No Liverpool appeal against Suarez ban
Liverpool have decided against appealing the ten-match ban handed to striker Luis Suarez by the Football Association for biting Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic.
The club had until midday UK time on Friday to lodge their intention to contest the decision after analysing the FA disciplinary panel's full written judgement following the incident in last Sunday's 2-2 draw at Anfield.
That deadline has now passed, meaning the Uruguayan will miss the final four domestic fixtures of this season and the first six of next term.
A statement from the FA read: "Liverpool forward Luis Suarez has not appealed the suspension issued to him by an Independent Regulatory Commission this week.
"A three-person Independent Regulatory Commission upheld The FA's claim that a suspension of three matches was clearly insufficient and the player will now serve a further seven first-team matches in addition to the standard three.
"The suspension begins with immediate effect and applies to Liverpool FC's next ten domestic first-team fixtures."
Meanwhile, Arsene Wenger has suggested that Suarez's past misdemeanours are the only explanation for the ten-game ban he has been handed by the Football Association.
The Arsenal manager said: "Punishment is explainable by the severity of the tackle or the offence, by the history of the player and what other players have been punished before. In this case, the proportionality looks very severe considering what other players have been punished for.
"What has gone against him Suarez his history. That is why he has been punished so severely. That is the only explanation I can find."
Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini also weighed in on the debate, saying that the treatment of Suarez by the FA has been too harsh, and a lesser ban would be more suitable.
"Ten games I think is too much," he said. "This is my opinion. I don't know if this is worse than other tackles or situations. "I think that five, six games was enough. This is my opinion. I don't work for the FA. Maybe, one, two or three games more [on top of the usual three] could be correct"