Skip to content

How long should Suarez be banned after his THIRD biting incident? What now for Uruguay?

Jun 24, 2014, 2:33 PM EDT

Italy v Uruguay: Group D - 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil Getty Images

It happened again. It is inexcusable. It could (many believe it should) cost Luis Suarez his career in soccer.

Look, from the angles we have now seen after the game, it is clear that Suarez bit Giorgio Chiellini on the shoulder with 10 minutes left of Uruguay’s 1-0 win over Italy.

Suarez, 27, has made this mistake twice before and he should be under the “three strikes and you’re out” rule. Seriously.

This has to happen. Suarez should not play any part in the rest of this World Cup, FIFA and the officials need to take a hard line approach and ban this man from playing soccer. He clearly needs helps in sorting out anger issues and whatever else is going on in his head.

[ RELATED: PHOTO – Suarez bites Chiellini ] 

[ RELATED: Suarez reaction on Twitter 

[ RELATED: Where does Suarez’s bite rank in WC’s most shocking moments? ]

He was banned in 2010 for seven matches in Holland after biting an opponent whilst playing for Ajax. In 2013 he was banned for biting Branislav Ivanovic and was handed a 10-game suspension that almost ruined his career with Liverpool. Now the punishment should be even more severe… 15, 20, 25 games?

Some would say that is not harsh enough and that Suarez shouldn’t be allowed to play the game ever again. After this incident, it is hard to disagree.

My suggestion: give him a year-long ban.

He needs to step away from the spotlight, get help and sort out his issues. Once and for all. He is a wonderful player, as he has already shown by demolishing England with two goals in this World Cup. However, in what world do we live in where someone can go around and bite another person on three separate occasions and think they can keep getting away with it? In any other walk of life, Suarez would be facing police action. His personality is flawed, his reputation has been tarnished and all of that talk surrounding his “revival” during his breakout season as the Premier League’s Player of the Season with Liverpool in 2013-14 makes this latest discrepancy even worse.

source: AP

Giorgio Chiellini was the man who appeared to be bitten by Suarez. The Italian is Suarez’s third victim.

What does this mean for Uruguay if Suarez is banned for the rest of the World Cup?

They are done. Finished. Gone. Even though he didn’t score vs. Italy, Suarez was the main threat and was thwarted by Buffon twice and caused plenty of problems. His strike partner Edinson Cavani continues to underwhelm and Uruguay have only beaten two pretty poor teams in Italy and England.

They will struggle past the last 16 stage without Suarez.

With Suarez up top they had a chance of recreating their run to the final four of a World Cup, just like they did in 2010. With this latest biting incident Suarez has let down himself, his family, his country and not for the first time.

But, it could be the last.

  1. Mohamed ismail - Jun 24, 2014 at 2:38 PM

    Reblogged this on mahabatta2012.

  2. bruceeff - Jun 24, 2014 at 2:40 PM

    It’s bizarre. It’s assault. It’s three times now. A lifetime ban is what he deserves.

  3. Greg - Jun 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM

    All very noble, but FIFA have no control over the club level, they can ban him for an international year, but they can’t stop him playing for Liverpool. Doing so sets forth a terrible precedent where international bans are carried over and players could miss important club games as a result.

    • savoirlaire - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM

      Well I agree that FIFA can’t ban him from playing for his club (his club should go ahead and do that of their own accord) but can’t for the life of me understand your point about how this would be a terrible precedent. If you do something so dangerous, so foolish in an international, why shouldn’t it carry over? If they “miss important club games as a result”, isn’t that 1) their own damn fault, and 2) appropriate punishment (at least in this case) for a wholly unprofessional and unacceptable action?

    • sabatimus - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM

      I think banning a player from FIFA and Liverpool for life for BITING someone three times is a fine precedent.

      • anthonyverna - Jun 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM

        What Greg is saying that we’d like to see it happen, but it probably will not happen as FIFA cannot control the English Premier League in disciplinary matters. Is there precedent? Yes. But also, that precedent doesn’t really tell the story as one bite was in Holland and the other bite was in England.

        (It’s as if one state cannot punish for what happened in another state.)

