Why we cheer for the long shot — and turn on him the moment he stops being one
By: Kenneth Carnesi, Sr. -Author
There is a particular, reliable thrill in watching someone who isn’t supposed to win, win anyway. The unseeded player who upsets the top seed. The expansion team that sneaks into the playoffs. The candidate nobody funded who closes the gap in the polls. Crowds with no real stake in the outcome lean forward anyway, rooting, almost protective. Then, if the winning continues long enough, something curdles. The same crowd that willed the underdog forward starts looking for reasons the run was lucky, overrated, or undeserved all along. The cheering doesn’t stop all at once. It thins out, gets a skeptical edge, and starts qualifying itself with “but.” The story was never really about that one person. It was about what we needed them to represent, and what happens once they stop representing it.
The Math of the Long Shot
Psychologists who study what they call the “underdog effect” have found that an obvious gap between competitors trips something specific in observers, not just sympathy, but a sense that the deck must be unfairly stacked. Researchers at the University of South Florida, testing the effect across sports and politics, found that people instinctively attribute more effort and heart to whoever is behind, and that this perceived effort is what drives the liking, not the disadvantage itself. A 2007 study covered by ScienceDaily found a similar pattern: when significant strength differences are highlighted, observers assume the disparity reflects an unfair distribution of resources, and supporting the underdog becomes a small act of moral correction, a way of nudging an unjust-feeling world back toward balance. Cross-cultural research has since found the same instinct recurring across very different societies, suggesting it isn’t a quirk of American sports culture but rather a default setting.
There’s a second ingredient: surprise itself feels good. Psychologists have repeatedly found that people derive more joy from an unexpected success than from an expected one, and that the joy lingers well past the final score. Backing the long shot gives spectators a stake in a story that, if it pays off, will pay off in extra delight precisely because no one saw it coming. It also flatters the spectator a little. Aligning with the person fighting the odds offers a low-cost dose of agency, a sense that effort and grit can still beat structural advantage, that the world remains at least somewhat fair.
When the Story Ends
The trouble is that the underdog’s appeal has an expiration date built into it. The qualities that made the run lovable — the heart, the hunger, the longshot odds — are all defined by the gap between this competitor and the favorite. Close the gap, and the definition no longer applies. Win enough, and the very same audience that read every setback as evidence of unfair odds starts reading every advantage as evidence of an unfair one in the other direction.
This is where a different, older psychological pattern takes over: what researchers call “tall poppy syndrome,” the tendency to want to cut down whoever has grown too far too fast. The term dates back to ancient Rome, but the behavior it describes has shown up in every era since, from village gossip to comment sections. Psychologists who study schadenfreude, the pleasure people take in someone else’s misfortune, have found that it is closely tied to perceived deservingness. When an advantage is seen as unearned or unfair, it breeds resentment, and resentment is one of the strongest predictors of schadenfreude when that person eventually stumbles. Researchers distinguish this from ordinary “benign” envy, which can motivate self-improvement; what drives tall poppy cutting is closer to hostile envy, which seeks not to catch up to the target but to bring the target back down. The same audience that once supplied the underdog with the benefit of the doubt now applies the opposite standard, scrutinizing every win for evidence it wasn’t fully earned.
Social comparison theory offers a tidy explanation for the switch. People are constantly, often unconsciously, measuring themselves against others, and the psychologist Leon Festinger noted decades ago that comparing yourself with someone clearly below you in the relevant pecking order is psychologically comfortable; it costs nothing and can even feel generous. Comparing yourself with someone who has just overtaken you is a different transaction entirely. Researchers describe this as an “upward comparison,” and when the advantage looks unattainable or unfair, the typical response is envy rather than admiration. As long as the underdog is, in fact, under, supporting them is free. The moment they’re not, the relationship quietly converts from charity into competition.
We Don’t Love the Person, We Love the Plot
Strip away the specific player or candidate or company, and what audiences are really attached to is a plot: disadvantage, struggle, triumph. It’s a satisfying shape with a beginning, middle, and end, and once the triumph arrives and holds, the story is, narratively speaking, finished. Continued winning doesn’t extend the original story; it just sits there, unresolved, waiting for a new shape to fall into. Lacking one, audiences tend to supply their own, and the shape they reach for next is often a fall.
The pattern appears consistently in sports media. The basketball player Jeremy Lin’s sudden 2012 breakout, nicknamed “Linsanity,” was adored precisely because almost nobody saw it coming from a player who had been cut twice and was sleeping on a teammate’s couch; once he settled into being simply a good, established player rather than a weekly miracle, the cultural conversation around him cooled fast, having nowhere left to go. More recently, NBA commentary around reigning MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander has followed a similar arc: the same understated, unflashy style that once made him an easy underdog to embrace has been recast by critics as manufactured hype, and his rare off-nights now draw visible pleasure online rather than sympathy. None of this requires the player to have changed. It only requires the story to have run out of road.
The Real Ledger
None of this is really about cruelty, or at least not only that. It’s closer to bookkeeping. Rooting for someone behind costs an observer nothing and pays a small, steady dividend in the feeling that the world can still surprise you in a fair direction. Rooting for, or against, someone who has already arrived is a different kind of accounting entirely, one that runs through envy, deservingness, and our own quiet status anxieties.
It also explains why so few people who break through ever get to simply enjoy it. The same scrappiness that earned them an army of supporters becomes, the moment they win, the very thing skeptics insist they’ve lost. There is no version of sustained success that keeps the underdog story intact, because the story was never really a tribute to the person. It was a tribute to the gap. The underdog isn’t loved for who he is. He’s loved for where he stands relative to everyone else, which means the goalposts move at the exact moment he crosses the ones that were there first.


You must be logged in to post a comment.