I don't agree that a player has to score a lot of goals to get more attention, in this case a contract. I personally don't think a player has to score goals, but contributing greatly to the team's play is also very good. I don't deny that they need to score goals to win games, but for me personally, I don't care who scores, because it's a team game, not an individual game.
If our standard is to look at players by how many goals they score, then we will never see the genius midfielders that we have now.
Actually you're wrong, most of people who received Ballon d'Or are strikers and the highest goal is sexier than the highest assist.
A good midfielder do receive some attention especially manager who want to recruit a good player. But when it comes to statistic, striker is better than any other positions.
Ballon d'Or? To be honest, I'm a bit skeptical about this title, because the plyers who get this are based on votes, not really their statistics in the last season. To be honest, I've also been disappointed by some of these awards, because in my opinion there are players who deserve it more. Not all, but some Ballon d'Or awards are not right.
I don't agree with what you're saying, if you say the striker position is better than other positions, then it's the same as denigrating other positions. What happens if a striker is good but the team has a very bad defense? I want to know the result.