We all love the underdog. Is it because we all feel a bit underdoggish ourselves? We have an instinctive suspicion of the overdog. Most people distrust the powerful, fearing, resenting and envying them. This sentiment transfers to the stronger team, richer club, bigger nation.

A sports team prefers to be the underdog, not only because underdogs carry less expectation but also because they can benefit from the crowd’s sympathy and the opposition’s overconfidence. Underdogs can go for broke and throw caution to the wind; they have nothing to lose; and sometimes, therefore, they win.

And sometimes, even when they lose the game, underdogs nevertheless win a moral victory by their courage and endeavour. In fact, underdogs have so many advantages and possibilities that they can often really be the overdogs, though few people realise it.

The benefits of underdoggery can be generalised. A big advantage is gained by casting oneself as fragile and vulnerable, inferior and needy. In the battle of the sexes both sides use this tactic to avoid doing things that they are perfectly competent to do, from changing light bulbs to putting on the washing machine.

Does the underdog always deserve our support? Perhaps we should reflect that overdogs sometimes deserve to win, and that we should apportion support according to the evidence and not only our natural sympathies.

A.C. Grayling is Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London

Times recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• How to get Coleen Rooney's post-baby body
• The A-Z of winter style rules