Ten Lessons from the Paquetá Case

Now that we have passed the final stage of the proceedings in The FA v Lucas Paquetá case, the Regulatory
Commission having given its decision on sanction and costs, I can share some thoughts about what has been
one of the biggest and most costly cases in the FA’s long history, leading to the longest sports judgment in the
world, involving years of investigation and evidence, multiple experts, and a tribunal sitting for many weeks. The
views expressed in this article are supposed to be of general relevance, and are my own, they do not necessarily
reflect those of any of my clients.

The case led to all four of the serious FA Rule E5 spot-fixing charges being unanimously dismissed: in short allegations that the West Ham and Brazilian international player, Lucas Paquetá, deliberately sought yellow cards in four different Premier League matches in order to influence the betting markets. Had those charges been proven the Player would have likely faced a lifetime ban from football. Two lesser charges of non-cooperation, in breach of the FA’s Rule F, were found proven, with the Commission deciding to apply the minimum sanction of a warning and reprimand.

The Regulatory Commission’s full written reasons contain some excoriating judgements on the FA’s handling of the case: criticising the FA for failing to call an independent expert on betting data [95] and [102-103]; criticising the main FA witness for some of his evidence [118]; criticising points that were unattractive or simply wrong being put by the FA to the Player’s independent expert [160-161], [170], [177]; The FA’s Leading Counsel disagreed with the FA’s main witness [232] leading to a “clear appearance … that the FA was not altogether certain what case it was presenting against the Player” [239]; the FA’s player performance expert’s evidence was flawed in many respects [769-770] and he and his firm was not considered to be independent of the FA [772]; the FA’s case was “somewhat contradictory” [784].

In short, the Commission preferred the Player’s innocent explanation for the bets to the case advanced by the FA – e.g. [794], [867]. While the two Rule F charges were proven, relating to “no comment” interviews, the Commission recorded its surprise that it appeared the FA were not interested to know the Player’s responses to questions once he agreed to give them [897].

The full written reasons for the decision on liability are available here. More recently on 30 October 2025, the Commission gave reasons for its decision on sanction for the Rule F charges, rejecting the FA’s invitation to impose a fine on the Player, ordering a warning and reprimand, and ordering that the FA pay 90% of the Commissions’ costs of the proceedings, with the Player to pay 10%.

The case was one of the longest and most difficult sports cases I have done, and while personally I shall always remember it well for the positive outcome for my client, I thought it useful to share some broader lessons from the experience. The ten lessons I draw on in this article may, I hope, be of some use to anyone involved in these types of cases, whether investigating integrity matters in sports, prosecuting or defending, or adjudicating them. I also hope to share some lessons about the approach to advocacy.

1. The importance of a fair and thorough investigation

One of the clearest lessons from the Paquetá case is the danger of investigative tunnel vision. The Tribunal itself noted with surprise that the investigators showed “no apparent interest in the player’s explanation” for certain events.

There is always a risk when an investigation is carried out by an arm of the same body responsible for bringing the charges that it may become directed toward proving guilt rather than discovering truth. A fair and impartial investigation must remain open to exculpatory evidence and alternative explanations. Once an investigation becomes adversarial, it loses sight of its true purpose.

2. The importance of a fair and expert tribunal

The composition of the tribunal is critical to confidence in the process. In this case, the Commission demonstrated independence, diligence, and expertise. It was particularly significant that the panel included an ex-footballer turned solicitor alongside a former High Court Judge and senior KC.

Having a member of the tribunal with some sporting experience can be critical when assessing matters of sporting performance, the physical and psychological factors that may be behind actions on the pitch, while senior lawyers and judges can ensure procedural fairness and legal precision. The combination of practical football knowledge and legal expertise ensured a careful judgment grounded in the sport’s context and fairness.

The willingness of the Commission to really engage, forensically and critically, with the evidence is a refreshing change from what we see in some tribunals in sport that have, in the past at least, often been too ready to accept what a prosecuting body says without sufficient scrutiny.

3. The importance of independent expert evidence

In a case that depends on inferences drawn from betting data and statistical patterns, independent expert evidence is essential. The Tribunal was critical of the FA’s failure to present independent expert analysis on this key issue of the case, noting that objectivity is vital when conclusions rest on data interpretation rather than direct evidence.

The Player’s team relied on multiple experts: data analysts, betting market specialists, forensic mobile device professionals and football performance experts, for analysis of the evidence.

