Why the Loser Can Make More Money in MMA than the Winner

I've seen the message in the above meme being discussed on Facebook a lot ever since UFC 207, where Ronda Rousey got knocked down by Amanda Nunes.

Being a fan of combat sports, both real and "fake", the reason why there's nothing weird about a loser in an MMA fight being rewarded more than the winner is clear, so I'd like to explain it to those who may be wondering.

Ronda Rousey is/was a huge name in MMA, and a proven big money draw. UFC 207 marked her comeback fight after being handed her first loss at the hands of Holly Holm, so everybody was interested to see what would happen.

Ronda would have drawn money against anyone, whereas Amanda Nunes against anyone but Ronda Rousey would not have drawn as much money as the fight against Ronda.

It's always about tickets and PPV buyrates, in every combat sport.

Muhammad Ali didn't start drawing money because he was a good boxer; he started drawing money because he became Muhammad Ali- and what made Muhammad Ali was the art of the trash talk.

There's actually a little known story about Ali as a young boxer, who had a boxing match in I want to say Las Vegas in the 60s in front of a half empty audience. In the same weekend, a professional wrestling match between Gorgeous George and Classy Freddie Blassie took place, in front of a sellout crowd.

Ali took time to ponder why it was that the match between George and Blassie sold out, and his fight didn't. Tyson was a big fan of both Blassie and Gorgeous George, and when Freddie Blassie cut a vicious interview/promo on George, Ali got it: it was the trash talk.

It was the fact that these guys had developed personalities that people cared about. They created a buzz.

The thing about sports is that in order for people to spend money in it, they need to have a connection with the athlete or athletes. In sports like hockey, this happens through hometown/country association; in combat sports it happens through being interested in the fighter - whether it's liking or disliking them.

Sports fanatics care about technique and all that, but the big money comes from the casuals, and they need that emotional investment before they themselves make a financial investment.

You can have a boxer who's equally, or more talented than Mike Tyson, but if he's uninteresting, uncharismatic and boring and never generates a buzz, only the the hardcore fanbase of the sport cares - and they more likely than not spend their money anyway.

Combat athletes are always products and brands first, athletes second.

The key to drawing money in sports is that you take someone the people are predisposed to liking who is then pit against someone that the people are predisposed to disliking. This collision course generates interest and makes people spend their money to see the outcome.

That's why the loser in a fight can be more valuable than the winner. It's not guaranteed to stay that way, since wins and losses strongly affect value, however.

It can be said that Ronda Rousey herself isn't particularly charismatic, but she was a spectacle when she was undefeated and that made her valuable. Ronda captured the attention of non-MMA fans due to the fact that she usually finished her fights quickly in the first round and had this brand as a tough gal, which earned her a strong female following, something that hasn't historically been that common in the world of combat sports. And it can't be denied that she was very marketable due to her attractiveness.

Amanda Nunes may be the more skilled fighter, but I doubt she'll ever be as "big" as Ronda during her heyday. And it's a flawed philosophy that a more skilled fighter deserves something more than the fighter who's more marketable, since in the end the only job of an athlete is to draw money. That's what they're hired to do, and that's what they're compensated for.