Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
23 May 24
16:16
Joined:
Date Joined:
31 Dec 04
Been a naughty BOY
Show More
How can they prove it, I'd love to see footage of these 4 deliberate bookings
saw one of them on twitter when the story originally broke months back..
didn't look good but obviously the vital part is being able to link the action to financial gain by a person linked to him..
his first half performance against England was one of the more remarkable attempts to get a card though whether for financial gain or because he's a complete numpty, I'm not sure.
didn't look good but obviously the vital part is being able to link the action to financial gain by a person linked to him..
his first half performance against England was one of the more remarkable attempts to get a card though whether for financial gain or because he's a complete numpty, I'm not sure.
Was all bets from small village in Brazil where his family live.
Can't be that hard to prove.
Can't be that hard to prove.
The player took the yellow in the 24th minute of the second half. Initial analysis showed that on that day several new accounts were created on Betway, linked with people close to Paqueta, with users depositing the maximum amount allowed.
These accounts made a married bet to increase the winnings: the authors would only receive the money if Paquetá took yellow against Villa and if striker Luiz Henrique, from Betis, received the card against Villarreal, on the same day on March 12.
These accounts made a married bet to increase the winnings: the authors would only receive the money if Paquetá took yellow against Villa and if striker Luiz Henrique, from Betis, received the card against Villarreal, on the same day on March 12.
if that's the case he's probably f**** then...
far more serious offence than either Toney or Tonali..
far more serious offence than either Toney or Tonali..
Yep, big if, and that's unofficial sources.
But...
But...
The authorities were alerted to suspicious betting patterns after a number of significant bets were placed on Paqueta to be booked in the Villa game within his homeland of Brazil.
The bets are said to have been placed using new accounts registered to addresses close to the midfielder’s hometown of Paqueta Island, near Rio de Janeiro.
Some of those wagers were placed with West Ham’s shirt sponsor Betway. The platform is not commonly used in Brazil and it was the bookmaker who first raised suspicions.
The bets are said to have been placed using new accounts registered to addresses close to the midfielder’s hometown of Paqueta Island, near Rio de Janeiro.
Some of those wagers were placed with West Ham’s shirt sponsor Betway. The platform is not commonly used in Brazil and it was the bookmaker who first raised suspicions.
He was left out of the Brazil squad not long ago because of this,if I
remember rightly,back in it a few days ago.
remember rightly,back in it a few days ago.
You see a few suspicious tackles at games.
Without the back up that's all they remain.
There was a booking coup flagged up on here
before it happened. Not paqueta.
Without the back up that's all they remain.
There was a booking coup flagged up on here
before it happened. Not paqueta.
If guilty, he really is Fooked, City won't want him especially when the ban ends, he'll be 48
The @FA has charged Lucas Paqueta #WHUFC with four breaches of Rule E5.1 in relation to his conduct in the club’s PL games against LCFC on 12 Nov 2022; AVFC on 12 March 2023; LUFC on 21 May 2023; and Bournemouth on 12 Aug 2023. FA alleges Paqueta "directly sought to influence the progress, conduct, or any other aspect of, or occurrence in these matches by intentionally seeking to receive a card from the referee for the improper purpose of affecting the betting market in order for one or more persons to profit from betting
Citeh lawyers may be his best hope...
Citeh lawyers may be his best hope...
His only get out could be that it was local gangsters threatening his family maybe. But for such a good player who was tipped to move to City to screw up his career over something like this, it just feels monumentally stupid.
Newcastle were linked at one point. He could have bunked in with Tonali
The games FA charges relate to
West Ham 0-2 Leicester - 12 November 2022
Paqueta booked for a 'lunge' on Leicester midfielder Boubakary Soumare in the 60th minute.
He is booked at 1-0 and the match finishes 2-0 to Leicester.
West Ham 1-1 Aston Villa - 12 March 2023
Paqueta booked for what is described as a 'lunging challenge' on John McGinn in the 70th minute, with the score at 1-1.