    • rpearlston - Jun 24, 2014 at 8:35 PM

      I’d rather that he not play again than that he get a temporary ban. But there’s more here. I believe that if someone, no matter the sport, who has been banned by one league/organization in that sport, that ban ought to be recognized and abided by by every league/organization in that sport.
      Poor behavior is poor behavior, and it ought not matter the level at which it has happened. It’s still within the same sport. And it should get players thinking before they decide that misbehaving is appropriate.

    • johnnyp79 - Jun 25, 2014 at 8:34 AM

      You are wrong Greg. It is unlikely, in my opinion, that the ban will apply at a club level, but FIFA is the international governing body of football, they can ban a player from any sanctioned football activity (this includes most friendly matches as well). FA is subject to FIFA’s rules and it has been since England first decided to play in a World Cup. FIFA has issued full bans (international and club level) before, for issues such as doping, match fixing, or assaulting referees (see Portugal – South Korea in WC2002, where 3 Portuguese players were banned for months from ALL competition). It’s very rare, if it ever happened at all, to sanction a player at club level for an assault on other player, but it’s well within their power to do so, and the FA would be forced to comply. That is, if they still want England to participate in International Competitions and English Clubs to compete at an international level. If they deem Suarez’s behavior to damage the image of football, on top of his reincidence, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a ban that would apply on a Liverpool shirt as well – though my personal feeling is that they won’t go that far.

  4. medic0nduty - Jun 24, 2014 at 2:46 PM

    If he wasn’t such a prolific goalscorer I could see him getting banned for life. And at this point he should. Three strikes, you’re out!

  5. lunasceiling - Jun 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM

    My take: Banned from this World Cup. Year long international ban, which should be mirrored by the FA (or Liverpool…not sure how that would have to work). Mandatory psychiatric counseling, too (and not some fluff, just-for-show program…genuine treatment, which he obviously needs).

    • rpearlston - Jun 24, 2014 at 8:37 PM

      Too little, too late.

  6. jm91rs - Jun 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM

    I’d give him at least a year, maybe 2. If he weren’t so damn good, I bet Liverpool would gladly mirror any punishment. As an American soccer fan it’s hard enough for me to fathom some of flops and odd headbutts that players do, but it’s absolutely unreal to think that someone is out there biting. I would rather see Suarez sucker punching his opponents than biting them.

    • rpearlston - Jun 24, 2014 at 8:42 PM

      What does his skill/talent level have to do with anything here? This is about one thing and one thing only, and that’s the man’s extremely sick behavior. Get his out of the sport completely, otherwise (and I’m surprised that no one has mentioned this before now), he’ll spawn a generation of soccer players who bite. ” After all, if he can do it, I can do it, too.”

  7. mlsconvert88888 - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:02 PM

    I remember when UFC first got going, and they touted that there were only two rules; No eye gouging and no biting.
    If you’re breaking the early UFC rules in a soccer match, you’ve got a problem

  8. navyeoddavee9 - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:08 PM

    World Cup bans can’t carry over, but the club can still suspend him, if Liverpool shows any respect for the game, they have to bring the hammer diem

  9. kaptaanamerica - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:15 PM

    The guy should be banned until he’s psychologically cleared to be out in society. Someone should call the police to investigate.

  10. egb234 - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:21 PM

    I cannot stand Suarez. I think he’s pathetic and this incident is just the latest example of his antics. I think he should receive a one-year ban. However, I will defend him against a lifetime ban based on one important fact: biting isn’t actually that dangerous–or at least his bites haven’t been. I think a lifetime ban should be reserved for things that can kill the sport (match fixing or the like) or things that can kill a career (intentionally injuring another player). If someone ever intentionally injured a player’s knee or head (I’ve always been uncomfortable with the Petr Cech hit that looked a little too intentional), they should be eligible for a lifetime ban. But biting someone is more stupid than deadly. I don’t know, maybe I’m off?

    • lyleoross - Jun 24, 2014 at 4:18 PM

      Interesting comments. I agree with your thinking, but the problem is that LS’s actions come under the category of bringing the sport into disrepute, while breaking a guy’s leg doesn’t. Sad, but true. Even with that, I doubt he’ll get a real ban. Ten games or twenty maybe, and they’ll throw in counseling for free.