Independence matters not just for credibility, but because in these cases, expert evidence often shapes the narrative.

4. The importance of careful preparation before the hearing

Preparation is everything. Complex disciplinary cases turn on the details: witness statements, expert reports, and a clear grasp of the factual and regulatory framework. Careful preparation allows advocates to anticipate issues, manage vast quantities of evidence, and focus the tribunal on what truly matters.

Witnesses must be prepared thoroughly but ethically, never rehearsed, but ready to tell the truth clearly and confidently.

5. The importance of the team

No advocate, however experienced, can run a case of this size alone. The Paquetá case underscored the value of a strong and collaborative team. The solicitors and junior counsel were outstanding, handling disclosure, coordinating expert evidence, assisting with witness statements, and managing the innumerable details that such a case generates.

These days we increasingly share advocacy, with junior counsel taking key witness examination roles or submissions. This helps spread the workload but also allows individuals in the team to excel at what they are best in. What matters most is cohesion, a shared understanding of the strategy and evidence so that everyone is moving in the same direction.

6. The importance of knowing your client

In cases where integrity and credibility are central, knowing your client can be indispensable. I met Lucas many times over many months, understanding his personality and values.

That process gave me confidence in his honesty, but more importantly, it allowed me to help him give his evidence as himself, not as a rehearsed witness, but as the person he genuinely is. The Tribunal must be able to see and test the truth for itself, and that can only happen if the advocate knows the client deeply enough to help them communicate authentically.

7. The art of cross-examination

Cross-examination is the most demanding and exciting part of advocacy. Most of the 20-day hearing was spent in cross-examination, on both sides, and rightly so.

Cross-examination draws on two very different kinds of skill. One is meticulous preparation: long, solitary, often tedious work mastering every document, lines and lines of data, every nuance of an expert’s report. Then assembling them systematically in a series of questions that both puts your case and seeks to undermine that of your opponent.

The other is creativity, the ability to think and respond instantly when something unexpected happens. Like chess, or football, you can prepare the perfect plan, but the real test comes when the opponent does something you don’t anticipate. That spontaneous, imaginative moment, when you take the witness down an unplanned but revealing path, is where advocacy can become art.

Both sides of the brain are needed: the ordered and the creative. One without the other is not enough.

8. The power of simplicity

In an era when written submissions are often long, intricate, and over-engineered, simplicity is essential. Many lawyers write with great intellectual sophistication, but I often find the most effective advocacy boils complex issues down to a few essential points.

If I can explain a case simply enough so that I understand it clearly, it’s likely the Tribunal will too. Clarity and simplicity are not signs of superficiality, they are the product of hard thought.

In the Paquetá case, the issues were deeply complex, but the most persuasive arguments were those reduced to their fundamental truths.

9. Managing external pressures and the media

High-profile disciplinary cases don’t unfold in isolation. Media narratives, social media commentary, and public speculation all exert pressure on the process and the individuals involved, especially in sports cases.

Sometimes lawyers can and should engage in public debate about controversial cases, but so often in sports cases the proceedings are supposed to be strictly confidential. In a media-saturated era, professional restraint becomes an ethical imperative. All too often we are confronted by what looks like leaks in these cases, each party inevitably blaming the other. I am a strong advocate for more open justice in sports proceedings, including public hearings, and I am not shy of speaking publicly about my work, but it is a golden rule that you should never comment on the substance of private (and usually also public) proceedings while they continue, on or off record.

And it’s important to maintain focus on the evidence and the law, not the noise outside the hearing room.

10. The meaning of fairness in sport

At its core, the main lesson from the Paquetá case is the importance of precision, fairness and integrity. Fairness to the player, fairness to the game, and fairness to the process itself. Sporting integrity depends not only on fully investigating and punishing wrongdoing but on ensuring that every person accused is treated justly, with the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to be heard.

For all its complexity, this case reaffirmed something simple and timeless: that justice, whether in a courtroom or a sports disciplinary tribunal, to have any integrity, must allow full and fair processes and a careful examination of all the evidence.

Conclusion

I hope the Paquetá case may stand as a landmark in sports disciplinary jurisprudence, not only for what it teaches us about how to conduct (or how not to conduct) investigations and prosecutions into sporting integrity cases, or for its scale and length, but for also what it teaches about fairness, independence, rigorous analysis, and advocacy.