West Ham 3-1 Leeds United - 21 May 2023
Paqueta is booked for pulling back Leeds winger Crysencio Summerville on the counter-attack in the 65th minute.
It happens at 1-1, with West Ham going on to win 3-1.
West Ham 1-1 Bournemouth - 12 August 2023
In the opening game of this season, Paqueta is booked for handball in the 94th minute, with the match finishing 1-1.
West Ham 0-2 Leicester - 12 November 2022
Paqueta booked for a 'lunge' on Leicester midfielder Boubakary Soumare in the 60th minute.
He is booked at 1-0 and the match finishes 2-0 to Leicester.
West Ham 1-1 Aston Villa - 12 March 2023
Paqueta booked for what is described as a 'lunging challenge' on John McGinn in the 70th minute, with the score at 1-1.
West Ham 3-1 Leeds United - 21 May 2023
Paqueta is booked for pulling back Leeds winger Crysencio Summerville on the counter-attack in the 65th minute.
It happens at 1-1, with West Ham going on to win 3-1.
West Ham 1-1 Bournemouth - 12 August 2023
In the opening game of this season, Paqueta is booked for handball in the 94th minute, with the match finishing 1-1.
He left it super late as he was subbed off 90+4
A 4yo could have come up with a better strategy to make this pay. This will be held up as everything that should not be done in teaching people what to look for.
Yep
all the bets made on Paqueta island
Seems Footballers own islands now
all the bets made on Paqueta island
Seems Footballers own islands now
Anyone any idea how much was involved ? Seems to me if the bookmakers don't want to pay out on this type of market they shouldn't be taking the bets in the first place.
At a guess they deposited £50 eachband put it on.
Back a few years an Irish bookie was offering evs
David duval to miss cut at open. Max £50.some guy flagged it
on furum, and he was sound, and duval struggling.
We all opened accounts
and actually got paid, and banned from future bets.
But even back then they can track and link stuff.
Likely they link same bets and location raises a flag
and they investigate further.
Maybe one guy getting away with it and he blabs
and Thomas, Harold and Richard tell their mates too.
Back a few years an Irish bookie was offering evs
David duval to miss cut at open. Max £50.some guy flagged it
on furum, and he was sound, and duval struggling.
We all opened accounts
and actually got paid, and banned from future bets.
But even back then they can track and link stuff.
Likely they link same bets and location raises a flag
and they investigate further.
Maybe one guy getting away with it and he blabs
and Thomas, Harold and Richard tell their mates too.
West Ham's sponsors lol. I think Betway are the least trustworthy bookie with a UK license personally. Wouldn't go near them.
If it is Betway, definitely calls into question his guilt imo. If I was his defence team I'd go through review sites and look into times where Betway might have acted dishonestly. One of the yellow cards was in the 4th minute of injury time. How many times was he actually on the pitch in the 4th minute of injury time in the 20 preceding games?
Are you serious?
It'll be how often they've punted on a card for him
and what's relationship to him.
Was it just a one off got lucky or 4 planned coups.
Or 4 wins out of 40 bets.
Doesn't matter that books might con punters.
It'll be how often they've punted on a card for him
and what's relationship to him.
Was it just a one off got lucky or 4 planned coups.
Or 4 wins out of 40 bets.
Doesn't matter that books might con punters.
he got 5 yellow cards in 22/23 and 3 of them were deliberate ... for a player in his position
so he got twice as many yellow cards when he wasn't deliberately getting them than when he was
and if you are getting a deliberate yellow card why wait to the 4th minute of IT?
So the bookies records are vital.
Doesn't matter what they are, the electronic data held on each punter
will need to be correlated and matched against booking results.
Luck, within reasonable parameters, or a coup or series of coups.
Doesn't matter what they are, the electronic data held on each punter
will need to be correlated and matched against booking results.
Luck, within reasonable parameters, or a coup or series of coups.
If it was Betfair Hills Smarkets etc I'd give the bookie evidence more credence.
It doesn't matter that they have to recycle winning on slots or bingo
or jump through hoops to get winnings it's simple data records that
need to be analysed by 3rd party.
or jump through hoops to get winnings it's simple data records that
need to be analysed by 3rd party.
