I hate penalties. I hate how arbitrarily a winner is chosen. I hate the way penalties discard everything that came in the previous one-hundred and twenty minutes. I hate how they place the burden of winning or losing on one player. Soccer's not about the individual. Teams rise or fall collectively. They train together, they play together, they should win and lose together. But penalties don't work that way. Penalties isolate a player. Suddenly he finds himself alone. There's nothing but the ball, the goal, and, unfortunately, the other team's goalkeeper. If you miss, your team is out. The pressure is mounting. Your teammates have all made their spot-kick and now you need to make yours. If you don't, your team is out and it's your fault. Penalties just aren't in the spirit of the game.

So, what do we do about it? Well, nothing mostly. We can complain about it and suggest things FIFA should do, but almost certainly won't. Stephen Colbert (I know, I know) once said that, and I'm paraphrasing, that deciding the World Cup Final on penalties is like deciding the NBA Championship on a game of 'Horse' Despite the fact that the World Cup Final is so beyond the NBA Championship in both scope and importance as to be incomparable, it remains the best case against penalties that I've heard. People may argue that penalties are exciting or that they've become part of the fabric of the game and either point has valid arguments to be made for it. However, I refuse to accept that entire tournaments, international tournaments, events that billions of people watch, should be decided by ten shots from twelve yards away because we've gotten tired of seeing no one score. The very possibility of penalties hurts the game. It allows less talented teams to put ten men behind the ball in an attempt to stifle a superior opponent's offense and take the game to penalties. Once they've done that, their chances are advancing are just as good as their opponent's, despite being played off the park for two hours. Take, for example, the case of Italy against Spain in the quarterfinals of Euro 2008. It can be universally agreed upon that Spain, based on the run of play, deserved to win that game. Italy, however, did what they do the best and employed their patented style of play 'Catenaccio'. For those of you who don't know, catenaccio means 'door-bolt' in Italian and the system calls for highly organized defense with goals scored on counter-attacks. The definition of boring soccer. Yet, Italy could have been said to have an advantage going into the shoot-out. The Azzuri boasted Gianluigi Buffon in goal, widely considered to be the best in the world. Just two games before, Buffon had made an unbelievable penalty save against Romania's Adrian Mutu, keeping Italy's hopes of advancing alive. Spain's eventual victory on penalties doesn't reflect the fact that they could have just as easily been sent home. A cruel reward for actually playing an attacking style based on possession and skill.

But what can we do to prevent teams from employing strategies like catenaccio or the anti-soccer played by Greece in 2004? The best solution that I can think of would be to keep playing. Wait, what? That's your solution? Just...keep on keepin' on? Well, no. There are a couple changes I would make. They are somewhat radical changes, but I believe they're for the benefit of the game. The first thing I would do would be to grant team's another substitution at the end of regulation. Teams would play the first overtime period just as they do right now. The coach can use whatever substitutions still available to him at the end of the game in addition to the added substitution. If, at the end of the first overtime period, the teams are still tied then both teams will remove a player. Now the game's ten versus ten. The coaches are granted another substitute to use at their discretion. The process should continue for as long as is necessary. At the end of each overtime where the game remains tied, add one substitution and take one player off the field. The addition of extra substitutions will keep the players fresh while the removal of players will open up the game and allow teams playing with guile and flair more opportunities at goal and thus more opportunities to win on their own merit. I rather prefer teams advancing on merit rather than the arbitrary and all-too-cruel solution we currently employ.

