Criminal Conduct Between The Lines: Luis Suarez Suspended For 10 Games For Biting Opponent

Last week, Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was suspended for 10 games for biting a Chelsea player during a globally broadcasted English Premier League game. You can watch Suarez's chomp in slow motion from just about every camera angle. Suarez issued a public apology and paid a fine, believed to be approximately two week's salary — approximately $350,000. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated that Suarez's conduct set "the most appalling example" to children.

This, unfortunately, is not the first instance of Suarez's aggression. In 2010, he was banned for 7 games when he bit PSV Eindhoven player, Otman Bakkal. As a result, he earned the nickname the "Cannibal of Ajax."

Unlike soccer, American football, hockey, and boxing are based on repeated physical assaults. These occurrences raise questions about the liability athletes face (or do not face) for acts of aggression taking place on the field during the game. Of course, when a player steps into that zone, he or she assumes certain risks — the risk of any loss, damage, or injury that may occur to him or her while on the playing field. The athlete also has given informed consent to any injuries that may occur — he or she has full knowledge of the risks associated with athletic competition and consents to those risks. Under these theories, it would seem as if athletes are protected from tort liability for incidents or injuries administered to an opponent. What happens, though, when the conduct at issue extends beyond aggressive competition and rises to the level of criminal conduct?

Here, Suarez's actions, if taking place off the field, would be deemed criminal. One cannot merely walk down the street and bite another individual without criminal sanctions or penalties. Suarez, however, was not charged criminally; he was merely suspended for a number of games, despite the...