Lucas Paqueta could take legal action against FA after being cleared by spot-fixing investigation

Telegraph

2 days ago

West Ham United will not take legal action against the Football Association after Lucas Paqueta was cleared of spot-fixing charges and will let the player and his lawyers decide whether they want to sue for damages.
The FA were pushing for a lifetime ban for the 27-year-old Brazilian international and now face serious questions as to why they brought the case, how strong it was and why they argued for such a severe punishment.
There is anger and frustration at West Ham over the time it has taken – almost two years after the FA launched its investigation – for the case to be completed and the independent regulatory commission to reach its verdict.
The FA may face legal action from Paqueta for loss of commercial earnings, for example, as he can argue he will have been denied sponsorship deals with the charges hanging over him and his reputation in question.
It will be more difficult, but still possible, to argue his career was damaged by the collapse of an £85m move to Manchester City which he was set to complete when the allegations were made.
Paqueta's legal team will wait to receive the full written reasons for the verdict before deciding if there is any action to be taken. However, it may be decided that it is best for Paqueta, who has struggled with the enormity of the situation and its potential ramifications, to draw a line under it all and get on with his career.
The FA, which faces having to pay legal fees that could amount to more than £1m, said it will not comment further until the reasons are published.
The saga is understood to have taken a huge toll on Paqueta and his family and, according to a senior source, West Ham have no intention of selling the midfielder now unless he wants to leave and they receive 'an offer they cannot refuse'.
It would have to be a bid in excess of £60m to be of interest with Paqueta having impressed in pre-season, with West Ham currently in the United States, after a difficult end to the last campaign when he had to be left out by head coach Graham Potter because of how the case was clearly affecting him.
Paqueta was in tears after being booked against Tottenham Hotspur in May with his wife Maria Fournier posting on Instagram that they had 'been living this nightmare for two years'.
Paqueta feels loyalty towards West Ham for the way they have supported him throughout the process and this may also make him more inclined to stay now he has been cleared.
The FA started its investigation in August 2023 and Paqueta was charged in May last year for allegedly getting deliberately booked 'for the improper purpose of affecting the betting market'.
The four charges relate to a Premier League game against Leicester City on November 12 2022, as well as fixtures the following year against Aston Villa on March 12, Leeds United on May 21 and Bournemouth on August 12.
The original FA charges alleged that Paqueta got himself booked so that 'one or more persons' could benefit financially although there was never any suggestion that he profited or had bet on games himself.
Betting firms allow gamblers to place such wagers with, since 2014, the FA rules stating that anyone associated with a club in the top eight tiers of English football cannot bet on any aspect of the sport worldwide.
The regulatory commission found the four charges to be 'not proven' following the hearing which finally ended in April.
Paqueta also denied two counts of failing to comply with his obligation to answer questions and provide information to the FA's investigation but these were found 'proven'. The commission said it will decide an appropriate sanction 'at the earliest opportunity'.
The standard of proof was based on a 'balance of probabilities' – as in civil cases – as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is used in criminal proceedings but legal sources have questioned the strength of the FA's case particularly as they were pushing for such a severe punishment and appeared to be depending on a large amount of circumstantial evidence.
In a statement Paqueta said: 'Since the first day of this investigation, I have maintained my innocence against these extremely serious accusations. I can't say anything more at this time but I would like to express how grateful I am to God and how eager I am to return to playing football with a smile on my face.
'To my wife who never let go of my hand, to West Ham United, to the fans who always cheered me on, and to my family, friends and the legal team who have supported me – thank you for everything.'
West Ham vice-chair Karren Brady said the club were 'pleased' with the verdict and 'resolutely stood by' Paqueta – who joined from Lyon for an initial £36.5million in August 2022 – throughout the process.
The four bookings in question
1. vs Leicester City, November 12, 2022
Paqueta commits two fouls in the space of a few seconds – on Boubakary Soumare and Dennis Praet – to earn a yellow card in the 60th minute. West Ham are 1-0 down at the time and go on to lose 2-0.
2. vs Aston Villa, March 12, 2023
