How an £80m Transfer Turned Toxic Lucas Paquetá, the FA and the Manchester City Deal That Never Was

In the summer of 2023, Lucas Paquetá was on the cusp of a blockbuster move to Manchester City. The figures being floated around were eye-watering. Reported valuations placed the fee in the region of seventy to eighty million pounds, which would have made Paquetá one of English football’s highest profile transfers that window.

The deal collapsed after the English Football Association opened an investigation into alleged spot fixing tied to a sequence of yellow cards the midfielder received. The probe cast a long shadow over Paquetá’s career and left West Ham and the player counting costs that were not only sporting but financial and reputational. 

The independent commission that later heard the case cleared Paquetá of the four spot fixing charges in July and published a detailed 314-page written judgment that was highly critical of the FA’s investigative work. The document described problems with the FA’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and a lack of independent assessment of betting data. The FA confirmed it would not appeal the commission’s verdict. 

What The Judgment Actually Says And Why It Matters

The written reasons carry two connected blows. First, they vindicate Paquetá on the most serious allegations, which, had they been upheld, could have led to lengthy bans and effectively ended a high-value transfer. The panel found no convincing motive for deliberate wrongdoing given the player’s income and character. 

Second they expose procedural weaknesses in how a governing body handled a high stakes, sensitive inquiry. The judgment flagged that the FA’s case depended largely on one expert and on circumstantial patterns of betting rather than direct evidence of wrongdoing. That combination left the panel unconvinced that the incidents were illustrative of spot fixing. 

Legal scholars and sports lawyers will tell you this is not merely about a single player. How a regulator conducts investigations affects public trust in the system, clubs’ willingness to engage in transfers, and players’ commercial value. When a governing body’s process is found wanting and the cost to a player is immediate and quantifiable, the doors to litigation open wide.

Who Stands To Lose, And Who Might Sue

Lucas Paquetá has publicly kept his options open. His legal team has indicated that nothing is off the table and that they are exploring whether to seek damages for loss of earnings and reputational harm. The reasoning is straightforward. If an agreed transfer collapses because of a process that an independent panel deems flawed, then the player can claim measurable financial loss and damage to career trajectory. 

Coverage of West Ham’s position is less straightforward. Some outlets report that the club is considering legal action alongside Paquetá, while others suggest West Ham will not pursue a case for damages. That divergence matters. If the club signs up as a claimant, it would substantially strengthen any litigation because West Ham can point to a lost sale and the financial gap it created in their transfer planning.

 If only Paquetá sues the FA, the claim will be narrower and focus on his personal loss rather than club-level commercial losses. Readers should, therefore, be cautious about definitive claims on whether West Ham will sue until the club makes a formal statement. 

The Wider Fallout For The FA And English Football