SUAREZ BAN NEEDS RETHINK

This Luiz Suarez situation has me puzzled. In case you missed it, Suarez, the Uruguay and Liverpool striker bit into the shoulder of Italian player Giorgia Chiellini this week during a match in which Italy was beaten 0-1 and eliminated from the FIFA World Cup in Brazil.

FIFA executives convened and came up with a nine match, four-month ban from all football related activities. What that basically means is that Suarez will not be able to play for his country for nine matches but he will also be unable to represent his club Liverpool for 13 matches – nine premier league matches, three Champions League matches and one League Cup game. And that is what I have a problem with.

I agree completely that he should be sanctioned. This is his third biting incident since 2010 when he first sunk his teeth into the shoulder of PSG’s Ottman Bakkal. He was banned for seven games for that incident, and 10 for biting Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic in the 2012/2013 season . Because of that ban he missed the last five games of the season and the first five of this 2013/2014 season that just ended in May. So this is the third such incident in four years. It could have been worse because he did try to bite Chiellini during last year’s Confederations Cup.

Luiz Suarez has a problem, one that needs to be fixed and banning him representing his country is perhaps a first step. However, for Liverpool, for whom he represents a lot of value both in terms of skill and dollars, this is like a kick in the teeth or a hole in the pocket. Playing for your country is one thing but playing for your club is business. It is why Liverpool is looking at taking some form of legal action to have the ban either reduced our overturned.

When Suarez was banned from representing Liverpool, the infraction he committed was while he was wearing a Liverpool shirt, and as far as I know he was not prevented from representing Uruguay during that time. This latest transgression was committed while the player was on international duty so why is his club having to suffer even greater consequences for it. It’s not good math. He misses nine games for his country and 13 for his club, who he wasn’t even representing at the time he was sanctioned? How does that make sense?

Why not, say, ban from from representing his country for two years and fine him a million euros? And while they’re at it make it mandatory that he receive psychological treatment that will allow him to overcome this impulse that overtakes him in the middle of matches. That to me, makes a lot more sense.

FIFA understands the business of football and its why they have a billion dollars in the bank and continue to rake him truckloads of money from the most popular sport on earth, so surely they must know that the four-month ban from all football-related activities makes little business sense.

It is one thing to punish the player but punishing the club is ridiculous. Liverpool may want to keep him or sell him to Barcelona and find a replacement in time to see them campaign effectively in the Champions League, Premier League and FA Cup next season that is less than 50 days away. Someone needs to put on their thinking caps and rethink the way this ban has been imposed. Punish the player for the transgression, but not his club and certainly, not the game.

Older Entries

Newer Entries

The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent.
To respond to The Gleaner please use the feedback form.

10 Responses to “SUAREZ BAN NEEDS RETHINK”

Baz says:

June 30, 2014 at 4:02 am

To suggest that Suarez should continue to be able to play for Liverpool is ludicrous, just because he conducted his biting activity in an Uruguayan shirt. The club should also be made to pay the penalty for having an apparently unhinged player, which will hopefully motivate them either to ensure he gets treatment, or by selling him.
George says:

July 1, 2014 at 6:04 am

This is what is wrong with the world today, we are willing to overlook all kinds of indiscipline in order to satisfy our thirst for any form of entertainment, whether it be sports or music etc.
Third incident, no sympathy for this guy
Hugh says:

July 5, 2014 at 8:48 am

He should have been banned for life since previous bans did not prevented him from behaving like a cannibal. There is no room for that in football
Defender says:

July 6, 2014 at 10:17 am

To suggest that Suarez be essentially “excused” for his third biting infraction because he contributes to a club’s bottom line is missing the point completely. This guy is not fit to be part of the very business that you are attempting to showcase. He should consider himself lucky that he was not banned for life, which should have been the appropriate FIFA punishment. What would have been your argument if he had inflicted a fatal wound on the other player; would you have adopted a “lenient” stance then? Money sometimes have a way of influencing, in the wrong direction, one’s thought process.
Paul says:

July 7, 2014 at 7:59 am

Baz, by your reasoning, then the 10 match ban for biting Ivanovic should have included a ban on him playing for Uruguay. But it did not. If it had then your argument would make sense. Secondly, while in a Uruguayan shirt, Liverpool had no control over the player’s behaviour, so to suggest he is “their unhinged player” is equally ludicrous as you have no idea what kind of instructions were given him by the Uruguayan manager. The suggestion of increasing the ban to two years, and increasing the fine, as well as requiring psychological help seems far more sensible to me.
soccer scientist says:

July 7, 2014 at 9:12 am

And what might I ask should be the punishment for the ANIMAL that kicked Neymar out of the world cup? Should he also be banned from club and country? or you are not as concerned about serious injury as you are about a harmless bite?
coachnello says:

July 7, 2014 at 11:21 pm

Soccer scientist cool it! lol
Don’t you think calling the player animal is stretching it a little. harmless bite?
I believe the point is that one was clearly intentional the other might have been incidental.
coachnello says:

July 7, 2014 at 11:24 pm

Baz, if the player is really unhinge, explain to me how does selling him to another club solves that problem?
Defender says:

July 8, 2014 at 10:20 am

Do you even understand the game? Have you ever played it, even at primary school level? Don’t expose your ignorance by comparing deliberate acts with ones that are accidental. The fact is, since this appear to matter least to you, the player accidentally kneed Neymar in the back. You appear to be upset that Neymar cannot play for the next 45-days, which then guides your silly post. For what it’s worth the referee had a “bird’s eye” view of the incident and therefore in the best position to judge what took place. The fact, there goes that word again, that he did not issue a yellow card should stir even your dormant brain into understanding the accidental nature of the contact. Similarly, the referee was in a position to see the third biting incident by Suarez, and made the appropriate ruling.

Next time you wish to tackle me, bring the facts and leave your emotions at home!
coachnello says:

July 16, 2014 at 11:14 pm

Defender, I agree with you 100% that’s letting them have it. Who ever it was that wished to tackle you.Defenders are the ones that do the tackling in football, them rude.
I also love the FACT;you presented to us the in the Neymar situation the referee had a ‘bird’s eye view’ of the situation. Keep supplying us with these facts my friend.