The Football Association has faced scathing criticism from the independent commission that cleared West Ham midfielder Lucas Paquetá of spot-fixing charges. In a 314-page report published on Wednesday, the commission highlighted a significant failure by the FA to provide an independent assessment of betting data related to yellow cards received by the Brazilian player.
The FA charged Paquetá in May 2024 following a 10-month investigation into bookings in four Premier League matches. Its case centred on 27 of 253 individuals who placed suspicious bets on Paquetá to be cautioned, with combined wagers of £47,000 yielding £167,000 in profits. However, the commission concluded there was no evidence of corruption, noting that the unusual betting patterns were more likely explained by the ‘rather random passing of hot tips or perceived inside information within Brazil’.
The report was particularly damning of Tom Astley, the FA’s lead betting integrity investigator and chief witness. The commission described the failure to produce an independent assessment of betting data as ‘surprising’ and noted contradictions between Astley’s testimony and that of the FA’s main prosecutor, Jonathan Laidlaw KC. Laidlaw disagreed with Astley’s description of the betting as ‘highly orchestrated’, leading the commission to conclude that the FA was ‘not altogether certain what case it was presenting’.
The commission reviewed bet-by-bet data for 33 individuals and found no evidence of a spot-fix. Bettors did not place maximum stakes, and fluctuating bet volumes suggested they were acting on tips rather than collusion. Paquetá’s on-field performance was also analysed, with former West Ham manager David Moyes and ex-referee Mark Clattenburg testifying that his actions were ‘entirely within the normal range’ for the player. The rate at which he received yellow cards remained consistent across the period in question.
The commission further questioned the independence of the FA’s expert witness, Jack Johnson of Stats Perform Integrity Services, due to his commercial ties with the governing body. Johnson was accused of ‘confirmation bias’ for failing to consider Paquetá’s conduct in isolation from the betting allegations. Additionally, Paquetá faces a separate sanctions hearing after being found guilty of two lesser charges of failing to fully cooperate with the FA’s investigation. The report noted that Paquetá later offered to answer any questions from the FA, but the governing body declined to ask any, a decision the commission described as ‘surprising’.
