The opening of the investigation by Wembley beaks in August 2023 scuppered Paqueta’s proposed £80m move to Manchester City.
Lucas Paqueta and West Ham are considering suing the FA
Former West Ham boss David Moyes defended the Brazilian
That cost him the chance of being part of the side that won the Prem that season.
And as it emerged that FA investigators launched the case against Paqueta with NO direct evidence to back up their allegations, the midfielder’s legal team and the Hammers are considering a potential multi-million pound legal case against .
The full written reasons of the three-man committee that dismissed the four main allegations against Paqueta included the charge that Wembley chiefs relied on the suspicions of their internal expert – whose claims were demolished by and ex-ref and whose lack of independence was an “obvious flaw” in the case.
In what was a damning indictment of the FA investigation, extended to more than 300 pages, the case against the midfielder – accused of providing information to friends and family members ahead of four yellow cards in top flight games in 2022 and 2023 – was forensically torn apart.
And while Paqueta, 28, faces punishment after being found guilty of two charges of failing to comply with the FA investigation, the commission made clear that will be at the “lower end” of the sanctions scale, likely to be a small fine at most.
Further similar alerts were raised after the Brazilian was booked against Leeds in May and against Bournemouth at the start of the following season, before further reports of “suspicious” patterns related to his caution against Leicester in November 2022.
The FA alleged it had identified 253 separate bettors, claiming 26 of them were linked to Paqueta, with a total of £47,000 wagered for a profit of £167,000.
After Paqueta was interviewed and charged in September 2023 he was accused of having wiped his two phones of messages, with FA chiefs arguing other messages were indicative that he was aware of the bets.
In addition, the FA relied on the submissions of Jack Johnson of data analysts Stats Perform, to justify its conclusions that the cautions picked up by Paqueta were deliberate.
And at one point in the proceedings, the FA argued that it was up to Paqueta to demonstrate his innocence, rather than for the governing body to prove its case against him – a view refuted by the panel.
Johnson’s arguments were exploded by both ex-Hammers chief Moyes and former top referee Clattenburg, with Paqueta’s legal team pointing out it would have been far easier for him to be booked for kicking the ball away or showing dissent than tackling for possession.
Paqueta, whose planned move to fell through when the allegations against him emerged, faced a four-year ban if the charges had been proven.
He told the hearing that all the bookings had been for legitimate attempts to win the ball and added: “I feel totally devastated for what I have been going through. I have been living a nightmare for two years.
“I hope that I will recover my dignity as a man, as well as a football player.”
“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 and a hearing lasting 20 days, the FA were apparently not interested in what the player had to say.”
The FA confirmed it would not be appealing although a spokesperson added: “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.”
But Paqueta’s legal chief Campbell, who is expected to argue that the personal and professional impact of fighting to clear his name – the player cannot recover any of the financial costs – should mean a limited punishment, said: “This judgment shows that Lucas had to go to great lengths to prove his innocence.
“The evidence confirmed that his integrity as both a player and a person is beyond doubt. It’s fantastic to see him playing so well without this burden – he has his mojo back.”
