By Andrew Warshaw and Mark Baber
April 25 – Liverpool have expressed their “shock and disappointment” after striker Luis Suarez was banned for 10 games for biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic towards the end of Sunday’s 2-2 draw.
Pictures of Suarez sinking his teeth into the arm of Ivanovic – missed by the referee – were flashed around the world prompting the Football Association to take stringent action against a player who is one of world football’s most gifted and exciting strikers but has a suspect temperament that often accompanies genius.
Suarez, whose action drew widespread condemnation, immediately apologised for his “unacceptable behaviour” while Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre said such antics did not “befit” that of a Liverpool player and that the Uruguayan World Cup star, immediately fined, had let down everyone associated with the club.
Ayre’s comments failed to dissuade the authorities from throwing the book at Suarez whose ban will cover the end of this season and the start of the next, with the player possibly not wearing the shirt again until September or October.
Liverpool seem likely to appeal against the length of the punishment though reaction among football’s various stakeholders has been mixed. Some believe Suarez deserved everything he got and was now a liability while others argue the sanction is far too harsh and should have only been until the end of the season, pointing out that the standard punishment for violent conduct is a three-game ban and that Suarez did not seriously injure an opponent.
Yet such is Suarez’s poor disciplinary record – he was banned for eight games for racial abuse in 2011 – that a far harsher penalty was deemed necessary by the FA who clearly had run out of patience with his loose cannon tendencies and needed to make an example of him.
It is not the first time that Suarez has bitten an opponent. He was banned for seven games after biting PSV Eindhoven midfielder Otman Bakkal during a match in November 2010. The latest misdemeanour in a dire disciplinary record will do Suarez no favours when it comes to his chances of winning footballer of year. Ironically he scored Liverpool’s stoppage-time equaliser in Sunday’s 2-2 draw with the last action of the game.
Frequently accused of diving, last month Suarez punched Chile’s Gonzalo Jara during a South American World Cup qualifier, an incident missed by the Argentinian referee. FIFA opened disciplinary action though Uruguayan federation president Sebastian Bauza insisted Suarez was a victim, not for the first time, of unfair persecution.
Liverpool’s reaction to the latest ban may have a lot to do with potential commercial consequences. In an unusual step, Adidas condemned Suárez, with whom they have a boot deal. “Adidas takes this type of incident very seriously and does not condone Luis Suárez’s behaviour,” a statement said. “We will be reminding him of the standards we expect from our players. Luis has admitted his actions were unacceptable and we support the way Liverpool are planning to handle the situation.”
Liverpool depend heavily on their shirt sponsor, Standard Chartered, who pay £20m a season, and US kit manufacturer Warrior, with whom they have a £150m deal. The appeal of the Liverpool brand depends on them being a popular team with values of inclusiveness, making them many people’s second choice team.
Suárez’s antics could also undermine the international effort, prompted by club owners the Fenway Sports Group, to build a wholesome image for Liverpool and expand the brand in the US and Asian markets.
Contact the writers of this story at moc.l1733933672labto1733933672ofdlr1733933672owedi1733933672sni@w1733933672ahsra1733933672w.wer1733933672dna1733933672 or moc.l1733933672labto1733933672ofdlr1733933672owedi1733933672sni@r1733933672ebab.1733933672kram1733933672