The 1 where he was booked in the 90+4 minute, wasnt he continually asking to be subbed from the 70th minute onwards?
The problem with the data will be that Betway can hand pick what data they show to support their argument. If it is only that bookie and no other bookie, then I'm deeply suspicious, as it also happens to be the one bookie that I completely don't trust. I would hope, if he is found guilty, there is other evidence from other sources.
If in 2023 the argument put forward is that he only got 2 yellow cards that weren't deliberate, then I reckon that is statistically outside or very close to 95% confidence intervals of his historical yellow card record and that of players playing in his position. Five yellow cards is probably close to the average of what you'd expect.
Add in also that the other yellow card was in the 4th minute of injury time and that there was a very good chance he'd have been substituted by then. And then add in that the accusations are possibly only from Betway. Still I don't know, but if he or his lawyers want my help .....
They won't be able to hand pick it.
It will be fully disclosed uncorupted and unedited
files.
It's not Betway v paqueta
Betway have coughed up files
It will be fully disclosed uncorupted and unedited
files.
It's not Betway v paqueta
Betway have coughed up files
They've coughed up files to support their evidence. There's no way it's full disclosure or even close imo. You don't what info is there that isn't coughed up. Taken 15 years and hundreds of millions for the PO to cough up files.
Betway has no integrity imo. It's possible it may be malicious or dishonest. Let's see what other evidence there is. From a statistical pov the outside evidence is zero.
It's got nowt to do with post office.
It's accounts punting on paqueta yellow cards.
I've no idea what evidence shows but clearly
Prima facie it needs to be analysed for luck or a coup.
It's accounts punting on paqueta yellow cards.
I've no idea what evidence shows but clearly
Prima facie it needs to be analysed for luck or a coup.
Why would Betway act dishonesty, lol
They would lose their licence.
They would lose their licence.
I'm looking at 22/23. 8 of the 10 most yellow cards were given to midfielders, 7 to central midfielders, soo it's the position that receives the most yellows. There's an average of about 4 per game. so let's say 5/1 approx if you start. He got five in the PL that season from 26 starts and 2 sub appearances. About average. At 5/1 per match played there is only a 13% chance that he only received 2 genuine yellow cards. (just worked it out)
Why would Paqueta risk losing his multi million £ career? Some people are just stupid/deluded or inherently dishonest, or lack integrity, or plain malicious
I'm looking at 22/23. 8 of the 10 most yellow cards were given to midfielders, 7 to central midfielders, soo it's the position that receives the most yellows. There's an average of about 4 per game. so let's say 5/1 approx if you start. He got five in the PL that season from 26 starts and 2 sub appearances. About average. At 5/1 per match played there is only a 13% chance that he only received 2 genuine yellow cards. (just worked it out)
This doesn't mean that he isn't guilty ofc. But as evidence it makes it less likely.
This doesn't mean that he isn't guilty ofc. But as evidence it makes it less likely.
I must be missing something with the reports of him being set to be 'banned for life'
How is that not amazingly disproportionate?
Getting booked to earn a few friends a few quid doesn't warrant a life time ban, a life time ban should be of of the back of trying to rig a game, bribing a ref, deliberately scoring an own goal, betting against your own team etc.
These FA mugs are not football people, they are business/media people wetting themselves over the thought of bad publicity for the league.
It's the same reason they went after their own England captain Terry, even though he had just been cleared by the highest court in the country, not enough for them, they wanted a private prosecution, desperate to pander to the woke brigade, despeate not to lose key sponsorship deals etc.
This'll probably end up at the court of arbitration for sport, where most sportspeople are cleared
Kind Regards.
How is that not amazingly disproportionate?
Getting booked to earn a few friends a few quid doesn't warrant a life time ban, a life time ban should be of of the back of trying to rig a game, bribing a ref, deliberately scoring an own goal, betting against your own team etc.
These FA mugs are not football people, they are business/media people wetting themselves over the thought of bad publicity for the league.
