Just before Croatian midfielder Luka Modric was announced winner of the 2018 Ballon d’Or (aka world player of the year), former French defender and manager Rolland Courbis expressed his frustration with the concept of the award using an interesting comparison. “This award is ridiculous,” he told one media organisation. “It mixes goalkeepers, defender, midfielders and forwards. It’s like giving the gold racket trophy by mixing tennis, badminton and ping pong players.”
Not the neatest of comparisons, but the former Marseille manager joins a list of persons associated with the sport who have criticised the Ballon d’Or. And for all the love that mild-mannered Modric gets, that an award like this is given so much importance is what has riled many.
There is always a furore after the announcement every year. Managers who felt their players deserved it, players who felt their teammates deserved it, fans who felt somebody was grossly overlooked, and so on. This year, even Cristiano Ronaldo’s sisters weighed in, blaming his loss to the “mafia”. Realistically though, who can all these people blame?
The process goes like this: French football magazine France Football chooses one journalist from 176 countries to choose their top five players of the year from a shortlist of 30 names that is decided by the magazine's editorial team. Based on the rankings, the chosen players earn six, four, three, two and one points.
Modric came out top this time with 753 points, for guiding lowly Croatia to the World Cup final this summer immediately after playing an integral role in Real Madrid's third consecutive Champions League title. Cristiano Ronaldo collected the second most points (478), followed by Antoine Greizmann (414), Kylian Mbappe (347) and Lionel Messi (280).
Among the voters this time, we had the Egyptian candidate giving full marks to Mohammed Salah (obviously); the Portuguese crowning Cristiano Ronaldo (again, obvious); a Saint Kitts journalist who gave Neymar the top slot (whom neither the journalist from the country Neymar plays in nor the one from the country he plays for included him in their lists) and thought that neither of the overall top five deserved to be in his top five; and the Central African Republic candidate who felt convinced that the world's best player right now is... Karim Benzema!
Not to demean any of those journalists or their choices, but at the end of the day, it comes down to a personal conviction for who ought to win it. And just like the Academy Awards—to take an example of an award of its size—it is unscientific and subjective. But it isn't so much as the process that is at fault as much as the final result or even the weight this award carries.
Should a player from a team that does not play in the World Cup or the Champions League have no right to be in contention for the award? Should those that don't get the opportunity to play for a Barcelona or a Real Madrid, and yet have a sensational season, be ignored? Could you really say that the player is not the best player in the world because he chose to stick to a club for sentimental/political/societal reasons, turning down the lure of large sums of money? Would Modric have won the Ballon d'Or if he had orchestrated an unbeaten season for his first club Dinamo Zagreb before leading Croatia to the WC final in the same year?
The 10-year duopoly of Lionel Messi (left) and Cristiano Ronaldo at the Ballon d'Or has been broken | AFP
A resounding no to all of those. Why? Because in this time and age, you have to be “ambitious” enough to play for the richest teams in the world. Eden Hazard, among the best players in the PL for six years, has been both criticised and praised for staying at Chelsea—a team whose fortunes are more unpredictable than, say, the stock markets. Hazard is often said to be “not selfish enough” to score goals. It is only a matter of time before the little wizard yields and finds himself in Madrid, and finally landing on the Ballon d'Or podium.
The last player from a team outside the top five European leagues (England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France) to win the Ballon d'Or was Igor Belanov of Dynamo Kiev, after winning the European Cup. Of the 63 awards, only six have been awarded to players who played outside the big five leagues.
The purpose that the Ballon d’Or serves has gradually changed from the time of its inception. Football was a global sport but there was very little coverage in 1956. Stanley Mathews was the award's first winner with a Blackpool side that won nothing that season. He had won only one FA Cup in 1953. But Matthews was a real force to be reckoned with, and the world needed to know that.
