In light of recent events, this got me curious.
We know that Ballon d’Or was recently held and they have decided to crown Rodiri as the winner. Now, I don’t want to hear whether he deserved it or not or should it have been vini. This post is not to discuss that but, I want to know if this award really is objective and reflective of the best performing athlete in terms of football.
That is the aim of it and that is what we are meant to believe about it even though some will still have some objection and still sense some imperfections in the whole process. The event will bring room for more competitiveness between players and will like to perform to their best in order to make their name written on that book of records in the history of football. So it’ll continue that way to chose the best athlete in football.
It has been said that the winner is decided by 100 journalists each picking their top 10 players of the year. Is it possible that these journalists may be affected by some personal bias or patriotism? How objective is this award and is this deciding method really the best?
Even if this method is not the best and they want to try out many different ways, there will still be some challenges and questions like this will still arise whether this method is the best or not again. Journalists are humans also and they may have their own choice and how they like each players and can trigger them to vote for them even though they don’t deserve it. As long as this is the method they’re still adopting, it is still the best until they come with another one.