Debate: Is the FA justified in banning Suarez?

**In defence of Suarez, by Alex Russell**

In the wake of the FA’s decision to find Luis Suarez guilty of aiming a racist comment at Manchester United’s Patrice Evra, and to sentence him to an unprecedented eight match ban, it has become nearly impossible to defend the Uruguayan to anyone other than a fellow Liverpool fan. However, I am insistent that fans and pundits should hesitate and consider the facts before they jump on the bandwagon and label Suarez a racist. The way the case has been handled by the FA makes this seem like a straightforward instance of racism; nothing could be further from the truth.

This debate hinges on the much publicised fact that Suarez used a term not considered offensive in his native Uruguay, and that he has been the victim of damnation based on this cultural ignorance. One only needs to study the reception of the verdict in Uruguay to understand that this excuse is entirely credible. The Uruguayan press responded with outrage, and even went as far as to accuse the English of what El Pais (the country’s leading newspaper) called ‘pseudo-moralism’; namely, the fact that the English tend to adopt this holier-than-thou attitude in such instances.

The newspaper makes these claims in reference to the growing suspicion that the English FA has used Suarez as a scapegoat, making an example out of the player in the aftermath of the Sepp Blatter racism row in order to send a message to fans that their great institution is one to be trusted and respected, unlike the corrupt bigots at FIFA. Surely such an explanation is needed to justify such harsh action being taken against what appears to be merely a case of context lost in translation. To illustrate; Suarez’s Uruguayan teammate Maxi Pereira is known is his native country as ‘El Mono’- translated into English, this means ‘The Monkey’.

Of course this would never be allowed in a nation such as our own, which has become saturated with the desire for political correctness, but the nickname is accepted at home as affectionate and non-offensive – akin to calling Dirk Kuyt ‘blondie’. Who are we to judge the context of a word uttered in a foreign language by a man with a completely different cultural awareness?

It would be ignorant to consider the case without giving thought to the fact that Evra is not exactly without prior in this type of claim. In 2008 he was banned for four games after accusing a Chelsea groundsman of racism, claims which Chelsea called ‘spurious and malicious lies’, and which were found to be untrue. Two years earlier, he had levelled similar claims at Liverpool’s own Steve Finnan, claims which were investigated by the police and found to be false. Whether Evra is repeatedly the victim of out-of -context comments he finds offensive, or is simply a malicious and compulsive liar is a question up for debate*.

The role of Evra’s manager and club must also be considered, especially in the context of perpetrating the media storm which has accompanied the investigation. Following the match in which the alleged incident occurred, Sir Alex Ferguson claimed in the press that ‘the lad Suarez dives all over the place.’ Coming from the man who for years defended Cristiano Ronaldo from similar claims, and who now manages a team which contains Nani, these comments seem extraordinary. However, they had exactly the intended effect. From that moment fans and the media scrutinised Suarez’s every move, and seemingly became determined to cast him as the pantomime villain English football loves to hate; a role which has not been filled since Ronaldo left for Spain.

The abuse Suarez received from opposition fans even before the racism investigation began was entirely indicative of a nation that genuinely believes they transcend the ‘continental’ practice of gamesmanship, and who are far too eager to leap on media bandwagons. By the time the racism case reached its conclusion, Suarez was quickly becoming the least popular man in English football amongst opposition fans, culminating in his swearing at Fulham fans in response to constant abuse. This campaign against Suarez had effectively destroyed his image before the FA reached a judgement, and this made the public all the more eager to condemn the man and adopt the moralistic high-ground.

The ban would perhaps be easier to accept had the FA always set such precedents. Yet, while they were having Suarez investigated, the FA were lobbying furiously to have Wayne Rooney’s Euro 2012 ban reduced; a ban handed out for blatantly and petulantly kicking an opponent. Last year, the same player escaped sanction for elbowing Wigan’s James McCarthy in an unprovoked attack which, outside of football, would have constituted assault.

This is the same institution that allowed John Terry to be reinstated as England captain after a horrific breach of his teammate’s trust, and who failed to punish Rooney (yet again) for swearing at a TV camera during the World Cup. It will be interesting to see how the FA sanction John Terry, also at the centre of a racism row, now that this example has been set.

