Part of what drives interest in a league’s MVP award is the fact that its definition varies from person to person.
Is it simply the best player, or is it the best player on the best team? Is it a performer who lifted an underdog side to previously unattained heights? Is it all about numbers? Or are we talking about numbers, with a dollar sign? Then there is the whole philosophical, “How do you define value?” discussion.
It provides plenty of fodder for observers of all kinds, and those conversations are set to continue with the announcement Friday that Inter Miami forward Lionel Messi is this year’s MLS Landon Donovan MVP.
Messi certainly ticks plenty of MVP boxes.
The always reliable eye test says Messi is, bar none, the best player in MLS. (Check.) The fact that he helped turn Inter Miami from a team that missed the postseason in 2023 to one that claimed an MLS-record 74 points on its way to a Supporters’ Shield in 2024 adds to his MVP luster. (Check.)
In terms of on-field performance, his 36 goal contributions (from 20 goals and 16 assists) were the most of any player in MLS this season (FC Cincinnati‘s Luciano Acosta and the Portland Timbers‘ Evander were second with 33 each). That comes out to an outrageous 2.18 goal contributions per 90 minutes. (Check.) The next-highest mark was 1.36, shared by Messi’s Inter Miami teammate Luis Suárez and the Columbus Crew‘s Cucho Hernández.
So far, so good; however, there are some numbers that don’t look so favorable.
Due to a combination of international duty and injury, Messi appeared in just 19 of Miami’s 34 regular-season games — 15 were starts — and logged only 1,486 minutes. That’s less than half of the 3,090 minutes available.
The comparable low-water marks in other North American sports don’t help Messi’s cause, either. In the NFL, John Elway appeared in 12 of the Denver Broncos’ 15 games when he won the league’s MVP award in 1987 (80%). In MLB (among non-pitchers), George Brett played in 117 of the Kansas City Royals’ 162 games the year he won MVP in 1980. That checks in at 72.2%. In the NHL, Mario Lemieux played in 60 of 84 games — or 71.4% — during his MVP season in 1992-93. Bill Walton played in just 58 of 82 games during his MVP year of 1977-78 with the Portland Trailblazers. That registers at 70.7%.
Those figures make Messi’s appearance rate in both games (55.8%) and minutes played (48.1%) pale in comparison.
Not all of this is apples-to-apples, of course. All those sports except baseball have free substitution, whereas soccer doesn’t. And Brett was sitting on the bench for much of the time when his team was at bat. But it does make the point that Messi wasn’t available for a significant chunk of his team’s games.
Should Messi be lauded for doing so much in such a relatively little amount of time? Or should he be penalized?
A breakdown of Miami’s record points toward the latter.
With Messi, Miami went 12W-6D-1L, scoring 51 goals and conceding just 26. That comes out to 2.7 goals per game, 58% possession and a 2.21 points-per-game (PPG) pace. Without Messi, Miami went 10W-2D-3L, scoring 28 goals and conceding 23; that’s 1.9 goals per game with 51% possession and 2.13 PPG.
Clearly, Miami was more entertaining with Messi than without him. What team wouldn’t be? But Miami’s record without Messi would have seen it get 72 points over the course of an entire regular season. That would have just missed breaking the New England Revolution‘s record of 73 set in 2021, but still have been good enough to win the Supporters’ Shield by six points. If Miami was going to win the Supporters’ Shield anyway, is Messi really the MVP?
Yes, and here’s why: You can’t just remove Messi from Inter Miami’s roster in a vacuum. When it comes to player recruitment, there is something to be said for Messi’s Jupiter-like level of gravitational pull. If Messi isn’t plying his trade in Miami, then neither is Suárez. The same is true for Sergio Busquets. And Jordi Alba. You could extend that to other South American imports such as Federico Redondo and Tomás Avilés, too.
Without those players, Miami is CF Montreal, scrounging around for one of the last playoff places. In that scenario, the Herons are certainly not an elite team in MLS. (Yes, I hear the snickering from Atlanta United fans.)
Then there are the financial considerations, not only to Inter Miami but to the whole league. Suffice it to say, more money from sponsorships, ticket sales and Apple TV subscriptions flows into league and club coffers with Messi than without. Should those items factor into the voting? No, but subconsciously, given the nonstop Messi marketing campaign, they probably do.
Another reason to give Messi the MVP is that the competition didn’t exactly make a particularly compelling a case to supplant him. In the cases of Evander and Golden Boot winner Christian Benteke (23 goals), there was a mediocre team behind them that either missed the playoffs (Benteke’s D.C. United) or barely squeezed in only to make a quick exit (Evander’s Timbers). That leaves Hernández, Acosta or, better yet, LAFC‘s Dénis Bouanga to consider. Impressive seasons all, and every one of those players was part of one of the league’s better teams, but not quite to the standard of Messi, and by extension, Miami.
Looks like the best player on the best team takes this round.
