Simon Barnes

The agony of penalties

Penalty shoot-outs are great TV, but they’re anti-football

issue 14 July 2018

Last week, for the first time since 1996, and for the second time in nine attempts, England won a match that was decided by a penalty competition. You may have read something about it.

The penalty shoot-out is the classic example — the type specimen — of a sport transforming itself for television. Television loves penalties because television loves drama. When drama is mixed with partisanship the mixture is irresistible: a perfect piece of entertainment.

Many sports have gone down the same route: changing their essence to please television, to create entertainment and ultimately to make more money.

It’s not always a bad thing. The tie-break in tennis was first used in 1965 on the professional circuit. It was introduced at Wimbledon in 1971, in delayed response to a match of 1969 in which Pancho Gonzalez beat Charlie Pasarell 22-24 1-6 16-14 6-3 11-9.

To win a tie-break (and therefore a set) you must lead by two clear points. In theory it can go on forever — so the essential rhythm of tennis is maintained. Tie-breaks have brought some classic passages of play, most famously the fourth-set tie-break in the men’s final of 1980: John McEnroe won it 18-16 only to lose the match to Björn Borg.

Many of these sporting changes are about hurrying the game up so that it fits more snugly into television schedules. Sport is by definition unpredictable: you really don’t ever know what happens next. Television prefers things that run to time — and preferably to times when you can maximise your audience. Sport has done its best to please: enraging those who try to combine live sport with Sunday train services.

The swimming finals at the Beijing Olympic Games of 2008 took place just after breakfast to catch America’s East Coast primetime.

GIF Image

Disagree with half of it, enjoy reading all of it

TRY 3 MONTHS FOR $5
Our magazine articles are for subscribers only. Start your 3-month trial today for just $5 and subscribe to more than one view

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in