Marcelo and Ronaldo are hard to root for as well.
It’s a total joke to decide this on penalty kicks. American sports have lots of problems, but at least they keep playing to get a winner.
The fact of the matter is that with substitutions limited to 3 per game, association football needs penalty kicks. It’s an unfortunate evil, but nonetheless a necessary one - association football simply isn’t a game that can be played for much more than 120 minutes before the body starts to give out - that much was evident at the end of the game, where even notorious ironmen like Filipe Luis and Koke had to be carried off the pitch with intractable cramping.
You’d have to either allow significantly more substitutions or change some other aspect of the game fundamentally if you wanted to do away with penalties. The players are simply physically incapable of much more than regulation + 2 halves of extra time. The only real alternative to overtime + PKs is scheduling replays, but that was done away with for very good reason.
This particular game, however, did not deserve penalties. The only goal scored by Real Madrid was a blatant offside, and Pepe should have been sent off and conceded a penalty for essentially suplexing Carrasco in the penalty box and then blatantly simulating for a second time. Clattenburg refereed well overall, but as is wont to happen to referees on the big stage, his balls, spine, and eyes went missing in action in the most critical, match-deciding moments.
At least he didnt award anyone three yellow cards 
why not allow more subs? What’s the rationale behind only allowing 3? Tradition?
I went to an NHL playoff game that went almost 120 minutes. And yes I know the players have shifts but the best players were on the ice about 60 minutes of 120. And they are wearing a lot of pads and skating is very taxing on the body. They do get 15 minute breaks between overtime periods. However there are no TV time outs in OTs.
Being on the ice for 60 minutes out of 120 still only amounts to spending 50% of the game actually doing something, whereas 8/11 players on each team (of which one will be the goalkeeper, and so to whom this does not really apply in the same way) must be on the pitch for the entire 120 minutes in a game of association football that goes into overtime, in which time they will generally cover at least 14-15 kilometres of ground (many of these at a sprint), tussle with opponents for the ball, and leap well into the air to contest aerial balls. The only rest is the intermission between regulation halves and the tiny, tiny (think 5 minutes or less) breaks between overtime halves.
With regards to why only 3 subs are allowed, those are and have for as long as I can remember been the rules of the game, and it is unlikely to be changed within my lifetime.
From what I can tell football people would rather burn in hell than change a rule right? And they certainly don’t want to follow any rule from an American sport like hockey? (by allowing more subs) They would rather drink poison than do that.
So they would rather sit there with a crappy ending that no other major sport has. (but I could be wrong on that)
From what I understand, no substitutions were allowed throughout most of the history of the game. Additionally, the game is naturally a 90 minute game and extra time only occurs in cup elimination games. Thus there should be no reason not to give 3 additional subs for extra time. That said, I still don’t think there’s any reasonable substitute for PK’s except replays. But they are just impractical for big tournaments.
I’ve played hockey and soccer. And with all the pads for hockey you get tired a lot faster. and of course pro hockey has hitting too which takes a toll on your body.
You realize that several major hockey tournaments including the World Cup have games decided by penalty strokes if no winner is found at the end of regulation, yes?
Penalty strokes, penalty kicks, etc are a necessary evil that can only really be substituted be a complete replay of the game when it comes to knockout games - to think that simply forcing the players to play until one side collapses and dies on the pitch if no goals are scored is a better resolution is inane at best.
Edit: Bijou Drains, are you here to discuss the Champion’s League final, or are you here to bloviate about the superiority of American sports over association football? You are entitled to dislike association football, or whatever it is that your opinion is, but methinks it is entirely irrelevant to this thread.
which hockey tourneys were decided on penalty shots? What years? None in the US at least in a long time. Maybe that very lame tourney they have in Europe each spring which is full of lesser NHL players? Nobody in the US cares about that since it’s held during NHL playoffs.
A necessary evil is still evil right?
Bloviating about the superiority of American sports it is, I see. Well, I have no intention of engaging you further.
I said above American sports have many problems, they just don’t have the problem of penalty kicks/shots to decide a title. (post #22)
Unlimited subs after 90 minutes.
I agree penalties are a bad way to settle a championship, but its a situation factored into managers strategies, believe me. All part of the Game.
Diego Simeone is a force of nature as a manager. He will win a Champions League Trophy either with AM or elsewhere, mark my words. Been following him since he managed River Plate, he knows how to extract blood from a stone when it comes to this sport.
Before penalty kicks games were settled by replays, which is just not practical for a major final these days (though they’re still used in the earlier rounds of the FA Cup for example).
Arguably, Diego Simeone is likely to struggle disproportionately at a club larger than Atleti. His system requires every player on the pitch to work extremely hard for all 90 minutes - something that he is unlikely to be able to enforce on a team with 2-3 “superstars.”
The problem with this is that the dozen or so super clubs in Europe, that have benches full of world class players, would have even bigger advantages in extra time. They might even be incentivized to drag the game out, which would change the game. I think 3 additional subs for extra time is reasonable. And I think these would have to be made right at the beginning of extra time, not during play.
Just eliminate the goal keeper in ET.