The BBC is reporting that Tottenham Hotspur is closing in on the signing of Espanyol forward Luis Garcia. To clarify, that's the Luis Garcia pictured above, not the former Liverpool player. He's bagged 24 goals in 79 appearances for the Spanish side and Juande Ramos apparently rates the the striker highly. You can see for yourself why he does here. Garcia's signing will do nothing to quiet rumors of Robbie Keane and Dimitar Berbatov departing Tottenham this off-season. While there have been no concrete rumors regarding Berbatov, speculation intensified over Robbie Keane's future after quotes from Rafa Benitez regarding Keane surfaced. Benitez acknowledged Liverpool's interest in Keane after admitting that Liverpool were unlikely to pry David Villa away from Spanish side Valencia. Benitez was quoted as saying, "I said the other day that he is one of the names we had on our list, but I can say at this moment that it is not an option for us...We know Villa is a very good player, we know the price and we know the players we have, so when you consider everything we decided he was one of the names, but at this moment, not our target...Keane is one of the other names and okay we are still working with other names. We were in contact and we will see now."

FIFA President and perennial buffoon Sepp Blatter has revealed that he has spoken to three different Football Associations about the possibility of hosting the 2010 World Cup if South Africa were to fall victim to a 'natural catastrophe'. The Football Associations in question confirmed they would be able to host the tournament on short notice, but would need a year to prepare. Now, everyone realizes that Sepp Blatter isn't talking about a natural catastrophe forcing the tournament out of South Africa. The concern is whether or not South Africa will be able to complete the stadiums and have the infrastructure in place necessary to host an event of the World Cup's magnitude. It has already been revealed that South Africa's Port Elizabeth stadium will not be ready in time for the 2009 Confederations Cup. This failure raises legitimate concerns over South Africa's ability to be fully prepared for the World Cup. These concerns make it necessary for FIFA to have a contingency plan in place, should South Africa not live up to its commitments. There are several countries Blatter could have spoken to about hosting the tournament on a year's notice. These include, but aren't limited to, the United States, England, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Australia. All of these countries have the stadiums and the infrastructure to host the World Cup. Who do I think Blatter spoke to? I would think he would have approached the United States, England and Spain. The US was home to the 1994 World Cup which, due to America's enormous stadiums, still holds the record for highest average per game attendance. If the US were to host the World Cup in 2010 it would surely shatter all attendance and revenue records due to the fact that the World Cup expanded from 24 teams to 32 teams in 1998, adding an additional twelve games. The fact that the World Cup was in Europe in 2006 will give the US a leg up on its European competitors. England, with its Premier League stadiums and public transportation system, would be able to host the World Cup. The fact that they haven't hosted the tournament since 1966 would also give them an advantage as well. Spain brings the same advantages as England and their recent victory at Euro 2008 will make them an attractive prospect. As for the other three possibilities, I don't think Blatter spoke to them for several reasons. Germany proved itself capable of pulling off a fantastic tournament in 2006, but it's highly unlikely FIFA would give it back to them just four years later. Italy certainly would be capable of hosting the tournament, but recent match-fixing scandals and incidents of fan violence make the home of the Azzuri something of an unattractive destination. Australia hosted the 2000 Olympics, but its far-flung location will hurt it.

In my opinion, however, all speculation on the subject is moot. I believe South Africa will get their act together in time and the World Cup will conquer another continent. Far too much money has been sunk into this endeavor just to abandon it because some FIFA bigwigs feel uncomfortable with South Africa hosting the tournament. If somehow the plug is pulled, I think the 2010 tournament goes to England and the US gets 2018.

In an example of absolutely flabbergasting greed, 30-year-old Frank Lampard has turned down a four-year, £140,000-a-week deal with Chelsea. Lampard claims he will not resign with Chelsea unless the contract is increased to five years, an unreasonable request from a thirty year old. Understandably, Chelsea have no desire to be paying a 35 year old such an exorbitant amount of money. Lampard seems to be posturing for a move to Italian club Inter Milan and a reunion with former manager Jose Mourinho. The new Inter manager is said to have stepped up the pressure on Chelsea to sell Lampard before his contract runs out next year by increasing his offer to £10 million. The situation was exacerbated by Luis Felipe Scolari's claim that Lampard had expressed a desire to remain at Stamford Bridge, even though no such conversation had taken place. Scolari's press conference allegedly led to a heated exchange between Lampard and Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon. Chelsea will certainly be tempted to offload Lampard for £10 million now, rather than lose him to Mourinho for nothing next summer. It's likely we'll see Lampard in the blue and black of Inter before long.

