7-1 is a 'shame' – or is it?

The criticism leveled at the Brazilian national team by the press and a large part of the public regarding the terrible 7-1 defeat to Germany has added a factor that demands attention: 'shame'. Until this week there was no shame, humiliation or infamy, as has suddenly been heard after the 7-1. So, can a single defeat, however resounding, generate 'shame'?

Okay, it's not just any defeat, not at all. It's a negative record in several aspects. But it's still just one defeat. When many refuse to accept defeat as an 'accident' along the way, intolerance comes into play. And sensationalism from the mainstream media, of course. Defeat, even a 7-1 loss, is part of any competition. It's so much a part of it that it happened.

The problem seems to lie in not wanting to accept that the team 'could' lose. They didn't want to give them that right. They forget the main thing, which is that it's a game and the best team will win. Simple as that? Yes, simple as that. And so it was. To reinforce this, one cannot forget that the team was without its star player and starting captain.

Artur Xexeo, in his article 'The fault lies with the psychological aspect,' thoroughly criticized Felipão's dependence on this "psychological" thing. He described it as more like a bunch of mischievous motivational speeches than serious, tactical, and intensive training. Everything was a case of "call the psychologist," as Xexeo correctly mocked.

When journalists, or even fans, introduce intolerance into their analysis to label defeat as a "shame" or "infamy," a serious compromise in interpretation occurs. A spoiled consumerism becomes evident, where only victory matters, not the competition. The end of the idea that "competing is what matters," replaced by the idea that "winning is the only option," is generating this horde of spoiled fanatics. These are big men who scream in stadiums and, for example, assault or leave their wives when their team loses a championship. That is, when they don't kill rival fans.

Is it 'shameful' to lose in a competition? I mean, to compete and lose? There are interesting questions there. Losing by 1 and being disqualified 'is acceptable'. But losing by 7 and being disqualified by the same amount introduces this other feeling, 'shame'. Some say 'humiliation'.

When many people talk about shame, they are essentially making a 'demand'. They point the finger at others. They think of themselves as creditors of someone else's behavior, of a specific outcome. As if the expectation of victory gave them a credit and the player an obligation. Soon, fans will be seeking legal action for moral damages because their team lost.

This demand for specific behavior is a form of consumerism that gives rise to a form of personal revenge. Thus, it was not the person making the demand who lost, but the other person, since they instill shame in the other person's conduct, not their own.

All of this is a consumerist manipulation of desire, of dreams. There will be this joyful consumption when the result is victorious. But there will also be consumption with demands and intolerance in defeat.

There are several reasons for this. Religion is one of them. Many believe the goal was the work of the divine, of myth, of some god on duty. The on-field expressions of gratitude with fingers pointing to the sky clearly demonstrate this. FIFA has already asked players to refrain from bringing their religious rites onto the pitch. But who does FIFA think it is compared to a god? If that's the case, the victory is divine, and perhaps the training and preparation can be more lenient or cunning; after all, isn't God Brazilian? If so, he betrayed Brazil.

In the post-game interview (only in the interview!), the national team's coaching staff handled themselves well. They managed to avoid the carnage of the mainstream press, which was seeking a bloody front page. Or a confessional one. Things like tears, visceral regrets, and self-flagellation. Nobody there is naive. They already know the vulture-like pattern of the big newspapers and TV, with their search for the 5 factors: fear, panic, chaos, scandal, and terror. The problem is that a game is not an interview.

Renato Maurício Prado, a powerful football expert, said that 'Never before in the history of this country has the Brazilian national team been so humiliated in a World Cup'. The expert exaggerates the term. Humiliation is a factor that requires offensive conduct from the opposing team. Germany did not humiliate anyone. They behaved with extreme professionalism and ethics in the match. To demand humiliation of the Brazilian national team is perhaps not the most accurate way to describe it.

Anthropologist Roberto DaMatta, interviewed in O Globo the very next day, July 9, 2014, teaches: “There are winners and losers. Winning and losing are constitutive elements of the structure of a competition.” But this mental balance, this organization in the interpretation of a sport that has come to spread fanaticism as the standard of love for the team, is not desired. The society of intolerance only wants to know about fanatics. Galvão Bueno, with his raspy voice, proudly says that the fan is 'fanaaaatic'. As if fanaticism were not a pathology.

The team lost badly. Watching 5 goals in less than half an hour was surreal. To reach a negative score of 7 is appalling. But you can't expect the team or the people to feel humiliated or ashamed. Humiliation is something else entirely; it can't happen with a 'mere' football match.

Now it's time to face the Netherlands and do what we can. And hope that our dear sister Argentina becomes world champion. In Brazil, that should make us very proud.