It's the same reason they went after their own England captain Terry, even though he had just been cleared by the highest court in the country, not enough for them, they wanted a private prosecution, desperate to pander to the woke brigade, despeate not to lose key sponsorship deals etc.
This'll probably end up at the court of arbitration for sport, where most sportspeople are cleared
Kind Regards.
Why would Paqueta risk losing his multi million £ career?
Why would tonali?
Why would Toney?
Who knows if he did or did not.
Analysis of the bets will be informative
Why would tonali?
Why would Toney?
Who knows if he did or did not.
Analysis of the bets will be informative
If you were going to accuse someone of fixing a coin toss. If he had won the same number of coin tosses as he lost over the period, that is statistical evidence that supports their innocence. The fact is that Paqueta got the expected number of yellow cards in that PL season (not more than expected)
I thought you made money on betting?
The statistical analysis is did the bets beat the
expectation, not the bookings beating expectation. Anybody can cover
by getting average amount of bookings, but if the backers
are winning,... And are related by geography are
they lucky or is the luck outside of bounds.
Are the number of backers growing as word gets out
that somebody knows he's getting a card and keeps
getting it right.
Could be a money tree type guesser on good run
The evidence will be there, one way or another.
The statistical analysis is did the bets beat the
expectation, not the bookings beating expectation. Anybody can cover
by getting average amount of bookings, but if the backers
are winning,... And are related by geography are
they lucky or is the luck outside of bounds.
Are the number of backers growing as word gets out
that somebody knows he's getting a card and keeps
getting it right.
Could be a money tree type guesser on good run
The evidence will be there, one way or another.
Looking at it in further detail, what is being suggested is that in a period of 28 games he picked up 5 yellow cards and 4 of them were deliberate for betting purposes (and one of these was in the 4th minute of IT). Then over the next 28 PL games when he wasn't deliberately getting them he picked up 9 more yellow cards.
It totally does not support Betway's interpretation/version of events
It totally does not support Betway's interpretation/version of events
Well it suggests it needs further investigation.
If árvore de dinheiro lived on paqueta island and
had a good run with his tips that could explain it too.
If árvore de dinheiro lived on paqueta island and
had a good run with his tips that could explain it too.
Lucas Paqueta's lawyers have requested more time to respond to his FA charge for alleged betting breaches.
The Brazil Football Federation said last week it was informed by the FA that due to the details of the case it anticipated an extension may be requested.
The Brazil Football Federation said last week it was informed by the FA that due to the details of the case it anticipated an extension may be requested.
These Brazilian lads usually support their villages by buying them a goat they can fck and eat or eat and fck depending on their preferences. Perhaps if he has his time again, he'll plump for the goat.
He's a player who gets stuck in,rarely shirks a tackle.
Why wait to the 4TH minute of injury time to get booked
aswell.
Why wait to the 4TH minute of injury time to get booked
aswell.
https://www.hammers.news/news/monumental-lucas-paqueta-trial-twist-as-fa-push-for-deal-but-west-ham-refuse-to-budge/
It is among the longest trial periods in the FA’s history as the Hammers playmaker fights to save his career.
Ahead of the trial it was reported the Football Association are pushing to ban Paqueta for life.
West Ham’s £51m record signing has always maintained his innocence.
What next for Paqueta’s FA trial?
‘The Godfather of sports law’, renowned barrister Nick De Marco KC, is part of the team defending Paqueta.
De Marco told West Ham he expects Paqueta to be absolved after week two.
Earlier this week Hammers News exclusively revealed things were looking better and better for West Ham’s Paqueta.
That’s after a gambling expert witness called to give evidence ‘had a really rough time and was not good’.
And a statistician was called to give evidence West Ham and the defence felt confident would ‘tip the whole case’ in Paqueta’s favour.
Now there has been a monumental Paqueta trial twist as the FA push for a deal but West Ham refuse to budge.
Speaking ahead of West Ham’s game against Bournemouth, manager Graham Potter broke his silence on the Paqueta case, as reported on the club’s website.
