The Suarez ban...

[Peter R]

If he did it in a night club FIFA (or FA) would not be involved immediately if at all, but yes, there would be an impact to the club. Arguably, the on-field bite/transgression could also involve civilian authorities e.g. John Terry, but still, on-field incidents WILL involve FIFA (or the relevant FA).

[Gamma]

And so my point is that the club can be impacted by the behavior of the player outside of on the field playing for the club.

[Peter R]

..which I indicated I understood and did not disagree with...

[Gamma]

And for which behavior the player is still responsible ..... Apparently over the years Suarez has had many apologists who either defended his actions or turned a blind eye to his character defects and that is the real issue whether the ban is for a month 10 months or 2 years is irrelevant.

FIFA has guidelines for its disciplinary committee and those guidelines gives the committee some discretion. I am not in favour of mandatory penal provisions because it does not allow for the facts in each case to determine the penalties.

[Sir X]

No apologist theme from me , it has always been squeeze value from Saurez , then sell, he took us to the top 4 , two games from a prem title....sell to those conflicted to be conflicted.

[Paul Marin]

In any case, the hold FIFA has on football authorities right across the globe and its ability to 'shake' governments arise from its requirement that the supreme laws on all things football are under its total control.

Remember it got Brazil to change laws or institute changes to laws to further FIFA's interest. It was do as FIFA wishes or else! ...so it is with all the FAs. Many...particularly within Europe wish to break FIFA's shackles but it is not easy!

Some refer to FIFA as a world Fiefdom.

The problem Karl is that they are the custodians of the world's most popular sport and are a private organization. They make up rules to benefit their executives and have a long history of corruption. The *new* IOC serves to me as a good blue print for a decent FIFA of the future, but fairness, honesty, and good citizenship is not something you should expect from them. They are corrupt crooks, plain and simple.

[Peter R]

I believe there should be a minimum/maximum ban proscribed if that makes my position clearer... I think they do that in the courts for certain crimes don't they?

[Paul Marin]

I believe there should be a minimum/maximum bans proscribed if that makes my position clearer... I think they do that in your profession for certain crimes don't they?

Peter, there are maximum fines and bans, the real problem is not with the policy, it's with the inconsistent application of policy. Suarez's maximum ban could have been 24 months. We see this all the time in the Prem and their inexplicable bans as well. As they say, "sh!t roles downhill"...meaning it all starts from the top (FIFA).

[Peter R]

Ok. I think there should also be a minimum as maybe all head-butts, bites etc. are not equal.

The application of the penalties I guess is a whole other ball game...

[Sir X]

Ban im from FIFA tournaments for 4 years ,but leave pools interest out of it.Thats my stand.

[Gamma]

There is a maximum 2 years

[Sir X]

I know , i was hoping pool will argue to FIFA ,if they want to make an example giving the xtraordinay situation of repetitive aggression, rescind the pool ban and maximize FIFA precendece of unpredictability.So dem know yuh a boss.

[Gamma]

Not neccessary....only if FIFA feel insecure

[Sir X]

Only...hehe..suh we sell it like dat....PR ! no doubt in my mind its turning as we speak behind FIFA holy gates.