That prioritization of the individual has, without question, been accelerated by the decade-long tussle between Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo to see who can claim the crown as FIFA’s best player most frequently. What was once an afterthought is now a crucial yardstick in their rivalry. Both currently have five, and are finalists, alongside Liverpool’s Virgil van Dijk, for this year’s prize, too.

Last year was the first since 2007 in which neither Messi nor Ronaldo won it; it went, instead, to Luka Modric, a winner of the Champions League and the inspiration behind Croatia’s run to the World Cup final. Ronaldo was second. Few doubted that Modric deserved the award, and yet the proclamation of his victory was still, somehow, controversial, if only because Messi had finished only fifth.

This is the problem with individual prizes, whether the FIFA Best awards or the Ballon d’Or. The criteria for winning are enigmatic at best, obscure at worst. The only guidance FIFA provides voters like Sparv is Article 3 of its rules: “The awards are bestowed according to on-field performance and overall behavior on and off the pitch” over the course of the previous (European) season.

That leaves plenty of room for interpretation. Should it go to the most talented player, in which case Messi would be a shoo-in every year? Should it go to the most important to his team? Does it have to be given to someone who has lifted a major trophy?

Perhaps this is why soccer has long been so skeptical of these things: If a player as accomplished and high achieving as Modric could be seen as a divisive choice, then it is not entirely clear what the captains and coaches and journalists are being asked to vote for, because it is not immediately apparent what the prize means. It is much easier to dismiss it as a trinket or a bauble, the calorie of celebrity rather than the nutrition of sport.