Lucas Paquetá

Paqueta’s Betting Charges: A More Serious Case?

Image for Paqueta’s Betting Charges: A More Serious Case?

West Ham‘s Lucas Paqueta finds himself in hot water after being charged by the FA with betting breaches. TalkSPORT journalist Alex Crook suggests this case might be even more serious than those of Ivan Toney and Sandro Tonali.

Paqueta is accused of deliberately getting booked in four Premier League matches throughout 2022 and 2023. This differs from the cases of Toney and Tonali, who were caught placing bets on matches.

Crook suggests Paqueta’s alleged actions could be “more sinister” because they potentially manipulate the game itself, impacting the flow and potentially influencing betting markets. Toney and Tonali’s alleged offenses, while wrong, didn’t directly affect gameplay.

Paqueta has vehemently denied the charges, and as with any case, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, the nature of the accusations puts him in a precarious position.

With the new season approaching, West Ham and their new manager Julen Lopetegui would ideally like this situation resolved. Paqueta’s importance to the team adds another layer of concern.

Paqueta has until June 3rd to respond to the charges. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining the validity of the claims and the potential coquences for Paqueta and West Ham.

Share this article


  • weathamsteve says:

    Sounds like guilty until proven innocent..Hope this doesn’t influence West Ham’s transfer budget but I guess that if they cannot sell him now,we lose £85m?

    • Hammer_Rite says:

      I don’t think any club would have been prepared to pay £85mil for Paqueta.

      • Paul Maskell says:

        If you watch each tackle it looks like a genuine attempt to win the ball than its up to the referee if he issue a card or not you see some given and some are a warning am not sure how this proven ?

    • John says:

      The FA would only bring charges based on unusual betting patterns that would have been reported by bookmakers. The comprehensive data they have access to, red-flags suspicious betting patterns whether it’s football, snooker, tennis, horseracing or any other sport. Bookmakers are obligated to report ANY suspicious activity to the relevant sporting body. I would imagine the evidence is strong and it boils down to how good his legal team are to disprove his involvement and who blinks first. It’s an interesting one but if found guilty, his career would potentially be irreparably damaged. If he is found guilty of cheating and influencing games, let’s hope the club dismiss him but I won’t hold my breath.

  • Carrick hammer says:

    If they have evidence I wonder why it took the F.A.9 months to charge him ???

  • John Ayris says:

    It’s as serious as anyone wants to talk it up to be. In reality there will need to be far stronger evidence than four bookings of a player who is often booked plus the gambling industry saying there was a run of bets. There would need to be strong evidence of a definite link between the two things. Even if that was the case then Paqueta appears to have complied with the investigation and there’s no prior to consider, the mitigations are fairly strong. There’s also an argument as to whether the gambling industry should be accepting bets on things that are fixable by just one person as that imposes something on that person without their agreement, nobody should have such circumstances foist upon them.

    • Twods says:

      Excellent comment, looks a bit like trial by VAR, Paqueta gets booked more than most so punters would put their money on him, and that his not his fault, bit like me betting on Spurs not to win a trophy and FA putting whole Spurs team on trial !! when they finish empty handed

  • mark wiggins says:

    Really I have seen the videos of the alleged incidents . If that is the. Evidence we should be charging most players in the league . These tackles happen week in week our in PL

  • Hammerpete6 says:

    Real worry is the time it takes the FA to do fa. They have now charged him after 9 months, what now in what timescale? My thoughts are guilty or innocent, is he really more trouble than he’s worth to us? It’s not just bookings, it’s the fickle performances. Just saying.

Comments are closed.