Okay, it's time for full disclosure. I'm a big Tottenham Hotspur fan. This is despite the fact that I live in New Jersey and have never set foot in England. I've been a fan of the club since the 02-03 season. The 2002 World Cup had just ended and my 12-year-old self was on the lookout for more soccer. This was before I knew about Fox Soccer Channel or its ilk so a weekly highlights show on MSG called, I believe, Premier League Review had to suffice. My choice of club, having no actual links to England generally or North London specifically, came down to two factors. The first was that I didn't want to root for one of the big four clubs. Even at the tender age of twelve I desired the masochistic pain that comes with rooting for a club that flounders in perpetual mediocrity (I'm also a New York Red Bulls fan). I found Tottenham to be a sufficiently middling club: they finished ninth in the 2001-2002 season. The name itself may have given the club an advantage over its mid-table compatriots. Being an American, it's likely that I was preconditioned to prefer team names that resembled the American 'place'-'team name' formula. Tottenham followed that formula. The second factor had been born at the 2002 World Cup. I am entirely of Irish descent. Every branch of my family tree can somehow trace itself back to Ireland. So, I naturally had a soft spot for the Irish at the World Cup. The fact that the Irish and the Americans performed so well in Japan and South Korea is probably why it remains my favorite major tournament. In any case, I was spellbound by the play of Robbie Keane in Ireland's four games. From his late equalizer against eventual finalists Germany, to his spinning volley against Saudi Arabia, to his game-tying (all for naught) penalty against the Spanish in the Round of 16, to his manner of celebrating goals, the man played spectacularly. The fact that Tottenham had just signed one of my favorite players from the World Cup tipped the scales. I was hooked. Which is why I find the latest rumors about Keane asking to leave Tottenham for Liverpool to be particularly distressing, despite questionable veracity.

Perhaps it's denial, but I can't buy Keane leaving Tottenham. At least not for a few years. He's just about to turn 28 (in four days), undeniably in the prime of his career. At Spurs, Keane is already a legend and shares a magnificent partnership with Dimitar Berbatov. The pair of them form what is perhaps the only true, old-school style strike partnership in the Premier league. Keane has found stability at Spurs, something that eluded him when he was bouncing around from club to club before 2002. I doubt he'd want to leave just as the Juande Ramos revolution (fingers crossed) begins. Then there's the fact that Keane was on his honeymoon with new wife Claudine Palmer when the news broke. It's suspect that business such as transfer requests were at the forefront of his thoughts. In addition, Keane has reported for training for Spurs. Which is, incidentally, the last place you'll see former Aston Villa Captain and Liverpool target Gareth Barry. It's unlikely Keane would make the effort if he planned on leaving the club in the near future. Then there's the fact that the deal just doesn't make sense to me. What does Tottenham need a meager 5 million pounds and Peter Crouch for? They already have the far superior Berbatov to play the role of target forward, so unless Berbatov leaves (which I doubt will happen, despite relentless media links away from White Hart Lane), Spurs have no need of Peter Crouch. Keane also has to consider the fact that he would be relegated to the bench at Liverpool far more often than at Spurs in favor of a five man midfield with Fernando Torres by himself up top. I suppose you'd have to consider the unlikely (and horrifying) prospect that Robbie Keane simply does not figure in Juande Ramos' plans for the club. Ramos has many connections in the Spanish soccer world and if there's one thing Latin countries are good at producing it's creative withdrawn-forward, attacking-midfield players; precisely the role Keane plays for Tottenham. Yet, Ramos went to Croatia to find a central midfielder in Luka Modric to pull Tottenham's offensive strings.

All I know is, however unlikely the prospect, I may weep if this deal goes through.