Spanish Journalist José Félix Díaz Says Ballon d’Or Vote Triggered Death Threats
José Félix Díaz, director of Spanish newspaper AS, says he received death threats and endured an online campaign of abuse after ranking Kylian Mbappé ahead of Lamine Yamal in his vote for the 2026 Ballon d’Or. Speaking on Spanish television programme El Chiringuito, Díaz described a backlash that he said crossed the line between passionate football debate and personal intimidation.
The dispute has drawn attention to the pressure placed on journalists who vote for major individual awards. Ballon d’Or voters are expected to assess players’ performances, but their decisions can also become a flashpoint for national pride, club loyalties and social-media outrage. Díaz said he accepts that supporters may disagree with his prediction and evaluation; what he rejects is the use of threats or harassment to punish a professional opinion.
How the Ballon d’Or Vote Became a Personal Controversy
Díaz said the reaction to his ballot went far beyond criticism of his football analysis. According to the journalist, the abuse included attempts to damage his reputation and encourage others to target him. He also said the situation affected people close to him, making the threats especially unsettling.
Although Díaz said he does not intend to be intimidated, he acknowledged that the escalation had an impact on those around him. The episode illustrates how online hostility can extend beyond the public figure at its centre, reaching family, friends and colleagues who had no part in the original decision.
Ballon d’Or voting is inherently subjective. Journalists on the award’s jury weigh a range of factors, including individual quality, consistency, influence on a team, major achievements and performances in decisive matches. Different voters can consider the same season and reach different conclusions without either view being automatically improper.
Why Díaz Put Mbappé Ahead of Lamine Yamal
Díaz said his ranking reflected his own assessment of the players’ performances, not a rejection of Spanish football. He placed Mbappé first and Yamal second, while including four players from Spain’s national team in his overall list. He argued that, in his technical judgment, Mbappé delivered the stronger overall level.
That distinction matters in a debate often framed as a choice between supporting a compatriot and favouring a foreign star. Díaz said a journalist’s responsibility is to vote according to personal conviction and an evaluation of the football on display. There is no requirement, he stressed, to select a player simply because they share the voter’s nationality.
Mbappé and Yamal represent contrasting profiles that can make comparisons especially contentious. Mbappé has built his reputation as a prolific forward capable of deciding games through pace, movement and finishing. Yamal, despite his youth, has attracted attention for his creativity, close control and ability to influence attacking play. Supporters may prioritise different qualities when judging who had the better season.
Those differing criteria help explain why a Ballon d’Or prediction can provoke such strong reactions. Some voters may place greater weight on goals and decisive contributions, while others may focus on all-round influence, consistency or the difficulty of a player’s role. A ballot is a judgment based on those considerations—not necessarily a statement about national loyalty.
Patriotism, Football and the Limits of Online Debate
Díaz criticised the idea that patriotism should dictate a journalist’s vote. Supporting a national team, he suggested, does not mean a voter must automatically rank a player from that country above every rival. In international football, fans often identify closely with their national side, but an individual award asks voters to assess performances across clubs and competitions.
The controversy also reflects a wider challenge for sports journalism. Social platforms allow fans to question decisions and debate the merits of players in real time. That can enrich football coverage by bringing different perspectives into the conversation. But when criticism turns into threats, the discussion stops being about tactics, form or achievement and becomes an attempt to silence someone.
For readers following the Ballon d’Or race, the episode is a reminder to separate disagreement from abuse. Fans can challenge a ranking, explain why they believe Yamal deserved to finish ahead of Mbappé, or make a different prediction for the award. None of those arguments requires personal attacks. A stronger debate focuses on evidence: performances, consistency, key matches and each player’s contribution to their team.
Díaz Says He Would Make the Same Professional Choice Again
Despite the threats, Díaz said he remains proud of his profession and of serving on the Ballon d’Or jury. He also indicated that he would not hesitate to follow the same professional path again. His position is that voters must be free to make independent assessments—even when those choices prove unpopular.
He said some reactions from fellow journalists left him disappointed, but he maintained that the existence of disagreement is part of the award process. A jury made up of individual voters will inevitably produce a range of opinions, particularly when the leading candidates have different strengths and passionate fan bases.
The fallout from Díaz’s ballot may continue to fuel discussion about Mbappé, Yamal and the criteria used to determine football’s most prestigious individual honour. But his account also raises a more basic question: how can supporters hold sports figures and journalists accountable for their judgments without allowing online debate to become intimidation?
For Díaz, the answer begins with keeping the focus on football. A voter’s ranking can be challenged, analysed and debated, but threats have no place in the conversation. Whether fans agree with his Ballon d’Or prediction or not, his case highlights the importance of protecting independent judgment in sport—and ensuring that criticism remains criticism rather than harassment.
