FA panel finds Lucas Paquetá guilty of two cooperation breaches in a betting integrity probe but says evidence is insufficient to prove match manipulation, leaving sanctions to be set while West Ham and the player weigh appeal and next steps.
Brazilian midfielder Lucas Paquetá of West Ham was found guilty on Friday by the English Football Association of failing to cooperate with an integrity investigation into alleged spot betting linked to yellow cards.
The decision came from an independent Regulatory Commission that reviewed the case after the FA brought charges alleging that the player had declined to answer certain questions and withheld information that investigators considered necessary to test the allegations. Paquetá denied wrongdoing on the cooperation counts, but the panel decided that the evidence showed two separate breaches related to non disclosure and refusal to assist.
The underlying suspicion that triggered the inquiry dated back to 2024, when investigators examined four Premier League matches in which Paquetá received bookings. The fixtures cited were against Leicester City on 12 November 2022, Aston Villa on 12 March 2023, Leeds United on 21 May 2023, and AFC Bournemouth on 12 August 2023. The theory tested by the investigators was that friends or associates of the player might have placed bets on him to be shown a yellow card, and that his conduct on the pitch could have been influenced with the aim of affecting those markets. The commission has now recorded that there was not enough evidence to prove match manipulation in any of the games under review. In practical terms, that means there is no finding that he deliberately sought a caution to manipulate a market. The only proven breaches relate to the level of assistance that he provided to the investigation after the allegations surfaced.
Failing to cooperate is taken seriously in football integrity cases because it strikes at the ability of governing bodies to establish facts when market data, communications, and timelines need to be reconciled. Investigators often request device records, message histories, clarifications on travel and social interactions, and explanations for specific on field actions seen on video. When a subject refuses to answer or delays production of requested materials, the process slows or stops, which is why the rules include explicit duties to assist. In Paquetá’s case, the commission agreed with the FA that he did not meet those duties on two counts. The written reasons will typically explain which requests were left unanswered and which deadlines were missed, as well as why any explanations offered by the player were rejected. Although those reasons were not detailed in the initial summary, the verdict indicates a clear view that the level of cooperation fell short of what is required.
The distinction between failing to cooperate and manipulating a match is crucial. Manipulation requires proof that a player intentionally tried to influence an event within the game, for example by seeking a particular booking, with the purpose of impacting a betting outcome. That threshold is high, and rightly so, because it touches the core of sporting integrity. In this case the commission said evidence did not reach that level. The absence of a manipulation finding spares Paquetá from the most serious sporting sanctions associated with fixing, which can include long suspensions and worldwide ramifications. However, the cooperation breaches still carry potential penalties that can affect availability and reputation, such as fines and suspensions graded according to the panel’s assessment of culpability and harm.
For West Ham, the outcome is mixed. The club avoids the fallout that would have accompanied a formal fixing verdict, which could have cast doubt over match results and exposed the club to intense scrutiny. At the same time, the player faces disciplinary consequences that could remove him from selection for a period or incur financial penalties. Squad planning and messaging are therefore important in the short term. Clubs usually coordinate statements that reaffirm support for ongoing processes while acknowledging the importance of integrity rules. The manager and teammates also must deal with the public narrative that often lingers after any betting related case, even when manipulation is not proven.
From the player’s perspective, next steps often revolve around legal strategy and communications. The FA framework allows for appeals to an independent Appeal Board. An appeal can challenge the findings of fact, the interpretation of the rules, or the proportionality of any sanction. The decision to appeal will weigh the likelihood of overturning the verdict against the desire to draw a line under the matter. Publicly, players in this situation often reiterate that they did not manipulate events on the field and that they respect the process, while either accepting the cooperation ruling or contesting it. Clarity and consistency are central to rebuilding trust with supporters and sponsors.
The case also speaks to a wider trend in modern football. Betting markets now price highly granular outcomes, including the timing and recipient of cards. This has increased the vigilance of integrity units, which mine data for unusual patterns, cross check account activity, and track social connections that might suggest collusion risks. Clubs and associations have responded with education programs for players and staff, reminding them of reporting obligations, prohibitions on sharing inside information, and the need to disclose approaches from third parties. The Paquetá decision will likely be used in future workshops as a case study showing that even when manipulation is not proven, failure to assist can still lead to formal sanctions.
On the Brazil national team front, any domestic suspension would be reviewed by the relevant international bodies to determine whether it should be extended worldwide. National selectors also factor public perception and match rhythm into their decisions. If the sanction includes a period out of action, regaining match fitness and tempo becomes an additional hurdle. For a creative midfielder whose game depends on feel and timing in tight spaces, time without competitive minutes can be disruptive. Conversely, if the panel opts for a financial penalty without a ban, the sporting impact would be limited to the off pitch noise that the player and club would need to manage.
Financially, unresolved integrity questions can complicate transfer negotiations and contract talks. Even in the absence of a fixing finding, clubs assess regulatory risk when committing significant fees and wages. Insurance, morality clauses, and conditional bonuses sometimes come under review in the wake of a disciplinary verdict. Agents and sporting directors therefore monitor the appeal clock and the publication of written reasons to gauge how counterparties will react. For West Ham, stability and transparent communication with the player are important to avoid value erosion driven by uncertainty.
In the coming days, attention will turn to the sanctioning decision and any appeal. The commission will consider standard factors such as the seriousness of the non cooperation, the duration of any delays, whether the player acted under poor advice, his disciplinary record, and any early admissions that might mitigate the penalty. The FA typically publishes written reasons that outline the pathway to the sanction, which helps stakeholders understand how similar cases might be treated in the future and ensures consistency across decisions.
The headline remains that the most severe allegation has not been proven, which is a significant point in Paquetá’s favor. At the same time, the finding of two cooperation breaches is not a technicality. It reflects the sport’s insistence that integrity inquiries must be able to access information promptly and fully. How the player, club, and governing bodies manage the next procedural steps will determine whether this chapter closes quickly or extends into the next phase of the season.
