Mbappé, Le Pen & the Fallacies Behind the Reply
This Episode
Three fallacies in one exchange — and a surprisingly coherent argument from a footballer.
Full Transcript
A French footballer says he's worried about his country's politics. Will he get an answer about politics? Nope. He gets one about football. That's what we'll see in today's episode of The World in Arguments, where we take one argument shaping the world and analyze it, helping you improve the critical thinking skills to evaluate arguments yourself: one argument, one episode at a time.
This week, we go to France. Coincidentally, it's also about football, as the previous episode was — but I swear it's a coincidence.
So, what happened? A recent exchange between three prominent French figures: Kylian Mbappé on one side, and Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella on the other. Briefly, on May 12, Vanity Fair published an interview with Mbappé in which he, among other things, voiced both his political beliefs and his argument for a player's right to speak about politics. Let's just dive in.
Mbappé's Argument
We'll start with Mbappé's claim, but before: some context.
Kylian Mbappé — with Algerian and Cameroonian roots — is the captain of the French national team, a generational talent who famously left Paris Saint-Germain for Real Madrid in 2024, and a superstar who carries the weight of a nation's expectations. He is, at the moment, one of the most recognizable French people worldwide. So naturally, his words reach a huge, international audience, and carry a lot of weight in public opinion. Especially in French public opinion.
And, recently, this voice went political. In the Vanity Fair interview, he said the following:
Kylian Mbappé — Vanity Fair, May 2025
"People sometimes think that because you have money, because you're famous, that kind of problem doesn't affect you. But it affects me, because I know what it means, and what kind of consequences it can have for my country when those kinds of people take control. So we are citizens. We have the right to give our opinion like anyone else."
What's interesting here is that we don't need to steelman much — because Mbappé, to his credit, laid the argument very coherently. Here it is in standard form:
Mbappé's argument — standard form
He gives more information on his opinion a bit further in the interview, but overall, he both defends his right to speak and preemptively addresses the most common attack on celebrities who speak politically: you're rich, you're famous, you're disconnected. Mbappé's reply, essentially: being rich and famous raises the stakes, not lowers them.
Mbappé's argument on whether he should voice his political beliefs contained, however, an opinion about a political party that are, at best, controversial. Therefore, the addressed party was swift in replying.
Bardella's Reply — Red Herring & Ad Hominem
Bardella's reply landed on X/Twitter. But who are these people, and that party? The Le Pens are the historical figureheads of the Rassemblement National, or RN: France's prominent anti-immigration, nationalist far-right party. It was created by Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1972, with Marine Le Pen taking over for ten years. A political scandal led to a four-year imprisonment sentence and a five-year political ban for her, due to her party's embezzlement of EU funds — and while she won't need to serve prison time per se, she is effectively disqualified from the presidential race. The baton passed to Bardella: the RN's 30-year-old current president and most probable candidate for the 2027 presidential elections.
Bardella's response to Mbappé's political comments? A football dig: PSG won the ultimate club trophy — last year's Champions League — only after Mbappé left.
Obviously, whether PSG lifted a cup without Mbappé has nothing to do with whether his political concerns hold up.
Fallacy #1 — Red Herring
A red herring introduces irrelevant information to divert attention from the actual claim being made. Bardella's PSG comment has no logical connection to Mbappé's argument about civic rights. We saw this same move in Episode 1, with President Trump and the Epstein files. Different country, different politics, same move.
Fallacy #2 — Ad Hominem
An ad hominem attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. By mocking Mbappé's footballing legacy, Bardella attacks the speaker — not the case being made. Also seen in Episode 1. Worth noting: this is not the first time these two had an exchange. Back in 2024, when Mbappé first spoke out against the RN, Bardella's response was to frame him as a multimillionaire with a private jet, out of touch with ordinary French people. Mbappé essentially addresses that charge in the Vanity Fair interview — but Bardella chose to ignore the reply entirely, opting instead for another dry smear.
Le Pen's Reply — Strawman
Marine Le Pen also replied the next day, in a radio interview. According to RTL, she said she's not bothered by a footballer taking a position, but that football fans are "free enough" to vote without being influenced by Mbappé.
Let's pause here. On the surface, this may look like a proper argument. It is not.
Fallacy #3 — Strawman
Strawmanning is a classic fallacy: you build a weaker, distorted version of someone's claim, knock it down, and present it as if you've answered the original. Mbappé didn't claim that fans aren't free. He didn't claim he should sway voters. He defended his right to speak as a citizen and shared a personal concern. Le Pen's reply addresses a different argument — one Mbappé didn't make — and rejects that one instead. Strawmen are tricky because they sound reasonable on their own terms. "Of course, voters are free." Hard to disagree. But agreement on a point that wasn't made isn't a response to the point that was.
The Broader Debate — And Why the Critique Still Fails
To be fair, both Bardella and Le Pen do touch on a serious debate that we are, in the show's efforts to be impartial, obligated to review: celebrity influence, and the representation of "the people."
These are important issues. When celebrities use their status for irrelevant subjects, we have another case of fallacy: an appeal to authority. Fame alone does not make an argument valid.
However, Mbappé wasn't raised rich; he became so through talent, dedication, and a bit of luck, as he sometimes admits. He grew up in low-income, immigrant neighborhoods. He is a person of color, and of African descent. Given this mix of premises, we can understand that his opinion is directly relevant to the political situation he is describing. This is not a celebrity speaking outside their domain. This is a citizen speaking about a party whose policies would directly affect his community and his family's country of origin.
And therefore, the critique from both Bardella and Le Pen is, indeed, fallacious.
Recap & Closing Note
So, let's recap. We reviewed two familiar fallacies — ad hominem and red herring, already seen in Episode 1 — and introduced a new one: the strawman.
I wanted to make this episode for two reasons. The first is the obvious one: these are classic rhetorical moves that can steer you away from the actual subject at hand.
The second is this — and here I will allow myself to be biased, giving my own opinion (so take it with a grain of salt): what happens in France is important for the entirety of Europe. France is a key player in European politics, and for better or worse, the incumbent president Emmanuel Macron — with all of his numerous controversies — was one of the strongest voices for European integration at a time when Europe needs to be united more than ever before. Europeans, and all people who care for western democratic values and liberties, should have an active interest in what happens in this historic nation.
The Rassemblement National has a well-documented track record of controversies, remarks, and convicted scandals, with a strong anti-European rhetoric. Such evidence and held stances influence my own beliefs. And, as a proponent of logic, I reject the notion of fair representation in the abstract: sides should be covered proportionately to their accuracy, validity, and overall track record.
Under such circumstances — even as my analysis of the fallacies used remains factual (which you can cross-check yourself, and please do correct me if you catch me lacking) — I acknowledge being biased. But I remain firm in my beliefs on why, and I want to voice my reasons clearly, so that you are better informed about the choices I make.
Thank you for sticking around until the end of this episode. If you want to support the show, follow it wherever you listen to it, and if you know someone who'd enjoy it, send it to them. Any feedback on how to improve is very welcome.
Until next time: keep a keen eye on the arguments around you — and I promise, the next episode won't be about football. See you!