Luis Suárez Banned for 8 Matches: Christmas Gift for Gooners?

The FA finally gave their verdict on the racial row between Luis Suárez and Patrice Evra. The dynamic forward has been fined £40,000 and given an eight-match ban.

Naturally, this is bad news for the manager, fellow players and fans of Liverpool. But as often is the case in a competitive situation, someone else's sorrow is another's fortune. 

Liverpool's Reaction

Here is Liverpool's extended reaction to the verdict, culled from the Guardian.

"

We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no one else on the field of play—including Evra's own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials—heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken.

The club takes extremely seriously the fight against all forms of discrimination and has a long and successful track record in work relating to anti-racist activity and social inclusion. We remain committed to this ideal and equality for all, irrespective of a person's background.

LFC considers racism in any form to be unacceptable—without compromise. It is our strong held belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suárez did not commit any racist act. It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible—certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.

It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said: "I don't think that Luis Suárez is racist." The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suárez was not racist.

Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has been personally involved since the 2010 World Cup in a charitable project which uses sport to encourage solidarity amongst people of different backgrounds with the central theme that the colour of a person's skin does not matter; they can all play together as a team.

He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multicultural profile, many of whom became good friends.

It seems incredible to us that a player of mixed heritage should be accused and found guilty in the way he has based on the evidence presented. We do not recognise the way in which Luis Suárez has been characterised.

It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suárez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suárez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name.

We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suárez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.

"

I should like to respond briefly to some of the points in the reaction. 

Examination of Liverpool's Reaction

Point one is nothing but a straw man. For example, it appears that Zinedine Zidane alone heard the insult Materazzi supposedly hurled at his sister. Does this then excuse Materazzi for using said offensive words, since no one else heard them?

"

Zidane reacts to an insult

"

Furthermore, the John Terry case seems to have come about only because he was caught on camera uttering his alleged offensive words. Again does that excuse Terry (if indeed he uttered these words) on the ground that no one else but the camera (!) heard the words?

What this seems to be saying is that a player can get away with offensive words provided no one, but he and his victim, hears them. It seems to me that this is not the way forward on a sensitive issue such as this. Mind, I'm not saying that Suárez is guilty or that he's not. I'm pointing out that the ground on which this particular excuse is built is completely irresponsible.

The next point: "The club takes extremely seriously...." 

Kenny Daglish's comments during the extended period it has taken the FA to investigate this issue seem to largely belie this. If you as a club take this issue seriously, then you should, at least, be open to the possibility that your player could indeed be guilty of the charge.

From the onset however, Liverpool have behaved as though Suárez is a saint of sorts, incapable of uttering such vile words.

Contrast this with Sir Alex Ferguson's reticence on the issue. I can see why Liverpool would bring the "crying-wolf argument." Objectivity, however, demands that the case be investigated on its merits. After all, Evra could be punished severely for making false accusations if his case were found to be totally bogus.

Third point: When Evra says he doesn't believe Suárez to be racist, this can be understood in the context of a football game vis-à-vis the larger world. Suárez may not be a racist in normal life, but he could (notice the "could") use a racist word to try to get a player dismissed in order to win advantage for his team. Italy certainly gained some advantage when Zidane was dismissed in the World Cup final.

Although, this is mere speculation, it's a reality many players would acknowledge, the more reason why the FA or FIFA should clamped down on such provocations.

The provoked players tend to be the ones punished while the offending players get off scot-free. I have always thought this to be unfair. If players who give offense know they could be severely punished, provocative incidences would reduce.

Now think of Gervinho being hurled up from the ground by the collar of his shirt, then given a three-match ban for "retaliating" while the offending player walks free. Surely, that's not right. The knowledge that he can escape punishment is the reason—I suspect—why Joey Barton often provoked opposing players.

Fourth point: "Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black...He has played with black players and mixed with their families..."

Totally non sequitur. Suárez is an experienced player who may know a thing or two about buying advantage for his team. That he has a family member who is black may not stop him from using an offensive word to buy advantage for his team.

"

Suárez, after Maradona

"

There is, in fact, a psychological ground upon which it can be argued that this very fact may dispose him towards being offensive to black players. But again, until Suárez lodges his appeal, the case still exists at the level of allegation. This certainly is a fact of which I'm well aware.

Point five: Faulting the FA.

I think the FA has every right to investigate a loaded issue such as this. Let me say, again, that Liverpool seem to care little about the larger ramification of this situation. They seem only bent on exonerating their player.

I can understand part of the reason why. Still, there's a place where restraint and magnanimity should be applied. I do not think that Liverpool have exercised any of the two.

Please, note reader, that this is my personal opinion and I recognize that you may not agree with me, but so long as your disagreement is based on well-argued objections, I'm open to being corrected.

How this News Affects Arsenal

So back to the original question: How does this affect Arsenal?

First, the ban applies to all competitive matches that Liverpool plays once it takes effect, but given that the ban will not apply until Suárez and Liverpool are given a chance to appeal, we can't at present know which matches it will affect.

So let's allow a week or two for the appeal process pari passu Liverpool's fixtures. Here is the schedule, starting from this week:

If we assume that the ban will not come into effect in the next two weeks, then we can skip the Wigan, Blackburn and Newcastle matches and assume that the ban will begin with the Manchester City match. But if I were Liverpool, I wouldn't want that. So I'd dilly-dally with the appeal to give Suárez a chance to feature in that match.

This depends, of course, on how long a time the FA allows for the appeal process. 

But what seems to be case here is that however long it takes before the ban begins, it isn't going to affect Liverpool's return match at the Emirates, so Gooners should just be resigned to the prospect of seeing Suárez on March 3rd at the Emirates.

If Liverpool are clever, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be, they'd stretch the appeal until the first two of the three City matches are played. If they do, then Suárez will miss the Arsenal match since that match would make up the eighth and final ban—good news for Arsenal. You'd agree that the less we see of Suárez, the better.

But the overarching implication of the ban, other than its direct impact on the match against Arsenal, is its effect on the Liverpool front line.

Will it have the same effect Gervinho's (or Alex Song's) ban had on Arsenal, a factor that contributed to Arsenal's defeat against Liverpool? Will it affect Liverpool's scoring ratio or their attacking potency?

The answers to these questions have great bearing on where the two teams—Liverpool and Arsenal—end up on the table at the end of January.

On the other hand, the absence of Suárez could be the incentive that jolts Andy Carroll into wakefulness, in which case the ban may turn out to be of little effect on Liverpool's standing on the table come February.

Moreover, this could be the incentive that prompts Liverpool to spend hugely in the January transfer window. But again, if they do, it could affect their spending ability in the summer.

Gooners (and sorry, any Liverpool fan), is this good news for Arsenal or will the ban mean little in the larger scheme of things? Please, sound your opinion.