Potter revealed he had a sit-down chat with the Brazilian in which he declared he loves playing for West Ham and is not being affected by the ongoing case.
Now we might know why.
A top senior source close to the case has revealed the latest on the trial to Hammers News.
And the balance of power seems to be shifting in West Ham’s favour.
West Ham refuse to budge over Paqueta
“So it seems the case is to now be adjourned to resume some time in June,” the top source exclusively told Hammers News.
“The FA are looking to strike deal.
“But West Ham won’t accept any suspension, which the FA want.
“The data guy’s evidence went well I am told.”
The statistician the source refers to reportedly pointed to hundreds of instances that Paqueta committed fouls which did not result in a booking – but which normally would in the Premier League.
West Ham’s refusal to accept a deal from the FA on what it’s safe to assume would be a reduced suspension is telling.
It suggests the Hammers and Paqueta’s legal team are growing in confidence the £150k per week star will be admonished.
The major update comes after it emerged West Ham and Paqueta could launch a counter case against the FA, headed up by Mark Bullingham, for millions in compensation if he is cleared.
It is among the longest trial periods in the FA’s history as the Hammers playmaker fights to save his career.
Ahead of the trial it was reported the Football Association are pushing to ban Paqueta for life.
West Ham’s £51m record signing has always maintained his innocence.
What next for Paqueta’s FA trial?
‘The Godfather of sports law’, renowned barrister Nick De Marco KC, is part of the team defending Paqueta.
De Marco told West Ham he expects Paqueta to be absolved after week two.
Earlier this week Hammers News exclusively revealed things were looking better and better for West Ham’s Paqueta.
That’s after a gambling expert witness called to give evidence ‘had a really rough time and was not good’.
And a statistician was called to give evidence West Ham and the defence felt confident would ‘tip the whole case’ in Paqueta’s favour.
Now there has been a monumental Paqueta trial twist as the FA push for a deal but West Ham refuse to budge.
Speaking ahead of West Ham’s game against Bournemouth, manager Graham Potter broke his silence on the Paqueta case, as reported on the club’s website.
Potter revealed he had a sit-down chat with the Brazilian in which he declared he loves playing for West Ham and is not being affected by the ongoing case.
Now we might know why.
A top senior source close to the case has revealed the latest on the trial to Hammers News.
And the balance of power seems to be shifting in West Ham’s favour.
West Ham refuse to budge over Paqueta
“So it seems the case is to now be adjourned to resume some time in June,” the top source exclusively told Hammers News.
“The FA are looking to strike deal.
“But West Ham won’t accept any suspension, which the FA want.
“The data guy’s evidence went well I am told.”
The statistician the source refers to reportedly pointed to hundreds of instances that Paqueta committed fouls which did not result in a booking – but which normally would in the Premier League.
West Ham’s refusal to accept a deal from the FA on what it’s safe to assume would be a reduced suspension is telling.
It suggests the Hammers and Paqueta’s legal team are growing in confidence the £150k per week star will be admonished.
The major update comes after it emerged West Ham and Paqueta could launch a counter case against the FA, headed up by Mark Bullingham, for millions in compensation if he is cleared.
It appears someone probably linked to the FA or the prosecution has been feeding the media too, cherry picking misleading info to make it look like he's guilty. In particular, that he'd got rid of his phone and refused to hand it over. Hammersnews reporting that he handed it to the FA who had his phone for 2 months, by which time he bought a new phone. After he got his old phone back, he naturally continued using the more up to date model instead. When they asked to see the phone again, he'd got rid of it.
Any news....?
Verdict due
Then they can do citeh...
Verdict due
Then they can do citeh...
pretty anonymous last season, didn't realise he'd been locked up.
With the money involved in the Prem, anything goes
West Ham have confirmed that Lucas Paqueta has been cleared of all the alleged betting breaches against him.
Nick De Marco KC
I cannot say how happy I was to receive the news that all the spot fixing charges against Lucas Paquetá have been dismissed after a long 2 years.
