The problem with the FA and English football is that we don’t really know what the rules are. We don’t know what the difference is between a good sliding tackle and one that warrants a red card. What happens if a player’s right hand is offside but the rest of his body is on? He can’t legally score with his right arm but how many times do we see the flag go up? We don’t know and neither do the FA or their referees. But it’s stretching beyond just the grey area of what the rules of the game are. Apparently, two offences of equal severity (Luis Suarez and John Terry) can be dealt with to varying degrees and punishments. All I see from this is the FA undermining the importance of the issue at hand.

The John Terry situation should never had such a great effect away from what he actually did in the game against QPR. We’ve seen an England manager walk out on the job on the eve of a major international tournament; the new manager was then subsequently grilled over his decision to overlook Rio Ferdinand; and once again, that dreaded handshake debacle sprang up and forced further questioning of it’s legitimacy.

Luis Suarez’s actions were deemed worthy of an eight match ban while John Terry got four. Firstly, the Chelsea captain would be beyond stupid to try and challenge that final decision—a four match ban is him getting off incredibly easy. But why is there a difference in what they’ve said? Is it because Suarez allegedly repeated the word and Terry only said it once, maybe even as a question? Well that’s ridiculous. They both said it, didn’t they? Or are we not entirely sure? A person who fatally shoots someone with one shot is no different to someone who fatally shoots someone with five shots.

But then again, what exactly is a four or even eight match ban? Arsene Wenger will be banned from the touchline during Arsenal’s Champions League tie with Olympiacos for a second of a three match ban. A ban that was handed out by Uefa for the manager questioning a refereeing decision last season. It’s absolutely unacceptable that issues such as racism—something the football governing bodies are apparently working hard to “kick out” of the game—and questioning an official can be deemed worthy of near-equal punishment. It’s a shambles and pretty much equates to Terry receiving a slap on the wrist for saying something he shouldn’t have.

Can we only deduce then that the FA’s independent panel were acting and handing out their final verdict under pressure. If not, then why wasn’t the punishment more severe, why wasn’t it at the very least in line with Suarez’s eight matches? Furthermore, is eight matches even enough? Fines mean nothing to players who sign off on them like they’re throwing away a chunk of change. Where do the real punishments begin? What would constitute a real punishment and something that underlines a zero tolerance approach by the governing bodies? Well, we’re unlikely to ever know.

This is a talking point in football, another horrible side of the game that we don’t need. We don’t want to be talking about things as trivial as handshakes, nor do we want stories of racism clouding what actually goes on during a football game. But here’s the thing: if no one in the media mentioned it, everyone would be heavily criticised for apparently sweeping the issue under the carpet. Liverpool or Chelsea fans may not like the stance taken up by others against Suarez and Terry, but it would be far worse if no one said anything.

Terry should never have been near the England squad for last summer’s Euro 2012. The FA found cause to take the captaincy away from him but couldn’t find any decency to inform their new manager that leaving Terry out would probably be best for all parties. Oh, but should we rather just look to how good of a defender he is and how influential he can be? It’s almost as if England has no other defenders to call upon.

And why did the whole investigation have to wait until the summer while Suarez’s incident was dealt with midway through the season? What does it say to people about the FA and perhaps football as a whole? There’s no real protection from racism; that getting a red card is punishable by one game shy of what Terry received following what was allegedly said to Anton Ferdinand, something that was taken to court and also looked at separately by the FA.

What Terry did was wrong, there’s no two ways about it. He could have said it aggressively or he could have asked it in a question, who knows? But the point isn’t so much with Terry, rather it’s the handling and inconsistencies of the FA. What kind of message do they send out? How legitimate are the “Kick It Out” campaigns when the governing bodies don’t really know how to handle the situations when they do pop up?