Being the “loser” can be more lucrative than winning, whether in the boxing ring or in post-liquidity financing.
Jump to ↓
What it means for borrowers and lenders
Highlights
- In an October 2025 boxing match, the loser was guaranteed $150 million versus the winner's $10 million.
- Noetica found the same dynamic in post-liquidity financings: losing lenders are still getting paid fees.
- Third-party financing proposals are becoming a lever borrowers use to extract better terms from existing lenders.
By Dan Wertman, originally published on the Noetica blog, now part of Thomson Reuters. October 2025.
Sometimes, it pays more to lose.
On September 13, 2025, Canelo Alvarez fought Terrence Crawford. Crawford beat Canelo by unanimous decision. The payouts? Crawford, the winner, was guaranteed $10 million. Canelo, the loser, was guaranteed — take a deep breath — $150 million.
Why? Because losers serve a purpose. They bring the audience, they bring the viewers, they make the match happen.
Turns out, that applies in financings too.
Navigate capital market dynamics with confidence
Discover key trends in term benchmarking from Noetica, a leader in transaction data and now part of Thomson Reuters
Access report ↗
When losers still get paid
When Tropicana faced its liquidity squeeze in 2025 and needed new financing, it negotiated with both its existing lenders and third-party lenders, like TPG Angelo Gordon.
Here’s the crazy part: though it lost in its bid, TPG still got paid. In other words, the loser won a fee — and a big one at that.
These compensation structures, while not yet the norm, signal a marked shift in the post-liability management financing arena, and Noetica’s data showed these structures on the rise. Lenders’ argument is simple: if I’m going to stand in the ring and take the hits, only to hear a negative decision when it goes to the scorecard, I need a guaranteed purse.
What it means for borrowers and lenders
For borrowers, third-party proposals serve as a powerful lever to extract discounts, extend maturities, or secure lower coupons from existing lenders. Strong “deal away” threats by the borrower could even be used to exact concessions from existing parties.
The only one that seems to be losing: the winners.
While losing may not be free anymore, only time will tell how lucrative it becomes. And for all you winners out there, well, here’s the takeaway: sometimes, it pays more to lose.
For more deal-term benchmarking like this, explore the latest Capital Markets Radar Report from Noetica, now part of Thomson Reuters.
