a legal claim.

What’s more realistic

Compensation for legal costs:

His lawyers reportedly billed over £1m. The FA may be ordered to cover a significant portion of those costs, especially given the criticism of their case.

No clear path to damages for lost transfer:

It would be very hard to quantify and directly link the failed Man City deal to the FA’s actions. Clubs routinely walk away from transfers when uncertainty arises — not just because of the FA.

Public relations victory instead of legal victory:

Paquetá and West Ham may use the ruling to restore his reputation and highlight FA failings, rather than pursue damages in court.

Bottom Line

Yes, in theory: Paquetá and West Ham could explore suing for loss of earnings or reputational damage.But in practice: Such a case would be extremely difficult to win, because FA regulations protect it when acting in good faith, even if the case collapses.Most likely outcome: Paquetá won’t sue for lost wages, but will push for the FA to cover his legal fees (potentially >£1m).

kylay wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025, 17:21

Massive Attack" wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025, 16:22 Apparently they just want to fine him around £150k if they can manage it. That's as far as it'll go ans I doubt they'll even get that. What a fucking carry on and of course it's our Club that ultimately suffered.

Well they need to find a way to pay for the witch hunt. Otherwise they could look like cunts for opening it in the first place. If this is related to the cell phone thing, I would appeal this as far as could to spite the bastards.

How FA’s spot-fixing case against Lucas Paqueta was torn apart by independent commission

An absolute farce. Quite possible criminal, I would have thought.

Sky just announced paqueta is considering sueing the FA.

Good

What are the details of the ‘failure to cooperate’?
Is one that he disposed of the phone they returned to him after examining it for 8 weeks?
They then asked for another look at it and he had bought a new phone (understandably) in the meantime and didn’t have the old one
 

What an utter utter farce this has been. Every new bit of information that I read as in Mercenary's post just makes it more farcical. The FA must be a right bunch of retards.

What a fucking farce this has been their evidence was trounced from everything I've read.. Also there was suspicious betting activity on a lot more than the four games he got booked... That should have got it nipped in the bud straight away. Cunts... Fuck us though.. 


 

There’s quite a bit more about it on the Sky Sports website:

FA will not appeal after Paqueta cleared

The Football Association has said it will not appeal against the decision by an independent commission to clear West Ham midfielder Lucas Paqueta of four spot-fixing charges.The written reasons for the commission's decisions in the  case were published on Wednesday afternoon.

Sanctions in relation to two charges which were found proven - relating to an alleged failure to co-operate with the FA investigation - will be decided by the commission at the earliest opportunity, the FA said.[img]blob:de626762-7e74-42d0-abd0-8666d2c11277[/img]"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.

It had been alleged Paqueta deliberately attempted to receive a card in four Premier League games between November 2022 and August 2023, but the charges were found not proven.The FA said 253 separate bettors placed bets on Paqueta being yellow-carded over the four matches, and the FA said 27 could be linked to the player.Paqueta maintained he only had a real relationship with five of the people. He said he did not speak to the five regularly, and even then, rarely about football.The FA said the 253 bettors laid stakes of £47,000 and made a profit of £167,000.However, the commission concluded that an analysis of the betting data was not “illustrative of a spot-fix”

The commission added: “Rather, in the commission’s view, it is in many respects inconsistent with a spot-fix, but consistent with alternative explanations.”Former West Ham manager David Moyes and ex-Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg gave evidence on Paqueta’s behalf from a performance perspective.Moyes told the commission: “I have re-watched the yellow card incidents closely and, based on my own footballing experience and knowledge of (Paqueta). consider them to be entirely within the normal range of actions for this player.

Clattenburg disagreed with findings presented by Stats Perform Integrity Services (SPIS) in support of the FA’s case, and felt two of the four yellow cards should not have been shown.The commission concluded there was “nothing in Paqueta’s on-field conduct” which advanced the FA’s case that he had deliberately sought to be booked in any of the four games.

The commission found the FA’s inability to locate one item of data from either of the player’s mobile phones that even mentioned betting or had any connection to one of the four games related to the charges was a significant point in favour of Paqueta’s defence and indicated he was being truthful about his lack of interest in gambling.

The commission drew no adverse inference from the fact messages had been deleted from Paqueta’s phone because a time-sensitive automatic deletion function had been activated.

The FA accepted it could not be proved Paqueta had deliberately deleted any messages or contacts.More than 300 deleted messages were recovered, none of which had anything to do with spot-fixing.

The commission said this was “a salient reminder to the commission not to jump to conclusions and the dangers of drawing adverse inferences from events unknown."

If anyone should be seeking money it should be WHU for being victim of an unproven, long drawn out saga. 

Massive Attack" wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025, 16:22 Apparently they just want to fine him around £150k if they can manage it. That's as far as it'll go ans I doubt they'll even get that. What a fucking carry on and of course it's our Club that ultimately suffered.