The Forbes Fab 40 – The World’s Most Valuable Sports Brands 2014
– 9 points –
– 11 points –
– 9 points –
– 5 points –
– 34 (out of 60) –
points
points
points
points
- Global, e.g. North America, Europe and Asia (5 points)
- Regional, e.g. Europe or North America (3 points)
- Large national market: e.g. US, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Brazil (2 points)
- Mid-sized or small market, e.g. Switzerland, Netherlands, Argentina, Singapore (1 point)
Ranking will be recognized by key stakeholders:
- Opinion Leaders (Politicians, Professors; NGO’s) (2 points)
- Business Advisory Board, C-Level Executives (CEO, CCO, CFO, CMO) (2 points)
- High Potentials & Top Talents (employer market, students) (2 points)
- Financial Market (2 points)
- General Public (2 points)
Aggregated points: 9 (of max. 15)
- Ranking owner has limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
- Ranking owner has fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
- Ranking owner has excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)
Comment: Forbes does not have a high global reputation when it comes to sports competence.
What is the ranking owner’s intention to produce and disseminate the ranking?
- Ranking is predominantly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (1 point)
- Ranking is partly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (3 points)
- Ranking is predominantly a tool to surface and share important insights on the subject surveyed. (5 points)
Comment: The main objective of Forbes is to sell copies of its magazine; a sports brand ranking sells.
Is/Are the media outlet(s) where the ranking is published of high credibility and reputation?
- Media outlet(s) has/have limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
- Media outlet(s) has/have fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
- Media outlet(s) has/have excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)
Comment: When it comes to sports, Forbes has just a fair global reputation
Aggregated points: 9 (of max. 15)
- limited orientation only (1 point)
- fair orientation provided (3 points)
- very good orientation (5 points)
Comment: With respect on how sport brands are judged by US minded Forbes journalists, yes.
Is the Ranking published in the same format on a regular basis, e.g. annually, which allows to track developments and comparisons over time?
- ranking is published for the first time (1 point)
- ranking is published for the second time in the same format (3 points)
- ranking is published for more than 3 times on a regular basis in the same format (5 points)
Comment: Forbes does not have changed their methodology over the years, so the most recent results are comparable with previous years‘ results.
Do the ranking results provide added value and further insights on how companies are evaluated in in their industry, e.g. detailed ratings in various sub-dimensions of the overall result?
- limited added value only (1 point)
- fair amount of added value (3 points)
- high amount of added value (5 points)
Comment: The brand values of the four categories cannot be compared with each other, because the calculations are done (completely) differently four times. Because of its very strong US-bias the ranking does not give substantial insights to global brands.
Aggregated points: 11 (of max. 15)
- Ranking is based on a jury’s opinion only. (1 point)
- Ranking is based on a small survey or only on a limited group of stakeholders. (3 points)
- Ranking is based on a robust and representative survey. (5 points)
Coment: The ranking reflects the subjective opinions of some Forbes journalists. Due to this fact the ranking has to be judged as biased.
Is the ranking methodology easy to understand and reasonable – even for non-statisticians?
- Methodology not easy to understand and not reasonable. (1 point)
- Methodology fairly good to understand and reasonable. (3 points)
- Methodology very easy to understand and reasonable. (5 points)
Comment: The four different categories (Most Valuable Brands: Business, Event, Team and Athlete) are explained in a clear and comprehensive way. The methodology inbetween the four categories is so different, that the Brand values are not comparable between the four categories.
Is the ranking methodology easy to access and transparent?
- Methodology not easy to find and not sufficiently transparent. (1 point)
- Methodology fairly good to find and of medium transparency. (3 points)
- Methodology very easy to find and of high transparency. (5 points)
Comment: Transparency is not given. Main reason: Forbes keeps its judgements confidential.
Aggregated points: 5 (of max. 15)
- Product / Service Brands
- Company Brands
- Corporate Reputation and Company Esteem
- Social Responsibility, CSR & Sustainability, Ethical Business Practices
- Innovation & Technology
- Employer Attractiveness & Diversity
- Leadership
- Nations & Destinations
- University & Other Institutions
- Sports
- Lifestyle
- Social Media
- Personal Branding & CEOs
Ranking statistics
- Name of Ranking: The Forbes Fab 40 - The World’s Most Valuable Sports Brands 2014
- Ranking managed/produced by institute/organization: Forbes Magazine, an American business magazine owned by Forbes, Inc. Published biweekly, it features original articles on finance, industry, investing, and marketing topics. Forbes also reports on related subjects such as technology, communications, sports, science, and law.
- Ranking published by media outlet: Forbes
- Date of recent publication: October, 2014
- Date of previous publication: October, 2013
The ranking “The Forbes Fab 40: The World’s Most Valuable Sports Brands 2014“ by Forbes Magazine, is published since 2007. This year’s ranking is the 6th one after 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The ranking is composed of the following four categories: Business, Event, Team and Athlete Brands in sports. A business’s brand value is calculated as the estimated enterprise value the business would sell for in an arms-length transaction less the enterprise value a typical industry peer of equal size would sell for. The Event brand value is calculated as the average revenue from media, sponsorships, tickets and licensed merchandise per-event-day of competition. The Team brand values are derived from calculating the portion of a team’s enterprise value that is not attributable to the size or demographics of its market, or league-shared revenue. And an Athlete’s brand value is their endorsement income, less the average endorsement income of top 10 athletes in the same sport. The methodology inbetween the four categories is so different, that the brand values are not comparable between the four categories. Otherwise the Real Madrid brand (team) would be judged 3 times more valuable with $ 484 million than the FIFA World Cup brand (events) with just $ 170 million or the New York Yankees brand (team) would be judged with $ 521 million 50% higher than the Olympic Games (summer) brand (event) with just $ 348 million. The ranking reflects the subjective opinions of some Forbes journalists. Due to this fact, the ranking has to be judged as biased. Additionally, the judgements have a very strong US bias. For example, in the category Business Brands in Sports the ranking shows on position 5 Under Armour (second largest apparel brand in the US) with $ 4,1 billion brand value, on position 7 YES (regional sports network) with $ 680 million and on position 10 the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) with $ 440 million. The overall most valuable brand in Sports is judged by the Forbes journalists NIKE with a brand value of $ 19 billion.
The ranking results are taken seriously by key stakeholders in the US sports business. There is no empirical evidence that the published monetary value of a brand and the overall business performance of the respective brands in sports have a statistically relevant correlation with each other. The Ranking results are accessible on the Forbes website.