Every conceivable way of deciding a major football tournament has been tried out, and the only way to sort it without costing everyone involved more cash is by a penalty shoot-out.

Yes it is unfair on the losing side, especially if they have been the team doing all of the attacking and attempting the positive approach throughout the game. Golden goal and Silver goal were incorporated at previous World Cups but the effect just wasn’t the same.

There really isn’t a lot wrong with the rules of football so why try to change them? Most of the rules have been tampered with over the years and the only positive restructuring has been in handing the advantage to attackers with the offside rule.

'Everyone knows what is going to happen after extra-time and everyone knows that someone is going to want the ground to open up and swallow them'


If we had backed down to the Americans’ bizarre ideas we would be watching more adverts of Britney Spears selling a product and perhaps her body than anything else.

 Chelsea’s John Terry may be of the opinion that penalties are a cruel way to decide Champions League Final, but it could so easily have been Manchester United’s Cristiano Ronaldo weeping tears of despair into the Moscow turf.

Everyone knows what is going to happen after extra-time and everyone knows that someone is going to want the ground to open up and swallow them. It’s a lottery. Modern sport and television demand a result on the night.

Replays scythe into the bank accounts of the ordinary fan. It would be impossible to keep the game running until someone scored. What would you do if neither side did score? That’s really what the Golden goal was all about.

For the neutral, penalties are just a joy to watch. The drama, tension and excitement is second to none. For the victors the celebrations are wild and the relief on the face of each and every player is evident.

The flipside is for the opposing losers and the terrible realisation that all of that effort and training has been decided by one swift kick of a ball. The differing ends of the emotional scale are huge and yes, it does seem unfair.

The previous point concerning teams who really didn’t deserve to lose because they were the more adventurous team is also a rather tricky and sticky subject.

Many teams will settle for penalties if they realise they are second best during a final. Unfortunately FIFA cannot do anything about that. Tampering with the laws of the game to punish sides that deliberately play in a defensive manner simply wouldn’t wash.

Once players are on that field of play it is a battle, and each and every team is different in their approach to what they hope/believe will bring them glory. It’s what makes football the most unpredictably fluent ball game in the world.

It’s what makes the war between two teams so fascinating. This debate comes around time and again after a major final is decided on penalties, but what else can be done? There are winners and losers.

Fortunately, during the recent Champions League final, both teams genuinely attempted to win the game with some scintillating football. It was a great spectacle and a superb advert for English football (barring Dogma’s folly). Neither side deserved to lose but there had to be a winner.

If the previous great players on the planet now in the offices of UEFA and FIFA cannot come up with any other way of settling huge games then we must leave it be.

It’s the way it is, we all know that, so let’s just hope that the natural balance of a game is settled in an entertaining manner with the best team winning. It might not always happen but that’s what we have to live with.