      It’s too bad that such a brilliant player has such a personality disorder.

    • rpearlston - Jun 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM

      Human bites can kill, too.
      Poof!!!! There goes your whole argument.

  11. braxtonrob - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:44 PM

    No bans. If he wants to play, just make him wear the ‘cone-of-shame’. If he chooses not to wear it, then he doesn’t get to play – simple.

    • sw19womble - Jun 24, 2014 at 6:14 PM


    • rpearlston - Jun 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM

      Why should he be allowed to play? If he were out on the street and bit someone, he’d be in jail. Claiming that this was a part of the game does not make it any less an assault that it would be in any other situation in which this might have taken place.
      And yes, that’s an argument that not only holds water, but has actually happened. In the NHL, a number of years ago, Dino Ciccarelli (?) was arrested for assault for his actions on the ice in Toronto. he was tried and convicted of assault, fined and jailed, albeit just ofr a day. BUt it still makes him a con.

  12. fubar5150 - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:48 PM

    Banned from this World Cup

  13. scheer1852 - Jun 24, 2014 at 3:58 PM

    I’m not so sure Suarez should be banned for any length of time. Rather, I think he should be required to wear a Hannibal Lecter style mask for the rest of career.

  14. jrbdmb - Jun 24, 2014 at 4:32 PM

    Note sure which one suits him better:



  15. jxegh - Jun 24, 2014 at 4:46 PM

    FIFA should allow fighting, like ice hockey. If someone would have bitten me like that, I would beat the sh@@ out of him.

    • footballer4ever - Jun 24, 2014 at 9:51 PM

      okay then! LOL. A lost hockey nut fan spreading the gospel in the wrong sport section. If i wanted to to see a fight, I make sure to watch boxing or MMA, but definitely I don’t expect to a football game for a boxing event to develop. Definitely, you don’t see the point of football, the beautiful game.

      • jxegh - Jun 24, 2014 at 10:17 PM

        I love the game. All four of my children played soccer and I was coaxed into coaching them. I don’t like all the flopping or the fact only one referee is used.

        Definitely, you don’t see the point of sarcasm.

      • footballer4ever - Jun 26, 2014 at 1:23 AM

        @ jxegh

        It’s hard to SEE sarcasm, unless it’s clearly noted. Either way, why be sarcastic when you can be straight forward. oh well, different strokes for different folks.

    • gr8force - Jun 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM

      I went to a fight and a soccer game broke out.

      Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

      Hey watch out for that bouncer #9. He really knows how to take a bite out of life.

      You think that’s bad Lorena Bobbit is taking lessons from him. Ho!

      I heard since he’s going to be banned for life that he’s going to make a go of it in WWE as the Count Suarez.

  16. sportsfan18 - Jun 24, 2014 at 6:36 PM

    Sometimes the right thing needs to be done.

    Arod was punished MORE than the collective bargaining agreement called for.

    Disclaimer, I don’t follow soccer. But talk of the club level, international, FIFA… well someone could have done the RIGHT thing.

    Just because there aren’t rules for something does not mean action may not be taken.

    Also, people say there is no precedent. Well, for there to BE precedent, something had to be decided that way and now it IS precedent.

    In other words, EVERYTHING has a first time. Everything that has precedent did NOT have precedent long ago.

    Biting opponents three times… just do the right thing and ban him.

    If not, a team could “hire” a non-footballer for their team with the intent of just biting this guy…

    Hey, wouldn’t soccer just love that. Teams getting FED up with this guy being allowed to keep biting so they take some action of their own…

    Yeah, that is dumb and that was my point. I don’t really advocate doing what I just said…

    My point is that in time, people DO react to bullies, especially when bullies are NOT taken care of by authorities.

    I can see letting him play again after the first time.

    He should have been gone after the 2nd time. Why doesn’t the player who was bitten have him arrested for assault? It’s CLEARLY OUTSIDE of the game of soccer.

    If we are at work, at a desk, on a factory floor and someone assaults us, or walks up to us and bites us, we may have them arrested.

