Last year Ronda Rousey declared herself to be the highest paid fighter in the UFC, bringing in more revenue than the likes of Anthony Johnson, Michael Bisping, and Conor McGregor.

As fans of the sport will know, in terms of post-fight payouts, Rousey brings in less than many of her fellow MMA athletes, so just how credible is her claim now, especially after the Holly Holm fight?

In 2015, Rousey was placed 8th on the Forbes list of highest paid female athletes (although nowhere near the level of the highest paid men). Of the top ten only Rousey, Danica Patrick and Stacy Lewis were not professional tennis players.

In 2015, her income was broken down by Forbes into $3.5 million from salary and winnings, and a further $3.5 million from endorsement and sponsorship deals. Rousey has secured big deals with brands like Monster Energy and Reebok, alongside the revenue she has gained from magazine cover shoots and interviews.

This was on top of her becoming the best-selling PPV UFC fighter.

Despite her shocking loss to Holly Holm, it’s unlikely that Rousey’s brand has taken too much of a hit in the proceeding months, despite the fighter publically admitting to emotional turmoil since her knockout.

Where Rousey stands apart from her fellow MMA fighters is how she has stepped into the world of Hollywood, and indeed, mainstream news.

Building on her film roles, which included blockbuster Furious 7, Rousey has now secured a sizable role in the upcoming Mark Wahlberg movie Mile 22, a remake of the classic film Road House.

Rousey is also far more of a mainstream figure than anyone else in MMA, featured in dozens of magazine and newspaper articles. While this has not always been for the right reasons, it has served to make her internationally recognisable. Her fight against Holm was widely reported in the UK and US press, a rarity for a sport like UFC.

While Rousey is not the best paid UFC fighter, she is the highest grossing UFC athlete, and it looks unlikely to change, despite the end of her unbeaten run.