Forbes values Chicago Bears at $3.45 billion

[soulman]

Forbes values Chicago Bears at $3.45 billion, 13th most in sports

Alyssa Barbieri  https://bearswire.usatoday.com/2020/08/03/chicago-bears-valued-at-13th-most-franchise-in-sports-forbes/

follow

20 minutes ago

The Chicago Bears have been around for a long time. One hundred years, to be precise, and they’ve cultivated a century’s worth of history. But Bears ownership also has some money to show for it.

According to Forbes, the Bears ranks as the 13th most valuable sports team in the world, valued at $3.45 billion. That’s good enough for the sixth most valuable team in the NFL.

George Halas purchased the then-Decatur Staleys for $100, which obviously makes the Bears an absolute steal. Then again, without Halas, there wouldn’t be a National Football League. The Bears remain one of only two remaining franchises from the NFL’s founding in 1920. The other being the Arizona Cardinals, who were originally in Chicago. The Bears remain in the Halas family, as the team is now owned by Halas daughter Virginia McCaskey.

With the uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bears haven’t decided whether or not fans will be permitted at regular-season games. There won’t be season tickets this year, so the team has offered full refunds or offered to roll over the money to the 2021 season. If there are fans allowed at Soldier Field this season, only season ticket holders will be able to purchase individual game tickets with a smaller capacity allowed at the stadium.

According to Forbes, the Chicago Bears made $453 million in total revenue during the 2018 season. If NFL games were to be played without fans, the Bears would lose $166 million in stadium revenue, which is the 12th most in the league.

That would revenue from tickets, sponsors, parking, concessions and team stores.

[soulman]

IIRC the previous evaluation was $3.15 bil so the franchise value has increased by 9.5%.  Not a bad ROI these days and quite a haul overall considering GHS's initial $100 investment.  Would have loved for my Grand Dad to have plunked down $100 on an investment in 1920 that would be worth $3.45 bil today.

Free deep dish, dogs, and beer for the whole Bears Forum crew!!!  🍕🌭🍻

[WindyCity]

Imagine if they won something.

[soulman]

10 hours ago, WindyCity said:

Imagine if they won something.

And a good day to you too "Little Miss Sunshine".  😝

[WindyCity]

1 hour ago, soulman said:

And a good day to you too "Little Miss Sunshine".  😝

I am serious. They haven’t won or been consistently relevant in years and they still have a 3.4 billion valuation.

If they had consistent success that valuation would be higher. 

[JAF-N72EX]

1 hour ago, WindyCity said:

I am serious. They haven’t won or been consistently relevant in years and they still have a 3.4 billion valuation.

If they had consistent success that valuation would be higher. 

I get your point here -- success equals money flow. No denying that. But the lack of success is only a small part of the equation.

The bears are the 6th most valued team in the NFL while the Giants, Jets, and...uhhh.....the NFL team based in Washington lol are 3rd, 8th and 7th, respectively, and they haven't been too successful either.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/09/04/the-nfls-most-valuable-teams-2019-cowboys-lead-league-at-55-billion/#522c0b772f1b

I agree the Bears should be higher but not for the same reason as you do. Again, winning is only a small part.

The Bears are the 3rd largest market in the NFL and IIRC they have only cracked the top-5 maybe twice in the last 30 years. My blame for this has always been on the McCaskey's and most recently on Ted Philips for being cheap and doing bad business. As a business man myself, controlling the 3rd largest market while hosting the smallest stadium in the NFL makes zero sense to me. Any smart business man or woman who had control over the 3rd largest market in the NFL would capitalize on it but they haven't.

Soldier field is a MESS. It's a total disaster and has been for years and the need for a new stadium has been LONG overdue.

Edit: Just to explain a bit further. The McCaskey's relationship with the district has been ugly and that's on them.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by JustAnotherFan

[soulman]

1 hour ago, WindyCity said:

I am serious. They haven’t won or been consistently relevant in years and they still have a 3.4 billion valuation.

If they had consistent success that valuation would be higher. 

Windy.  Did you read my previous post?  The franchise has been increasing in value every year.

On 8/3/2020 at 11:36 AM, soulman said:

IIRC the previous evaluation was $3.15 bil so the franchise value has increased by 9.5%.  Not a bad ROI these days and quite a haul overall considering GHS's initial $100 investment.

They fill the stadium every game and share equally in NFL revenue sharing so in reality their W/L record has nothing to do with their cash flow or the value of the franchise itself.  It's a very strong brand and very relevant.  The Bears also do not own their own stadium which would add significantly to their franchise value.

