When expertise is overlooked: Paquetá, the FA and a cautionary tale of investigation failure

In summary

• Lucas Paquetá was exonerated of spot fixing, with an independent commission finding betting patterns could be explained by casual “hot tips” in Brazil  
• The commission's report, published this week, heavily criticised the FA’s investigation, particularly its failure to use independent experts 
• The case illustrates the problems that can arise through a reliance on internal evaluation and failure to employ independent data analytics 

Earlier this week, a regulatory commission published its findings on the case of Lucas Paquetá, the Brazilian and West Ham United footballer charged by the Football Association (FA) for spot-fixing. The FA accused Paquetá of deliberately getting booked in a match for the "improper purpose of affecting the betting market”. 

In a landmark judgement, the commission cleared the midfielder. Its 314-page report, published on Wednesday, severely criticised the FA for failing to include an independent assessment of the betting data. This glaring omission that undermined the credibility of its entire case. 

“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’s findings read.   

Paqueta is now reported to be considering his options, including suing the FA.  

While 253 bets totalling £47,000 and yielding £167,000 in profits raised red flags, the commission found no evidence of corruption. Instead, it attributed the betting activity to informal tipping rather than intentional wrongdoing.  

Paquetá was cleared on all spot-fixing charges in July. 

Critically, the commission labelled the FA’s lack of independent data analysis an “obvious flaw.” 

Key failings in the FA’s investigation included: 

• Sole reliance on internal experts – namely, its own betting-integrity investigator – without subjecting the data to an external, unbiased analysis 
• Contradictory interpretations even within its own ranks, with the FA’s prosecutor openly disagreeing with the investigator’s portrayal of betting patterns as “highly orchestrated”, revealing a lack of clear consensus 

As a result, the commission concluded that what appeared unusual could be explained by casual “hot tips” circulating in Brazil – rather than a coordinated spot-fix. 

This case starkly demonstrates the risks of investigations relying solely on internal analysis. Independent expertise can bring rigour, clarity and confidence to the investigation process:  

• Avoiding confirmation bias, with independent analysts bringing fresh eyes and methodologies, helping to counter the risk of internal experts unconsciously reinforcing existing narratives 
• Promoting credibility and trust, with an external review lending greater authority, especially where reputations or careers hang in the balance 
• Bringing clarity and consensus to avoid divergent interpretations and ensuring an objective evaluation of the data 
• Ensuring a thorough investigation with specialists scrutinising performance and betting data with rigour to uncover alternative but valid explanations. 

Have you encountered investigations undermined by a reliance on internal analysis, or did your investigation go beyond internal assumptions and make full use of available data? Were conflicting views resolved, or did bias cloud the outcome? 

Crucially, are the lessons learned, and data identified being used to prevent future issues arising, enabling you to spot emerging problems faster? 

Let’s discuss how third-party data expertise could make a difference to your investigations in future.