Not even those supposed 'in the know' journalists were actually in the know, or if they were, they clearly had been sworn to absolute secrecy.

What defines the 'best player in the world'?

What felt like a foregone conclusion was that the winner would come from either Bayern Munich's Harry Kane, Real Madrid's Kylian Mbappe or Barcelona's Lamine Yamal, the latter of whom was last year's runner-up behind Ousmane Dembele.

The issue that the Ballon d'Or never really addresses, of course, is exactly what determines who the 'best player in the world' is.

For years, there has supposedly been tactical voting, which arguably makes a mockery of an award clearly meant to stand alone as the most prestigious individual award in the game.

Aside from those shenanigans, what elements actually define the best player?

Is it the amount of goals scored/assisted? Could it purely be a player's importance to his team? What about the titles that a player wins in the qualifying period?

At least if there were a set of definable metrics which all had a value associated to them, that would surely be a fairer and more logical way to crown the award winner?

How did Mbappe finish above Lamine?

For instance, how is it that a player like Mbappe, who didn't win any titles with Real Madrid and lost out to Spain at the World Cup - though he did win the Golden Boot in LaLiga, the Champions League and the World Cup - finished above Lamine, who was a major reason why Barcelona won the Spanish top-flight title for the second season in a row and helped Spain to World Cup glory?

Does that effectively mean that goals are worth more than titles? And if that's the case, why did he not finish ahead of Kane, who scored six at the World Cup (Mbappe had 10) and 14 in the Champions League (Mbappe had 15)?

One might suggest that a Kane win is a victory for decency and common sense. A player who is seemingly without ego, who has become the fulcrum at Bayern Munich, and who leads his England side with aplomb.

A man who is a true master of his craft but doesn't need to crow about it on social media or elsewhere. He just lets his boots do the talking.

The first Englishman to win the award in 25 years, since Michael Owen did so whilst at Real Madrid, and many in the game will agree that the 'voters' got the right man.

Shouldn't we be relying on data to determine the winner?

Unfortunately, there remains the argument in place as to why his candidacy should be considered more worthy than that of a player who is still only 19 years of age, has already played over 100 times for Barcelona, and has backed up his showboating with goals, assists and the ability to control games on his own.

At present, players can have their various achievements interpreted in any number of ways, in order to further their candidacies for such awards, but in an age where data points can be ultra-specific, why not just acknowledge that fact and get a truer picture for the awards moving forward?

That would take away any conspiracy theories about players only winning the Ballon d'Or because their agents and representatives lobbied the right people.

For now, both Lamine and Mbappe will have to lick their wounds, and hope that another sensational 12 months sets them up to get over the line this time next year.

In the meantime, Kane can enjoy another moment in what has become a glorious career.

Steven Gerrard probably summed up the 33-year-old's career best when he said recently: "He's arguably the best English player there's ever been, and that's the biggest compliment I can pay him, because if you think about the greats that we've had, Harry Kane's in that conversation.

"I want to tell you, as a former midfielder... his range of passing... he's a centre-forward who can pass like the top midfielders in the world. He can pass like the best centre-backs in the world. 

"He's just so good, and he's got no weaknesses in his game. Just an all-round world-class player, world-class human being."