But as football coverage grew and the sport started to change in many ways, the award grew in stature. With the introduction of philosophies like total football, the sport slowly became a more team-oriented game, rather than relying on individual efforts of 11 players. When the award should have lost its significance, it only became bigger and is now the most coveted prize for a player.
The Ballon d'Or started out as an award for the best European player, and started to include non-European players who played in Europe only in 1995. It went global only in 2007. Which is why we will never know how many of those previous awards could have been bagged by the likes of Pele, Maradona and Garrincha. So, not only does it divide the footballing world every year over who deserves it, it also does not work as a standard of measure for all-time greatness. Pray tell then, what is its purpose at the end of the day?
It served as a marketing gimmick for FIFA during those six years of identity crisis the award went through, when the footballing body and France Football merged their annual awards. They eventually went their own ways and now we're once again left with two “prestigious” awards every year. Which one is bigger? The one that is awarded by world football's highest body, which cannot keep its greasy hands from meddling with anything that brings it money? Or a golden ball with a long-chequered history, that, after all belongs to one magazine from one country?
One thing is for sure, it is good that this year's awardee is not chosen based on statistics, because Modric doesn't have any. Barring a handful of goals and assists for club and country, Modric’s game is not so much in the numbers than it is in the effect he has on the pitch. He pulled the strings with such ease for both teams and kept them going.
But Modric has been doing this for years. This year was no different. Croatia’s path to the final could be argued to have been one of the easiest it could have hoped for. At 33, this is Modric’s first and undoubtedly last Ballon d’Or. His story is one that deserves celebrating. Going from war-torn Croatia to the World Cup final is the stuff of dreams. He may have broken the 10-year duopoly that Messi and Ronaldo held over the award, but is he really “better” than the two? In what measure? You don’t need to be a genius to say that Messi and Ronaldo, even in their 30s, are any less influential or talented players. Both players gave the award show a miss this time, fully aware that they were not going to win it. Ronaldo has made no attempt in the past to hide how absolutely obsessed he is with the award.
It can be argued, again, that Messi does not deserve to win the award because he does not do with Argentina what he does at Barcelona. But that only shows how much Messi needs a team (in a team sport, mind you) to show you his best.
“I’m totally against it,” former Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger said of the award, in 2015. “I’m a team lover and a specialist of somebody who loves team work. I’m completely against it. I would not vote for anybody.” A year later, Wenger pointed out that an award of this size makes players selfish.
And while Wenger may have had a bitter foe in Jose Mourinho, the then Chelsea manager backed the Frenchman. “I think he is right,” Mourinho said. “In this moment, football is losing a little bit the concept of the team to focus more on the individual.” Mourinho had earlier called the award “bad for football” as it celebrated individualism over team work. He had a point. In recent years, players like Frank Ribery, Wesley Sneijder and Greizmann have expressed their annoyance at being deprived of the award.
Luka Modric with the World Cup Best Player Award | Reuters
This year, after Greizmann missed out on the FIFA award, he had said: “I think about [the Ballon d’Or], especially the closer I get to it. The Ballon d'Or is a prestigious award, and it is the highest you can go as a player. There are trophies in your league, in the World Cup, the Euro, but it is not the same.”
The award eventually fell into the lap of someone who cares little about individual glory—that image of Modric holding the World Cup player of the tournament trophy with tears in his eyes is testament to it.
That the extravagant ceremony was held in Paris, which has been burning with angry protesters over rising living costs, did not help its case. But the worst part of the night was reserved for after the first-ever women’s award was handed to Ada Hegerberg. The French DJ asked her if she knew how to twerk. The sexist request had social media up in arms. If introducing the award was to empower and recognise women’s football, the DJ of the night graciously helped the sport take one step back on this “grand” stage.
Does Luka Modric deserve the “prestigious” Ballon d'Or? Absolutely. Is Luka Modric the best player of the last year? Think again. An individual award of this size and influence for a sport that embodies teamwork like no other is the last thing football needs.
