FA decides to charge lifetime ban on Lucas Paqueta for being involved in betting scam

Lucas Paqueta has had a serious turnaround in his life in a few weeks after being one of the main targets of Manchester City to be a suspect of match-fixing. The Brazilian midfielder has been accused of a betting scam. He has been accused of picking up deliberate yellow cards in four separate Premier League matches these bookings correlated with a high volume of bets on the Brazilian getting a caution during the game. 

The 26-year-old midfielder has denied the charges that are alleged upon him and he said in a statement that he was "extremely surprised and upset" by the Football Association's (FA) decision and that he has completely cooperated with the inquiry despite being charged with two separate counts of violating the law. However, the English FA has not stuck to their charges as they want a lifetime ban for the footballer. 

As per the latest reports, by the Sun, 60 people have placed their bets on the Paqueta Island off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, with stakes ranging from £7 to £400, leading to combined winnings of £100,000. These charges are to those which were imposed on Sandro Tonali who has been banned for 10 months. 

Is Paqueta guilty or not?

The West Ham United midfielder had to respond until June 3 to the allegations made against him, with the FA charging with four breaches of FA Rule E5.1 to his conduct during the four matches, against Aston Villa, Leeds, Leicester, and Bournemouth. Rule E5.1 prohibits players from influencing for an 'improper purpose the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of a football match or competition'. 

As the statement reads, "It’s alleged that he directly sought to influence the progress, conduct, or any other aspect of, or occurrence in these matches by intentionally seeking to receive a card from the referee." He is yet to be found guilty and with Copa America approaching in just weeks it will be interesting to watch the saga of the footballer's career turnaround if found guilty.