The Football Association handed down a hefty 10-game suspension on Suarez after it found the Uruguayan guilty of violent conduct following his bite on Chelsea defender Branislav Ivanovic. The suspension, one of the largest meted out by the FA, came 16 months after Suarez was banned for eight matches for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra.
Given that Suarez thought he should be suspended for just three games for the biting incident, many had speculated that the 26-year-old would take the news badly and push for a summer move away from Anfield. But Purslow said: "I don't understand the link between a disciplinary issue and whether a player should be at the club or not."
He added: "A player commits an offence, you discipline him, and then the authorities might discipline him. That is the issue.
"What has that got to do with whether Luis Suarez should be playing from Liverpool or not?
"He is easily the most effective and important player in the team. He is enormously valuable.
"What would a commercial enterprise get from getting rid of their most important player, probably at a discounted price, because of a disciplinary problem? No football club in the world would do that."
Although Suarez's bite on Ivanovic, which came on the meeting between the two sides on April 21, sparked major criticism of the player, many were not expecting the FA's punishment to be so tough.
"I thought it was a very harsh ban," Purslow added.
"It was probably more than most of us expected, but that should not diminish in any way the seriousness of the offence. It was a terrible incident, a very unusual, graphic, and unappetising incident."
- Sports & Recreation
- Luis Suarez
- Branislav Ivanovic