It's that some people watch through streaming, but it's even more than that. Streaming has changed the game in that you can watch sports on a stream, that is true, but it's also changed the game in that with on demand entertainment, the concept of "channel time" has evolved into one of multiple considerations. Those who are fans of other sports know too, we see these types of headlines all the time these days. "NHL viewership at all time low." "NBA viewership at 10 year low." "NFL viewership at some low." "Olympic viewership at some low." And it's always construed to be like "oh well these leagues are failing, someone at the top is really slacking." It's little to do with the sport and more to do with the fact that the market being competed for isn't "combat sports" or even "sports" it's "digital entertainment."
The big players in digital entertainment are Disney, ViacomCBS, Warnermedia, NBCUniversal, and this weird Sony/Netflix partnership. And each of these have generated streaming services. These platforms each offer not just sports but also movies, TV shows, comedy, music, etc. The effect of streaming is two-fold. On the one hand, each individual program generates less viewership than it did or would have. Because consumers have more choice, they aren't "stuck with" programs that they aren't as interested in. On the other hand, what streaming has actually meant for TV is that a lot of formerly low-yield ventures are now profitable because in the past, programs would be competing for channel time, having one show on comes with the opportunity cost of having another show on. Even if you have ESPN, ESPN2, 3, U, there's still limited screentime. With on-demand streaming, I can watch whatever I'm personally interested in. Which will hurt the college volleyball game on ESPN3 that I would have been watching but will help the UFC which is what I want to watch, for example.
This has caused streaming services to be desperate for content because they want to capture as many corners and niches of the market as possible. Leagues you never figured would be popular are now signed to major streaming services, D2 sports, women's soccer, Premier Lacrosse. It's even why the UFC's streaming service, UFC fight pass, has added grappling, kickboxing, boxing, wrestling, an alphabet soup of small regional MMA orgs. Livestreaming technology is so cheap, all you need is a camera, a guy next to it talking and guys doing entertaining things in front of it to be profitable. Profitability is not solely or even primarily a question of whether or not you're profitable compared to this other program, it's whether you're profitable compared to your estimated contributions to the streaming service. While posting lower numbers, Bellator has continually maintained its value to ViacomCBS. If now Bellator generated 177k views on the TV program, and that many views on the streaming service, and it was 10th in Google Searches, which is a gauge of interest and people who might subscribe to that streaming service, in addition to having a live gate, and it contributes to the content library, then it's definitely successful.