The public is completely uninterested in knowing whether the contest
is rigged or not, and rightly so; it abandons itself to the primary
virtue of the spectacle, which is to abolish all motives and all
consequences: what matters is not what it thinks but what it sees.
This public knows very well the distinction between wrestling and
boxing; it knows that boxing is a jansenist sport, based on a
demonstration of excellence. One can bet on the outcome of a
boxing-match: with wrestling, it would make no sense. A boxing-match
is a story which is constructed before the eyes of the spectator; in
wrestling, on the contrary, it is each moment which is intelligible,
not the passage of time. The spectator is not interested in the rise
and fall of fortunes; he expects the transient image of certain
passions. Wrestling therefore demands an immediate reading of the
juxtaposed meanings, so that there is no need to connect them. The
logical conclusion of the contest does not interest the wrestling-fan,
while on the contrary a boxing-match always implies a science of the
future. In other words, wrestling is a sum of spectacles, of which no
single one is a function: each moment imposes the total knowledge of a
passion which rises erect and alone, without ever extending to the
crowning moment of a result.
...But what wrestling is above all meant to portray is a purely moral
concept: that of justice. The idea of 'paying' is essential to
wrestling, and the crowd's 'Give it to him' means above all else 'Make
him pay'.
-- Roland Barthes. "The World of Wrestling" Mythologies (1957)
translation by Annette Lavers (1972).