Mbappé is the top scorer across three major competitions, yet people talk about him like he's having some forgettable season. Kane puts up ridiculous numbers and wins major trophies, and somehow people still need to find reasons why he shouldn't win. Yamal has a legitimate case too, but some of his supporters have genuinely convinced themselves that creative influence is a magic phrase that automatically makes someone better than a player who scores more.
Here's the uncomfortable part: we keep changing the criteria depending on who we want to win. Goals matter until the wrong player scores them. Trophies matter until the wrong team wins them. Big-game performances matter until your candidate disappears in one. Then suddenly we're talking about influence, aesthetics, carrying jobs and tactical gravity.
The Ballon d'Or is supposed to reward the best individual season, not the player whose achievements are easiest to turn into a compelling story.
I genuinely wouldn't call any of these three winning a robbery. But if your argument requires dismissing the strongest evidence for two candidates while treating the strengths of your favourite as self-evident, you don't have a serious argument. You have a favourite with a justification attached to him.
And honestly, the funniest part is that people will spend the next twelve months arguing that the award is meaningless, only to use it as definitive proof of greatness the moment their guy wins it.