France Football has released the official rules to decide the Ballon d'Or winner in the event of a tie in points among the leading contenders.
According to the regulations, if players are level on points, the winner will be determined by the highest number of first-place votes. Should that still result in a tie, the organisers will then look at the votes for second place, followed by third, and so on, all the way down to the tenth position.
If the candidates receive identical votes across all ten positions in the ballots, the decision will rest with the editor-in-chief of France Football.
This voting system underscores the intense competition among fans who regularly engage in heated debates over who truly deserves the prestigious individual award. The male Ballon d'Or winner is chosen by 100 international journalists representing the top 100 countries in FIFA's rankings.
Each voter must compile a list of ten players, with points distributed in descending order: 15 points for first place down to one point for tenth.
The multi-tiered tiebreaker system means that a player's placement at fourth, fifth, or even tenth could theoretically decide the Ballon d'Or winner, should the frontrunners finish level on points. Voters can no longer simply select their favourites and leave the rest to chance; to clinch the trophy, a player must be regarded as the best by journalists worldwide, making every vote for any position in the top ten critically important.
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this process is the role of the editor-in-chief of France Football. Despite the seeming scientific and mathematical precision of the rules, the nature of the award remains subjective. By affirming the absolute authority of the editor-in-chief in extreme cases, the publication guarantees that the accolade will always find a recipient, with the award's prestige too significant to leave that power unused.
While the likelihood of a complete tie in votes across all ten positions is statistically very low, the willingness to entertain such a scenario acknowledges the potential for variance in the voting process. Competition grows fiercer each year, and the existence of a clearly defined procedure ensures transparency and confidence in the final outcome.