Having got to know Lucas during the process, and spent much time with the evidence, I am delighted the correct verdict has been reached. Doing a case for an individual, especially one as dedicated and talented as Lucas, whose whole career and life depends on the outcome, can be very stressful at times. But when the final result is the right one it makes it all worthwhile.
That’s why for me this is probably one of the most important cases I have ever worked on, and one I shall never forget. I’m very grateful for the patience of the Regulatory Commission and the support of my great legal team, especially barrister Kendrah Potts and solicitor Alastair Campbell from Level, as well as the unwavering support of West Ham United throughout, and of course to Lucas and his advisers, for their trust.
We await reading the written reasons when they are published, and apart from sharing my happiness and thanks, I can’t comment any further.
I cannot say how happy I was to receive the news that all the spot fixing charges against Lucas Paquetá have been dismissed after a long 2 years.
Having got to know Lucas during the process, and spent much time with the evidence, I am delighted the correct verdict has been reached. Doing a case for an individual, especially one as dedicated and talented as Lucas, whose whole career and life depends on the outcome, can be very stressful at times. But when the final result is the right one it makes it all worthwhile.
That’s why for me this is probably one of the most important cases I have ever worked on, and one I shall never forget. I’m very grateful for the patience of the Regulatory Commission and the support of my great legal team, especially barrister Kendrah Potts and solicitor Alastair Campbell from Level, as well as the unwavering support of West Ham United throughout, and of course to Lucas and his advisers, for their trust.
We await reading the written reasons when they are published, and apart from sharing my happiness and thanks, I can’t comment any further.
As I said initially. The accuser was Betway and they can't be trusted. When I looked at the evidence, it didn't stack up and I did contact the West Ham Chief Executive on Linkedin, with my thoughts. No surprise that they never responded to an effectively anonymous person, and they probably reached the same conclusions as I did that the evidence didn't stack up. It's a disgrace really
If he's truly innocent, he will sue them til Kingdom come.
If he doesn't, he is highly likely to be guilty.
Kind Regards.
If he doesn't, he is highly likely to be guilty.
Kind Regards.
The irony is West Ham were sponsored by Betway at the time. Hence they are no longer club sponsors.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/crmewl2x7pmo
West Ham midfielder Lucas Paqueta is considering suing the Football Association after he was cleared of spot-fixing.
Sources close to the 28-year-old have told BBC Sport that the player's lawyers are currently "considering all options".
The Brazilian was charged by the FA in May 2024 for allegedly getting booked deliberately for the "improper purpose of affecting the betting market".
Paqueta was cleared on four counts of supposed spot-fixing by an independent commission in July 2025.
Written reasons detailing the commission's findings were published on Wednesday, calling into question the FA's decision not to call in independent expertise on the key area of betting data.
Paqueta's legal team is now analysing the case and considering all options in response, including suing the FA.
The FA's investigation into Paqueta began in August 2023 - nine months before the Brazilian was eventually charged.
The announcement of the investigation led to the collapse of the Brazilian's £80m move to Manchester City.
The commission noted that both Paqueta and West Ham would have "received substantial sums running into the tens of millions of pounds" and that "both the player and West Ham reserve all of their rights in that regard".
The FA, which has confirmed it will not be appealing against the decision, has been contacted for comment.
A 314-page document prepared by Sports Resolutions - an independent and not-for-profit dispute resolution service - provided detail of the case.
A range of information - from former West Ham manager David Moyes' views on the yellow cards to conversations Paqueta's hairdresser mother Cristiane had in a salon back in Brazil - is covered by the commission's written findings.
The FA claimed 542 bets totalling £46,758.83 were staked by 253 different bettors with a collective return of £213,703.81, reflecting a net profit of £166,944.98.
However, the commission noted that the FA's case rested "entirely on circumstantial evidence" and the decision to tender evidence on the betting data from one of its own employees, betting integrity investigator Tom Astley, was an "oddity" and "an obvious flaw".
"In the commission's view, on what the FA has accepted was the most important element of its case, it simply did not call independent expert evidence," the commission said in the written findings.
