Haaland wasn’t even City’s best player last season. Speak to any City fan & they’ll tell you it was Rodri. It’s an award that always gives preference to attackers & in a World Cup year that’s always going to be the most important competition when judging.
That’s how fickle football is though. There were people on here who used to argue Ronaldo was better than Messi because he’d won the Euro’s & at the time Messi hadn’t won the Copa America or World Cup.
I'm a huge Messi fan, I absolutely love the man and he's the best I have ever seen in my lifetime and possibly the best I will see but it should have gone to Haaland or Rodri. I don't think Haaland is the best player at City but to have won what they did and for him to have scored so many goals he most certainly deserved it.
If Messi was Haaland's age and had never won it before, I'm sure some of you would be clamouring for it to be him. He practically won the World Cup singlehandedly with an average team.
Singlehandedly is probably a bit too much, but yeah, I agree. I think Man City would have won their trophies even without Haaland, but there's no way Argentina would have got anywhere near the World Cup final without Messi.