T20 - Why We Root For The Underdog

At first glance, India’s T20 World Cup victory and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East appear to inhabit entirely different worlds. One belongs to the arena of sport, the other to the complexities of global politics. Yet both reveal a deeply rooted feature of human psychology. We instinctively root for the underdog. Whether in a cricket match, an election campaign, or a geopolitical conflict, the side perceived as disadvantaged often attracts disproportionate sympathy. The story of the smaller contender challenging greater power carries a powerful emotional pull, shaping how we interpret events, assign blame, and remember victories.

In the case of India’s recent T20 World Cup triumph, the dominant public emotion has naturally been pride and celebration. Yet alongside the elation of victory, a quieter sentiment has also surfaced. Some observers, including this writer, feel that the win did not evoke quite the same emotional intensity as earlier ones. A win is a win. But it feels sweeter when the winner is perceived to be the smaller dog in the fight.

Consider the inaugural T20 World Cup in 2007. Indian victory came out of left field. Indian cricket was passing through one of its most turbulent phases. There were public disagreements within the team and tensions with the coach. The national side had just endured a disastrous campaign in the 2007 ODI World Cup. Senior players declined the responsibility of captaincy, leaving leadership to a relatively unknown and remarkable young cricketer guiding an inexperienced squad. Expectations were modest at best. Many viewers tuned in less out of belief in victory and more out of curiosity about the relatively new T20 format. What followed quickly entered the realm of sporting folklore. Yuvraj Singh’s six consecutive sixes against Stuart Broad, the dramatic bowl out against Pakistan in the group stage, and Misbah ul Haq’s final wicket in the championship match remain etched in collective memory. Psychologists describe such moments as flashbulb memories. These are vivid recollections formed during emotionally intense events. Because they are associated with surprise, tension, and collective exhilaration, they tend to remain unusually clear and enduring.

In the years since, Indian cricket has evolved into one of the most formidable forces in the sport. In most tournaments today, India enters as a favourite and defeat often comes as a surprise. In the latest T20 World Cup as well, despite an uncertain start, the team was widely viewed as a serious contender. The odds were largely in its favour. Perhaps that is precisely why the victory felt different. When success aligns with expectation, it brings satisfaction but not the same emotional catharsis. The drama of victory is greatest when the outcome appears uncertain.

A similar psychological pattern can be observed far beyond sport. The evolving narrative surrounding tensions involving Iran and the United States illustrates not only our tendency to sympathize with the relatively weaker side but also how fluid such narratives can be. Initially, global attention focused on anti-regime demonstrations in Iran and the reported killing of young protesters by state forces. In that narrative, the Iranian regime appeared as the aggressor, while sympathy flowed toward the young citizens demanding change. However, when a far more powerful external actor became involved, the psychological frame of the conflict witnessed a shift. That’s largely because when a stronger adversary enters the picture, the earlier aggressor may begin to appear, in relative terms, as the weaker party confronting a larger threat. Public sympathy can shift almost reflexively. Actions previously condemned may fade temporarily from attention as the narrative reorganizes around a new hierarchy of power. This tendency reflects a deep cognitive and moral bias. Regardless of where we stand on the global ladder of privilege, most people instinctively gravitate toward the side perceived as disadvantaged. In relative terms, we root for the little guy.

The psychological mechanisms behind this tendency draw upon moral intuitions about fairness, social identification, and cognitive interpretations of effort and deservingness.

For instance, Equity theory suggests that individuals possess a strong psychological preference for fairness and balance. When a competition appears dramatically unequal, observers often feel an implicit urge to restore equilibrium, at least symbolically, by supporting the weaker side. Similarly, theories of achievement motivation indicate that when individuals or groups are perceived as disadvantaged, observers attribute their potential success to greater effort. Effort, unlike innate ability or structural advantage, is viewed as morally admirable and controllable. Success achieved under conditions of adversity therefore appears more deserving.

This dynamic is visible in other contexts as well. Stories of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who succeed in highly competitive examinations such as IIT, NEET, or UPSC often attract greater admiration than similar achievements by individuals from more privileged circumstances. The accomplishment is interpreted not only as competence but also as perseverance against structural obstacles.

Empirical research on the underdog effect reinforces this observation. Studies suggest that people tend to favour competitors perceived as disadvantaged partly because they appear more relatable. Observers often project their own experiences of struggle and aspiration onto the underdog, creating an emotional bond that goes beyond rational evaluation of ability.

This psychological inclination has also shaped political narratives in recent years. Electoral campaigns across the world, including in India, increasingly rely on crafting identities that evoke ordinariness and struggle. The ‘chaiwala’ jibe in 2014 boomeranged for the ruling part of the time, painting them as elitist and classist, disconnected from the common man. What was intended as ridicule instead reinforced the underdog narrative and amplified its appeal.

The dynamics of narrative formation have evolved dramatically in the digital age. In a world of instantaneous information, viral imagery, and algorithm driven attention, perceptions of who constitutes the underdog can shift within hours, sometimes detached from deeper historical realities. Yet the psychological reflex behind this tendency remains remarkably stable. Humans are natural storytellers and are drawn to narratives of struggle, perseverance, and improbable triumph. The underdog embodies these themes in their purest form. Through such stories, observers project their own experiences of adversity and hope onto a larger stage. Whether in sport, politics, or geopolitics, the side perceived as disadvantaged often becomes a vessel for collective imagination. The story of the underdog reassures us that effort and resilience can sometimes challenge entrenched power.

At the same time, this instinct carries risks. The emotional pull of the underdog narrative can blur moral complexity and allow uncomfortable truths to fade when the story of struggle becomes compelling enough. Yet it also reveals something deeply human. Beneath shifting loyalties and narratives lies a persistent hope that courage, effort, and resilience can occasionally overturn the odds. In the end, we root for the underdog not only because they seem weaker, but because their story mirrors our own quiet desire to believe that the improbable is still possible.

Shivangi Rai - social sector consultant, psychology enthusiast and a philosophy noob