"Instead, it relies on the evidence of its integrity investigator and asks the commission to accept that he has shown the impartiality that would have been expected of an independent expert."
In his evidence, Astley said the betting on Paqueta "appears highly orchestrated".
The commission said the FA's legal counsel subsequently disagreed with Astley's assessment and was "thus abandoning, without further explanation, its case on orchestration".
The FA said 27 of the 253 bettors could be linked to the player, but 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 commission concluded that an analysis of the betting data was not "illustrative of a spot-fix" and added it was "in many respects inconsistent with a spot-fix, but consistent with alternative explanations".
Nick de Marco, part of Paqueta's legal team, said: "I remain delighted for my client Lucas, cleared of all the serious charges of spot-fixing.
"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."
Ex-West Ham manager Moyes, now in charge of Everton, and former Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg gave evidence on Paqueta's behalf from a performance perspective.
Moyes said he had "re-watched the yellow card incidents closely" and "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.
"Each challenge is comfortably within the sphere of things that happen multiple times every match, both individually and when taken in conjunction with each other," Clattenburg said.
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 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".
West Ham midfielder Lucas Paqueta is considering suing the Football Association after he was cleared of spot-fixing.
Sources close to the 28-year-old have told BBC Sport that the player's lawyers are currently "considering all options".
The Brazilian was charged by the FA in May 2024 for allegedly getting booked deliberately for the "improper purpose of affecting the betting market".
Paqueta was cleared on four counts of supposed spot-fixing by an independent commission in July 2025.
Written reasons detailing the commission's findings were published on Wednesday, calling into question the FA's decision not to call in independent expertise on the key area of betting data.
Paqueta's legal team is now analysing the case and considering all options in response, including suing the FA.
The FA's investigation into Paqueta began in August 2023 - nine months before the Brazilian was eventually charged.
The announcement of the investigation led to the collapse of the Brazilian's £80m move to Manchester City.
The commission noted that both Paqueta and West Ham would have "received substantial sums running into the tens of millions of pounds" and that "both the player and West Ham reserve all of their rights in that regard".
The FA, which has confirmed it will not be appealing against the decision, has been contacted for comment.
A 314-page document prepared by Sports Resolutions - an independent and not-for-profit dispute resolution service - provided detail of the case.
A range of information - from former West Ham manager David Moyes' views on the yellow cards to conversations Paqueta's hairdresser mother Cristiane had in a salon back in Brazil - is covered by the commission's written findings.
The FA claimed 542 bets totalling £46,758.83 were staked by 253 different bettors with a collective return of £213,703.81, reflecting a net profit of £166,944.98.
However, the commission noted that the FA's case rested "entirely on circumstantial evidence" and the decision to tender evidence on the betting data from one of its own employees, betting integrity investigator Tom Astley, was an "oddity" and "an obvious flaw".
"In the commission's view, on what the FA has accepted was the most important element of its case, it simply did not call independent expert evidence," the commission said in the written findings.
"Instead, it relies on the evidence of its integrity investigator and asks the commission to accept that he has shown the impartiality that would have been expected of an independent expert."
In his evidence, Astley said the betting on Paqueta "appears highly orchestrated".
The commission said the FA's legal counsel subsequently disagreed with Astley's assessment and was "thus abandoning, without further explanation, its case on orchestration".
The FA said 27 of the 253 bettors could be linked to the player, but 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 commission concluded that an analysis of the betting data was not "illustrative of a spot-fix" and added it was "in many respects inconsistent with a spot-fix, but consistent with alternative explanations".
Nick de Marco, part of Paqueta's legal team, said: "I remain delighted for my client Lucas, cleared of all the serious charges of spot-fixing.
"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."
Ex-West Ham manager Moyes, now in charge of Everton, and former Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg gave evidence on Paqueta's behalf from a performance perspective.
Moyes said he had "re-watched the yellow card incidents closely" and "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.
"Each challenge is comfortably within the sphere of things that happen multiple times every match, both individually and when taken in conjunction with each other," Clattenburg said.
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 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".
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539