I can guarantee you won't be watching *3* hours of goalless football. At most you'll be watching (excluding breaks) 2 hours + ~10 minutes of added time, and then penalty kicks (not free kicks, by the way).
You can't just keep playing until someone scores. They used to do that, like 40 years ago or so. Then they got one match that lasted something like 4 hours, and then another replay a couple of days later. That's hell, no fun to watch, and players get tired (football is a very tiring game). Also, using unscheduled replays is an even less satisfactory conclusion to a tournament.
At one point they drew lots to see who would advance. Yeah, that's not very good either.
The advantage of penalty shootouts is that there is a fixed ending to the game, and in fact penalty shootouts are very suspenseful. No, they don't really test skill, but arguably skill has already been tested in the preceding minutes and is hence very close. The idea that it is 'pure luck' is both untrue, and nonsensical as there is always a significant amount of luck involved in any sports game.
I like the American initiative similar to penalty shootouts, that instead give the player the ball 35 yards from goal and 5 seconds to shoot on goal in whatever way he pleases, and with as many moves as he wants, though.
The idea that for a game to be good there have to be goals is, by the way, a typically American outlook that isn't shared by many people who regularly watch football. While lots of goals is fun to watch, a close match can be very exciting and filled with action (of course, this isn't always the case). No, not every game is going to be exciting. But come on, that's true for any sport. What the fuck is up with baseball, for instance.
Also, deserved win for Brazil, but South Africa put up a good fight.
