In the preparation work for the Nobel XI writing experiment, I read a book by prize winner JM Coetzee where the South African writes about an unfair soccer match.

For context, a rag tag group of local boys, including protagonist David, is groomed to play against a local team with more resources (a group from a do-gooding orphanage). When the local boys are summarily drubbed by the orphans, David’s guardian storms on to the field and denounces the orphans and their teacher.

“This is not a football game, this is a slaughter of the innocents…They are bullies. They win by intimidating their opponents…If you really want to test your team, Senor, you should play against stronger opponents.”

JM Coetzee The Death of Jesus

That same despair of unfair treatment occurs in a few other spheres of our Soccer fandom, and with surprising frequency in the women’s game.

In the USL-W Heartland, Minnesota Aurora is patently the dominant force. The biggest market, the biggest ownership base, the most accomplished players leading to consecutive unbeaten seasons and local conference titles. To our rivals in Chicago, Green Bay and Kenosha, our lovable little Aurora is the biggest bully on the playground.

At the same time, half-way around the world, the Women’s World Cup has kicked off with its largest ever field. It will feature teams from 32 nations in action (the same as the men’s, though for less prize money). There’s been some celebration about the growth of the game, but there’s also been a lot of handwringing and cogitating about the lack of quality that comes with expanding the tournament. Many expect big sides like Sweden, Norway, England, France, and (of course) the United States to win, the only question is by how much.

To paraphrase the concern as voiced on a recent World Football by our one-time reader Mani Djazmi: these uncompetitive games can turn off viewers. People will know what will probably happen and therefore won’t watch until later rounds when a few true contenders are left standing. This will lead to lower ratings which leads to lower revenue which leads to a lower perceived value for the women’s game.

Better then to have the best teams play the best teams, and leave potential punching bags like New Zealand and Haiti, Zambia and Vietnam out of it.

But to me disliking the bully or wincing at blow outs is only one view of the situation.

Rather than viewing it as bullies and blowouts creating hurt feelings and lost value, what if we re-center around the perspective of those teams who are out on the field.

The teams who face Aurora might well be frustrated not to be winning trophies, but they are (like Aurora) largely college and High School kids who want to get better. Who are there most of all, to learn. They get a chance to spend a few summer weeks as semi-professional athletes with big crowd and televised matches and newly built friendships.

The teams who are on the field are stepping up to a challenge. We could continue to focus on the teams that are likely going to win, but we could also set that aside and talk about how great it is to see a team like Nicholas Delpine’s Haiti stepping up to a challenge. Connecting women from a global diaspora to support their home country, learn, and grow.

Sports, and soccer in particular, isn’t just about who won and who lost. It’s about after the final whistle too.

If you boil it down to the end result then, yes, you don’t need to report much on Haiti because they don’t have much of a chance. But by that same logic, since the vast majority of teams around the world aren’t getting hardware this year, we probably could write about only two-three clubs in every country and ignore the rest. It’s the theory of the Superleague all over again, but more well-intentioned than that ill-begotten cash grab.

But if you consider what comes after the final whistle, then it’s not about who won or lost. It’s not even about why they won or lost. It’s about how teams learn from what they experience.

You can learn by doing like having success against the greatest opponents. But success need not be defined by winning: Sherly Jeudy set up some solid chances for her teammates in Haiti’s game against England. Those are great, and, knowing Sherly, she’ll look for ways to make them better.

And you can learn by seeing: there’s no shortage of great examples in your opponents. Whether you faced off against Tianna Harris or Cat Rapp, you can learn from what they did. After all, they aren’t your enemies, they’re just your opposition.

If it seems like your team doesn’t learn anything after these lopsided games, then you have learned one thing: you need a new coach.

And in addition to all those fuzzier outcomes, occasionally surprises and upsets happen and we’re all better for it (to wit the long standing giants in Norway getting beaten by New Zealand in the league opener, or the team that matched Aurora last year failing to make the playoffs this year).

In reality, everyone, every day, can only control two things: their actions, and their attitude.

The risks of blow out games (whether to goliaths of women’s soccer or a fictional team of orphans) may appear great. The actions of your beloved side may not match your opponents. But ultimately your attitude affects how you respond, and how you learn from the experience.

Bring your best attitude.