So is there any way to solve the soccer finals problem? There may not be a way to stop teams from fouling or playing extra defensively — strategy is strategy after all. Certainly we can encourage the referees to call a tighter match to prevent some of the game’s best from getting beaten up, but no one wants a whistle every 60 seconds either.

But what about the structure of the final — is there any possible change there?

Play two home-and-home legs instead of one winner-take-all match

Many tournaments like MLS Cup and UEFA Champions League use a two-match format for each pairing, with each team getting a game at home. That leaves more time to score, and it means teams can venture out and be a bit more aggressive.

The problem is marketing. Two legs usually mean the matches are played on each team’s home field, great for those two teams but not so much for the big stadium chosen to host the final months in advance. It’s also a problem for advertising. What happens if a team wins the first leg 3–0 and just has to hang on for 90 minutes in the second leg? It may determine a champion fairly, but how many people are turning on the TV for that?

Bring back golden goal in extra time

Golden goal is the soccer version of sudden death — when a match goes to extra time, the rule is simple. Whoever scores first wins. The NFL recently eliminated sudden death because of the huge advantage it gave to teams receiving the kickoff, but that’s not a problem in soccer where the team on the kickoff has no real significant advantage. Sure a team could score a wonky goal off a deflection or defensive error and the match would be over, but that same terrible goal could have provided the outcome in regular full time too (and often does) so it’s hardly a reason to avoid golden goal.

The upside of golden goal is that it’s no longer advantageous for teams to just sit back and play tough defense and wait for the 50–50 proposition of penalty kicks because they will never come. The goal — the win — must be earned.

The downside is fatigue. The match could end in 10 extra minutes, but it could also carry on for another 90 or even further if no goal comes. Tired players are not peak performers and, even worse, they’re prone to injury. Indeterminate golden goal is just too risky for the players’ health, and fans aren’t going to stick around for hours waiting either.

Golden goal, but for only the 30 added minutes

Ok, so this might work. Only 30 minutes of golden goal time could mitigate the problem of endless extra time and health risk.

But wait, the original problem is now back. If there’s only 30 minutes of golden goal play, the underdog is likely to dig in their heels and hold on for penalties once again. After all, any goal in extra time is already akin to a golden goal, not a guarantee of victory but a pretty big boost. Golden goal for only a defined period doesn’t help much.

Maybe some smaller changes could help.

Add 3 extra-time substitutions and an additional “half time” period

This would at least help with fatigue and player health risk. Players would have a 15-minute break between the 90th minute and the start of extra time, enough time for brief treatment and a short respite. And the additional substitutions would allow spent players to be subbed off and might afford managers a chance to make one or two aggressive moves to go for the win.

Of course the extra-time substitutions might be held by a savvy manager until the 119th minute before putting in his or her best penalty takers, so…

Anyone on the active roster can take a penalty kick

Teams often leave fatigued top players on the pitch far too long just because they need them out there for a potential penalty kick. Why not let any player on the active roster take a penalty? If a manager wants to sub off a star for fresher but inexperienced legs, great. If he or she wants to waste a roster spot to stash a penalty taker, go for it. Extra strategy is good for everyone.

But hey, speaking of extra strategy, how about something totally different?

My solution: a version of hockey’s wild 3-on-3 overtime

Look, the current soccer final set-up clearly isn’t working, so maybe it’s time to think outside the box. One of the best ways to force a game to open up would be to keep the same expansive pitch but fewer players on it, forcing a more open and fluid game.

Keep the added extra time and penalty kick set-up as is, but force each team to go down two players at the start of extra time. Now it’s 9v9, a bit more open and free. At halftime of extra time, two more on each team are sacrificed, leaving 7v7 on a wild open pitch for the final 15 minutes. The players would still be exhausted but the open space would provoke many to throw caution to the wind and push forward for a winner.

It would be wild and entertaining, the sort of can’t-miss action that would trend on Twitter and light up cell phones around the world. Hockey 3v3 overtime was odd, but it was crazy entertaining. And think of the strategy as managers are forced to decide whether to sacrifice defenders or attackers, without knowing what the other will do.

And sure, the result would be a game not completely resembling regular soccer, but it’s not like penalty kicks really give us that anyway. At the very least it would mean a better chance of the best players on the pitch using open space, pushing forward, looking for magical championship-winning moment.

After all, isn’t that what we are all longing for?