Paqueta lunges into a wild challenge on Aston Villa's John McGinn, inside the centre-circle, as Villa try to start an attack in the 70th minute. The score was 1-1 at the time and remained 1-1 until the end.
3. vs Leeds United, May 21, 2023
Paqueta stops a potential counter-attack by fouling Leeds United forward Crysencio Summerville deep into the Leeds half in the 65th minute. The score is 1-1 at the time, with West Ham going on to win 3-1.
4. vs Bournemouth, August 12, 2023
With the match in the fourth minute of stoppage time and heading for a 1-1 draw, Paqueta is shown a yellow card for handball after challenging for an aerial duel with his arms raised.
There is very rarely a smoking gun in cases like this
While seeking loss of future earnings is difficult, Lucas Paqueta could be successful with claiming commercial losses. No company wants to be associated with players linked with cheating. Losing out on commercial deals is more easy to prove and something he could look at. Whether he would want to or not, or close the chapter.
In terms of potential future losses, was the transfer to Manchester City contractually there and what proof was there that you would have been successful? There are more what-ifs than in business as players can peak at different times.
If my client is charged with such serious offences, I would be looking for full disclosure of information and betting companies may not want this made public. But I would want to know the betting patterns. I would also instruct an expert referee as bookings are subjective. Was that considered?
With proving a case like this, there is no smoking gun. You build it with lots of different factors and if there are a lot of weaknesses you have to consider that and ask whether it really is in the public interest to go after the case?
For the FA the questions are two-fold: did they misjudge the case and its importance, or is this another example of governing bodies being toothless against well-represented clients but bullying smaller ones?
At bigger clubs there are more resources and you can have more experts to look at the patterns. At smaller clubs, they cannot pay for forensic accounting and statisticians that run into the tens of thousands to look into the likelihood of these bets. After a while it becomes a case of experts, I would not be surprised if that is what happened here.
They have a duty to investigate cases like this. But as good as the FA's lawyers are, they will not be able to touch the bigger fish and all of a sudden they are swallowed up.
For Paqueta, who was reported to be wanted by Manchester City when news of the investigations became known, the result must be a relief, but the personal costs of playing in a struggling team for two years and knowing the FA sought a life-time ban will no doubt have had an emotional and mental effect upon him.
The bookmakers are the ones who have their own investigatory teams and look at the betting patterns, which they flag when they see something. In this case it was the end of one season and the beginning of the next. When they saw it they must have wanted to put a stop to it immediately. The FA would have investigated on the back of what the bookmakers reported. As per all investigations you ask for mobile phones and all emails, all social media chats and so forth for disclosure, along with bank accounts to see if he was making money.
In terms of non-disclosure, all of us have information on mobile phones which we would not want people to get hold of. Whereas some might perceive this as having something to hide - it may have been something entirely disconnected that he didn't want the world to know about. For all we know, it could have been not wanting the world to know he collected Pokemon cards. You find this in large cases, you have your own right to privacy. On most occasions - 99 per cent of the time - there is an innocent explanation that you are investigating me for this and it has nothing to do with anything else in my life.
The FA, apart from what the bookies gave them and what evidence Paqueta gave them, certainly didn't get anywhere.
It is rare that you get one big piece of evidence. It is usually death by a thousand cuts and so you build the case on all the other evidence. In this case, the betting patterns and where they happened. The kind of bets too. Something like getting booked or missing a penalty is about the player's own performance. It has to be asked if it is coincidental or if he is reckless and gets booked all the time. Or are there patterns to his own game where people see he can get booked.
It is the question of bookings. How many put bets down on bookings? I would look at other players and the bookings they get, domestically and internationally, Premier League and EFL. How much money is being put on that? Are the people betting on bookings also betting on other things and were they successful? If someone put a bet on a booking, West Ham to win 3-0, Bowen to score, goals in the first half, all of a sudden, it is one of five different bets. It should not be looked at in isolation which I find they often do.
One also has to look at the links between football and betting. If the FA and other governing bodies start to challenge the betting companies, the money pumped into football will not be coming.