Sure, who doesn’t watch the pure unadulterated emotional drama of a penalty shootout and think ‘this is rubbish, I would love to change this’?
But there are people who do think that way, incredibly, apparently feeling that the absolute banter of deciding a game on spot kicks from 12 yards is in some way uncouth.
But don’t worry, because it’s time once again for a daft proposal to make everything right in the world to do the rounds.
There is a notion that comes up every now and then, particularly after games where a penalty shootout feels like an especially unjust way to settle a tie between a dominant team and one that was merely very lucky to make it that far.
The idea is: play the penalty shootout before extra time begins, or even before kick-off, to give both sides a clear idea of what the stakes are if the game ends in a draw.
There is a better way.Play the penalty shootout straight after 90 mins. The winner of the shootout gets a 0.5 goal lead going into 30 mins of extra time. Now the team that lost the pens has a chance to win and crucially, no matter score, there is one team that has to go for… https://t.co/hHpyOjKUllJune 30, 2026
That was most recently put forward again by the annoyingly mononymous FPL Show and Off The Bench podcast contributor Pras.
The mechanism often suggested is that if a game ends level after extra time, the side that has already won the shootout is declared the winner.
Pras essentially leans in that direction too, suggesting that the shootout should take place before extra time begins, with the winning side awarded half a goal going into the remaining 30 minutes.
The principle is that it means that every period of extra time is guaranteed to have at least one team at any time that is incentivised to try and score.
We dare say there are some glaring issues with that, though.
For one thing, it rather assumes that under the current system, most teams go into extra time trying to play for the shootout.
There are occasions where that happens, but generally speaking, what you see is that the more dominant team in the tie tries to get it won in extra time rather than risking a shootout.
If that side won the shootout, though, they would have more incentive to back themselves to defend the lead – and if the less dominant side won the penalty kicks, that goes double for them.
Those of us old enough to remember the golden goal rule can confirm that instead of encouraging sides to attack, as had been intended, it mostly just meant both sides were petrified of conceding, played ultra-conservatively for those 30 minutes, and accepted the shootout instead.
If this proposal were brought into effect, it could well have the same effect.
But the biggest objection of all: penalties are fantastic entertainment as they are because the stakes are so massive and clear. We have all long since been able to compartmentalise the occasional unfair feeling outcome in exchange for the spectacle.