    The soccer player who was bitten was simply at work, doing his job and NOTHING about soccer or his job entails being bitten by an opponent.

    • rpearlston - Jun 24, 2014 at 9:23 PM

      ARod was NOT punished more than is allowed for by the CBA. The commissioner’s office always, ALWAYS, has the option of handing down longer suspensions in the best interests of baseball. That clause takes precedence over the CBA on this one. Period.
      Banning this idiot for life from the whole game of soccer is in the best interest of soccer.

      • sportsfan18 - Jun 24, 2014 at 10:04 PM

        You’re lumping two SEPARATE things together.

        The CBA is separate and different from the Office of the Commissioner.

        The CBA ONLY allows for 50, 100 and 150 game suspensions.

        Yes, the commissioner in baseball has always had the best interest in the game clause to do what he thinks is right.

        MLB punishment of Arod for PEDS went OUTSIDE the CBA (hey, I don’t feel sorry for Arod mind you and I’m OK with his suspension too).

        Nowhere in the CBA does is state a 211 game suspension which is what MLB handed down and then had that reduced by an arbitrator to 162 games, which is also NOT included in the CBA. I don’t know why the arbitrator didn’t make the suspension 150 games instead of 162, but that was his choice as arbitrator.

        But MLB’s CHOICE to suspend Arod for PEDS for 211 games was nowhere to be found within the CBA and for better or worse, the players do have a union and they do have a collectively bargained (that BOTH MLB and the players union) and agreed to.

        Again, I’m fine with his suspension. My whole point of writing what I wrote above about the playing being bitten in the soccer game was that in certain instances, it is OK to go outside of what is considered or what is precedent.

        But, the CBA says that a FIRST suspension for PEDS is 50 games.

        Prior to Arod’s 162 game suspension, Arod had NEVER been suspended for PEDS. He’d never received a 50 game ban. He also never received a 100 game suspension.

        Baseball chose 211 games (more than a full season and an odd amount).

        What they did was go OUTSIDE of precedent to try and deal with something that NEEDED to be dealt with and I’m good with that.

        Someone in soccer needs to do the SAME thing.

        This man needs to be suspended from playing soccer. Someone needs to step up and make it happen, even if there is NO PRECEDENT for how this may be done.

        The CBA does not call for or allow for 211 or 162 game suspensions so when you said that Arod was NOT punished MORE than is allowed by the CBA, that was incorrect.

  17. northernfinfan - Jun 24, 2014 at 7:04 PM

    What a joke of a player and ref. FIFA should be embarrassed.

  18. navyeoddavee9 - Jun 24, 2014 at 8:26 PM

    Liverpool need to take action, when he signed his new contract, I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a behavior clause in it, due to his vampire past

  19. beavertonsteve - Jun 24, 2014 at 9:10 PM

    Maybe if someone convicted him of a violent assault, like any other normal person would be, he’d start thinking about his actions. Being barred from international travel is a much better deterrent than missing a few football matches.

  20. footballfan2014 - Jun 25, 2014 at 12:24 AM

    I’m going to take a different approach here; Suarez might have a bit of an emotional imbalance but it’s not as though he bit off a finger or an ear. In the pictures I’ve seen is doesn’t look like he even drew blood! In this world cup we have seen several actions that would be considered assault outside of sport; headbutts, kicks to the face, elbows to the head, karate chops to the spine, just to name a few, but none of you are out there calling for those offenders to get the axe. Let’s all take a step off of our soapboxes and realize that although he’s a bit crazy, Suarez is an amazing striker and keeps us all entertained. There is no need to ban him, unless of course the U.S. are going to play Uruguay…

  21. shirleycsd - Jun 25, 2014 at 2:26 AM

    I really wish I could gift Italy another game against Uruguay…a fair game this ref, no biting..

  22. johnnyp79 - Jun 25, 2014 at 8:30 AM

    Should he.

  23. gr8force - Jun 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM

    Three bites and you’re out! Lifetime ban from any and all FIFA sanctioned events. This “man” is a legitimate violent offender that would be in jail for these actions in most countries.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

MOTD: United's offensive struggles