That's not quite right.
On the criminal charge, he was just found not guilty. Juries never give reasons for their verdicts.
He also sued the Sun for libel and amazingly won. The Sun appealed saying that, given the video evidence, the jury's verdict was perverse and should be overturned. The Court of Appeal will very rarely overturned jury's verdicts on that ground and didn't in this case. What it did do was say that, as the video evidence showed BG accepting bribes and as the alleged libel was that BG had thrown games for money, the jury's conclusion must have been that, whilst he did accept bribes, he did not actually throw the games. In other words, he swindled the people bribing him.
When you sue for libel you get damages based on the loss to your reputation from untrue allegations. As the true allegation here was that BG took bribes and swindled the bribers and as the untrue allegation was that he took bribes and threw games, the loss to his reputation from the untrue allegation was minimal. The Court of Appeal therefore overturned the jury's decision to give him thousands in damages and gave him around £100. This meant he had to pay both his and the Sun's huge legal bills and, I believe, that bankrupted him.
