There is no trace left of Lazio–Milan. What remains is a villain, a scapegoat blamed for everything: Rafael Leão.
It’s always easier when a culprit is identified. All the anger, frustration and disappointment can be channelled into a single figure. It’s an age-old mechanism, deeply rooted in human behaviour. The French anthropologist René Girard wrote about it extensively: the need for a scapegoat stems from the illusion that, by removing one individual, order and balance can be restored.
Lazio-Milan was a deserved defeat, for many reasons: a poor approach that exposed the lack of personality within parts of the squad, a tactical plan that failed in the first half, and several underwhelming individual performances. Yet all of that has faded into the background. The only image that lingers is Leão’s reaction to being substituted — an outburst of frustration, close to tears.
Leão, unfortunately, fell into the trap. Aware of the scrutiny surrounding him, he could not afford to hand ammunition to the vultures. From that moment on, every tactical, physical and strategic explanation disappeared. The narrative became simple: Leão is the problem. Let the trial begin — peace will follow.
Putting the villain on the front page
“Leão up for sale.”
“Contract talks on hold.”
“Dressing-room tensions.”
Two days after Lazio–Milan, the media picture is clear: a monster to plaster across the front pages. The match itself has vanished. The wider season, even more so. Why engage with complexity when it’s easier to simplify, shape public opinion and pin everything on one man?
Let’s be clear: Leão can be criticised. His first half in Rome was poor, and his reaction to the substitution was ill-judged. But there is a contradiction in the criticism. He is often accused of indifference, yet now he is condemned for showing too much emotion — a visible frustration at failing to help his team in a decisive match. That is not the reaction of a player who does not care.
There are also two crucial factors often ignored. First: Leão has not been fully fit all season. He has been managing a chronic issue that limits his defining strength — his acceleration in open space. And yet, has he complained? Has he looked for excuses? No. He has continued playing, even at the risk of compromising a future World Cup with Portugal.
Second: his role. If critics insist he is not a striker, they must then account for the fact that he is playing out of position. Despite that, and despite the injury, he has scored nine goals in 1,492 minutes — delivering more points than any other player in Serie A. And often, even when he makes the right movements, he is simply not found by his teammates. That part rarely makes the headlines.
A convenient target
The truth is that Leão has long been an uneasy fit within the Italian media landscape. A Black athlete — and that alone opens broader questions — with a languid style, perceived as detached, lacking the visible intensity many expect. He makes rap music, dresses boldly, embraces fashion.
For some, that makes him difficult to accept. He does not fit the mould of the disciplined, low-profile professional. But that mould is an expectation, not a requirement. His talent belongs to him, and how he expresses it —on and off the pitch- is his choice. Perhaps, with a different mindset, he might have been a perennial Ballon d’Or contender. But that assumption reveals another misconception: mentality is often treated as something that can simply be learned, when in reality it is as innate as talent itself. It cannot be framed as a fault. At some point, there needs to be acceptance. Leão may never become what some imagined four years ago. But he remains a highly impactful player — statistically among the most productive wide attackers in Europe over the past five seasons — now playing out of position and through injury.
Before completing the ritual of sacrifice, it’s worth asking a simple question: if Leão leaves AC Milan, is a better player realistically within reach?
A final thought, inspired by journalist Frank Piantanida: “if Christian Pulisic had reacted angrily to Leão not passing the ball, what would the story be today? His reaction — or Leão’s supposed selfishness?”
The point is not to shift blame. It is to expose the contradictions of media narratives. Alongside Leão is a player who has not scored or assisted since late December — nearly three months. Has he made the front page? No. Because he does not fit the role of the scapegoat. And that, ultimately, is the issue. It is easier to ignore complex problems, identify a villain, punish him, and feel momentarily relieved.
But does that really bring resolution – or just the illusion of it?