The argument can perhaps be summed up in the row between Paul McGrath and Glenn Johnson which erupted following the Liverpool player’s decision to wear shirts supporting Suarez in warming up against Wigan. McGrath slammed Johnson, claiming that, had he been asked to wear the shirt, he would have ‘thrown it to the floor.’ Johnson responded; ‘I will support who I want, when I want!!! There are a lot of reasons why I’m standing by Luis Suarez!!!’

As McGrath has done, it has become easy for those outside the club, those who have never met Suarez, to jump on the bandwagon. That Suarez’s black teammates have continued to support him , that the club has risked its reputation to stand by his side, is enough proof for any Liverpool fan that Luis Suarez is the victim in this case, and enough to erase any shadow of a doubt over Suarez’s character. He may be the subject of a national hate campaign based on this flawed condemnation, but, to Liverpool fans, Luis Suarez Will Never Walk Alone.

**In condemnation of Suarez, by John Downes**

Luis Suarez’s fine of £40,000 and ban for eight games marked a landmark conclusion in FA decision-making history. However, after the verdict was broadcast there was not the rejoice I expected at the seemingly justified severity of the judgement but instead I was shocked and annoyed at the opinions I was hearing and revolted by the raw, predisposed tribalism that seemed to linger around the issue.

In my opinion, Suarez has proved himself to be a vile human-being at many points during his glittering yet tarnished career, thus far. There, I’ve said it. His despicable show of unsporting behaviour in deliberately handballing on the line for Uruguay, to prevent Ghana progressing in the World Cup in 2010, before celebrating in front of the Ghana fans on the touchline when Uruguay won on penalties, his recent two-fingered gesture at Fulham fans, his insidious tongue when talking to referees, coupled with his notorious, balletic ability to fall down at the slightest knock, proves this assertion.

However, while I would usually agree judging a player on his history is unfair, these fundamental character faults combined with the conclusive evidence the FA must have in punishing him in this fashion, surely means Suarez should receive no sympathy whatsoever. However, in a Sky News poll on 21st December, two-thirds of the voters suggested that he had been hard done by.

The fact that many around English football would struggle to identify a moral issue is highly worrying. What Suarez clearly did was not reckless lunge, a blatant trip, hot-headed elbow, or even an expletive-laden rant to a referee. He attacked another man’s genetic make-up in a personal attack of the most sinister and disgusting nature. Calling a referee an effing twat is undeniably part of Suarez’s Saturday afternoon ritual but insulting Patrice Evra for the mere fact that he is black is morally wrong.

With a tradition which regrettably includes slavery, segregation and violent discrimination, racism against those of African descent brings with it such serious undertones that everyone should realise that if someone is bigoted in this way, it should not be tolerated and they should be punished accordingly. Regardless of who you support, this is an ethical issue, not a football issue, so partisan views should be pushed to one side and Suarez should be made an example of.

**Editor’s note:** It was actually Manchester United Coach Mike Phelan who raised the claims against the Chelsea groundsman, while two deaf United fans claimed to have lip-read abuse from Finnan. This is the first instance of Evra raising any claims of racist abuse.

In this case, if Liverpool fans are asking for Suarez not to be judged on past misdemeanours, then surely the same must apply to Evra? The argument of cultural context is such that in a heated game between two rivals, if one player refers to his opponent’s skin colour, surely the other will assume it is a racial slur? No-one can consider Suarez and Evra to be friends and neither are we in South America. Suarez has played in Europe for several years, and must surely be aware of the context in which a word such as ‘negrito’ would be taken.

No-one is accusing Suarez of being an outright racist, but surely an apology and admission of ignorance would’ve been accepted and the issue buried? There was no need for Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish to evoke a siege-mentality, followed by the frankly pathetic show of support through wearing t-shirts, usually reserved for support to a team-mate who has suffered serious injury or a club legend that has passed away. It only served to cheapen the club’s famous anthem “You’ll Never Walk Alone”.