Skip to content

VOTE: Was FIFA’s ban on Luis Suarez strong enough?

Jun 26, 2014, 10:32 AM EDT

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

After Luis Suarez was banned for nine games and four months total from any soccer-related activities by FIFA on Thursday, has world soccer’s governing body been to lenient with the Uruguayan striker?

Suarez, after all, is no stranger to biting opponents as this is the third occasion in which he has chomped on another player.

Unacceptable. Inexcusable. Mind-boggling.

However you want to describe it, Suarez’s actions have shocked the soccer world and many were calling for the Liverpool striker to be banned from the game for life.

There seems to be a mixed opinion out there on what ban Suarez should have recieved, so below you can vote on how FIFA should have acted.

Let us know what you think.

 

  1. greej1938l - Jun 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM

    Tough to say. Haven’t exactly had this incident before…well an individual who acts like this

    • Jenii - Jun 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM

      Which means you punish severely to discourage any other lunatics from doing the same.

      • dohpey28 - Jun 26, 2014 at 11:12 AM

        Don’t forget the 300k a week he loses from Liverpool during the suspension.

    • irishmanknowsall - Jun 26, 2014 at 1:00 PM

      HELLO? This is this idiot’s THIRD biting incident in 4 years. Try to catch up. Guy should be suspended for life. He can go get a real job.

      • sabatimus - Jun 26, 2014 at 1:11 PM

        I think you missed greej’s point.

  2. renhoekk2 - Jun 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM

    Mind-boggling decision. If he were not a star player it would be much more severe. If he were a reserve player that was on his third bite attack he would be finished. Didn’t he get 10 games last time? So his punishment is going to be less as he continues to do this? That itself confirms that FIFA has no credibility as sports governing body. Can you imagine yourself trying to find a job after biting a co-worker. It would be difficult to find a place to hire you after that. Can you imagine what it would be like after the third time you did. No one would ever let you work for them. Yet he will be playing for somebody again next season in the BPL or La Liga. Enjoy watching him play but I don’t know how anyone can defend his actions.

    • trajinous - Jun 26, 2014 at 11:31 AM

      Problems is each incident were in separate leagues. I don’t think FIFA can use an EPL ruling as a past transgression. This is his first biting incident during a FIFA international game.

  3. boisehockeyref - Jun 26, 2014 at 11:17 AM

    I am just surprised FIFA acted as fast as they did. they didn’t give Uruguay very much time to present evidence in his defense…BECAUSE THERE WAS NONE!!!! This was a nice try by FIFA but still pretty light in my mind.

  4. quagmate - Jun 26, 2014 at 11:36 AM

    Suarez is crazy like a fox. The fear of being bitten by another human being is a terrifying as being bitten by a 150 pound dog. Anyone playing against Suarez on defense MUST know this and that is Suarez tactical advantage. If all it means is an extra foot of space on the pitch, it is enough to get a shot off more easily than he might otherwise have. Think about it. If you were on the pitch as a defenseman and you were up against Suarez, would it cross your mind? If it did, Suarez has already given himself the advantage.

    Fear is working for Suarez and there really is only one remedy. Don’t laugh, but he should be required to play for the rest of his career with a muzzle. I am dead on serious.

    • irishmanknowsall - Jun 26, 2014 at 1:01 PM

      Next time he steps onto a pitch, an elbow to the mouth would be worth the red card. Send a stronger msg from his peers, than FIFA ever did.

      • mazblast - Jun 26, 2014 at 3:23 PM

        Might hurt the elbow. That said, perhaps getting a few reminders like that would get his brain functioning. Lay a few hockey moves on him.

  5. granadafan - Jun 26, 2014 at 12:13 PM

    Who are the morons who voted that he should not be banned? Go on, give your “rationale”.

    • sw19womble - Jun 27, 2014 at 7:20 AM

      Lots of Uruguayans read this site?

  6. sabatimus - Jun 26, 2014 at 12:42 PM

    As of this writing, trolls/morons comprise 27.73% of the vote.

    • asimonetti88 - Jun 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM

      Looks like 27% of respondents are Liverpool and/or Uruguay fans

      • mazblast - Jun 26, 2014 at 3:25 PM

        I like both (neither my #1, but I like them), and I voted for six months and could easily have supported a one year ban. His behavior has no place on any pitch.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

PST Extra: The Manchester derby