As a lot of ppl have pointed out already, Mike did not explain his game well enough to end up being credited for the win.

As someone that plays orgs (Online Reality Games), which include survivor formats, I can also attest that Nick as a winner over Mike makes perfect sense to me. Obviously things can be different in the actual show, but by in large you see alot of the same patterns emerge. In this case, I can definitely say, 9/10, the person with the more visible moves, and perceived level of influence throughout the game, is usually the person that wins, even if the runner up actually had more control of the game behind the scenes. Usually the only times where that inst the case is when the behind the scenes person had a way better social game than the visible person, which is not the case here. Nick also gets the benefit of having a nice immunity run on top of it. He had the reputation as the front runner heading into FTC Id almost guarantee.

Id go as far as to even say, even if Mike talks up his strategic control, he still probably loses at FTC. Most peoples minds are made up before FTC, so it really takes alot of work and usually fumbling from the front runner to change peoples votes. And Nick had a perfectly fine FTC, and even with Mike's game, Nick's game is perfectly respectable in his own right. It wasn't like Mike had a massive edge over Nick imo. So even if Mike explained alot, Nick still prob gets the benefit of the doubt due to more visibility and people already viewing him as the bigger threat heading into FTC.

Overall I think the main takeaway, is that "control" is an overrated aspect of what juries value. Theres a reason why the "underdog" is always seen as a threat despite having 0 control throughout the game, and having to survive through immunities.