Luis Suarez bite: 10-match ban does not indicate biting is more serious than racism insists PFA chief Gordon Taylor
The Liverpool striker was banned for eight games after abusing Patrice Evra
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor insists the 10-match ban handed out to Luis Suarez yesterday does not indicate biting is more serious than racial abuse.
Suarez was suspended for eight games last season when an independent disciplinary panel found the Liverpool striker guilty of abusing Patrice Evra at Anfield in October 2011.
The fact Suarez received a greater sanction for sinking his teeth into Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic on Sunday has raised an eyebrow in some quarters.
However, Taylor does not feel the two cases are linked.
"I think if there was any more racist abuse the tariff would increase," said Taylor.
"It is not easy to get justice right. (Suarez) got seven (for biting in Holland), eight (for Evra) and now 10.
"There has been a divided opinion. For some people it is not enough, others think it is too much.
"I take the view if there are points being made on both sides the balance is probably right.
"I actually feel there was needed to be more encouragement for the player to improve his behaviour and maybe the ban could have been longer, say 12 matches, with some of it suspended.
"I don't think there is a suggestion the FA think biting is more serious than racial abuse."
Liverpool will consider the written reasons behind the verdict before deciding whether to appeal against a punishment that, as it stands, rules Suarez out of action until the back end of September.
Taylor is unconvinced by the Reds' present annoyance at the severity of the punishment. However, he is in a tricky position as well given Suarez is one of six contenders to win the PFA Footballer of the Year prize on Sunday and is strongly fancied to be included in the Team of the Year.
"The vote was made by the players and the first criteria is footballing ability," said Taylor.
"This was not normal behaviour.
"Luis Suarez is a great footballer. The job for everybody, not just Liverpool but the PFA, Premier League and FA is to make sure, along the way, we see the right pattern of behaviour.
"Sometimes bad behaviour is excused by intensity. But as so many top players have shown, that doesn't have to be the case.
"If you have bad discipline and you get disciplined for it, that just leads to more frustration. It doesn't help anyone."
Taylor has already offered a course of anger management for Suarez. He certainly does not think a move away from the Premier League would be an answer to the problem.
"There has been all this talk about whether the boy will stay or go but it is something he has to deal with because the ban could be applied in other countries as well," he said.
"I can't see anywhere that would regard this as acceptable."
PA
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments