I've played both hockey and soccer for a long time (not super-competitive though). Hockey is far more tiring even with short 60-90s shifts in a 60 min game vs. full time for a 90 min soccer game.

I'm not sure why but for me at least the short shifts mean I'm flat out when on the ice and never quite get a rhythm like I do in soccer where I eventually settle into a steady pace... like a long distance runner.

Anyway, agree with parent comment that penalties aren't a great way to settle a competition. One option that could be interesting in soccer is to drop to 9 players in overtime and allow a couple extra subs.

It really depends on the individual. I’m like you, I prefer regular running over sprints, and could happily run a full football game, but I’d be dead after 5 minutes of full-court basketball. Some of my friends are the opposite, they could kill it on the court for ages but wouldn’t last 30 minutes in football. Some of it is due to conditioning, but like all athletic performances there is also an element of genetics.

You don't have to imagine to find a sport with greater running distances, match lengths, and goals-without-a-goalie: Just go watch an Aussie Rules Football match.

They have roughly 2 hours of play, and it's not unknown for players to run over 11 miles a match.

20min quarters with stoppages

120 interchanges per side for the match

different, but still equally intense as FIFA Football

I imagine there aren't a lot of drawn games?

The scoring for Australian football is dramatically different. The final score in the last australian football grand final was 79 to 74. Its closer to basketball scores than it is soccer.

2010 Grand Final was a draw.

As a Geelong fan I enjoyed neither St Kilda or Collingwood winning for the week before the rematch.