[WindyCity]

Value increasing and value maximizing are 2 different things.

They sell out every game, but the no shows like the 10-15k a game during the Fox era cost them money.

The NFL shares TV revenue. Sponsorships, gate, merchandise to a degree, none of that is split.

Hosting a playoff game is worth something like 8 million to an owner. Teams that regularly host playoff games make more.

Good teams make more in sponsorships and coporate partnerships. They are more visible, they play more games, they play more primetime games, they have more recognizable players, they are more marketable.

 

The Bears would make more money if they  were consistently good.

 

[WindyCity]

On 8/4/2020 at 11:32 PM, JAF-N72EX said:

I get your point here -- success equals money flow. No denying that. But the lack of success is only a small part of the equation.

The bears are the 6th most valued team in the NFL while the Giants, Jets, and...uhhh.....the NFL team based in Washington lol are 3rd, 8th and 7th, respectively, and they haven't been too successful either.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/09/04/the-nfls-most-valuable-teams-2019-cowboys-lead-league-at-55-billion/#522c0b772f1b

I agree the Bears should be higher but not for the same reason as you do. Again, winning is only a small part.

The Bears are the 3rd largest market in the NFL and IIRC they have only cracked the top-5 maybe twice in the last 30 years. My blame for this has always been on the McCaskey's and most recently on Ted Philips for being cheap and doing bad business. As a business man myself, controlling the 3rd largest market while hosting the smallest stadium in the NFL makes zero sense to me. Any smart business man or woman who had control over the 3rd largest market in the NFL would capitalize on it but they haven't.

Soldier field is a MESS. It's a total disaster and has been for years and the need for a new stadium has been LONG overdue.

Edit: Just to explain a bit further. The McCaskey's relationship with the district has been ugly and that's on them.

 

 

Not owning the stadium is a major value decreaser. 

The business side has always been a little bit mom and pop.

They also havent been relevant which makes them harder to sell.

 

The Bears should be arguably the most valuable franchise. They are the largest single team market in the country. There are 0 other teams in the state. 
 

Business wise they should be the Cowboys. But the Cowboys are run by a business and marketing wizard.

[JAF-N72EX]

53 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

The NFL shares TV revenue. Sponsorships, gate, merchandise to a degree, none of that is split.

That's not true. ALL revenue among ALL 32 teams are shared equally among owners. The players union (the salary cap) get 47-48% of that each year. THEN the owners "pocket" the rest (still have to pay staff, etc). 

55 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

Hosting a playoff game is worth something like 8 million to an owner. Teams that regularly host playoff games make more.

It doesn't matter who makes the playoffs. 

56 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

Not owning the stadium is a major value decreaser. 

The business side has always been a little bit mom and pop.

They also havent been relevant which makes them harder to sell.

That's not the point I was making. The Packers organization don't even own their own team and still do pretty well. 

[JAF-N72EX]

1 hour ago, WindyCity said:

The Bears should be arguably the most valuable franchise. They are the largest single team market in the country. There are 0 other teams in the state. 
 

Business wise they should be the Cowboys. But the Cowboys are run by a business and marketing wizard.

This was my point. The Bears should be a top earner every single year but they're not. This goes back to my point about the McCaskey's and Philips ruining the relationship with the district. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by JAF-N72EX

[WindyCity]

12 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

That's not true. ALL revenue among ALL 32 teams are shared equally among owners. The players union (the salary cap) get 47-48% of that each year. THEN the owners "pocket" the rest (still have to pay staff, etc). 

It doesn't matter who makes the playoffs. 

That's not the point I was making. The Packers organization don't even own their own team and still do pretty well. 

All revenue is not shared. It is used to calculate the salary cap.

Different teams make different amounts of money.

The salary cap is based on total league revenue, but that isn’t split 32 ways. TV money and some merchandise money is split.

Gate, sponsorships, some merchandise is kept by the clubs.

[WindyCity]

12 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

That's not true. ALL revenue among ALL 32 teams are shared equally among owners. The players union (the salary cap) get 47-48% of that each year. THEN the owners "pocket" the rest (still have to pay staff, etc). 

It doesn't matter who makes the playoffs. 

That's not the point I was making. The Packers organization don't even own their own team and still do pretty well. 

The Stadium is a billion dollar asset for some teams.

It isn’t for the Bears.

 

[soulman]

15 hours ago, WindyCity said:

Value increasing and value maximizing are 2 different things.

They sell out every game, but the no shows like the 10-15k a game during the Fox era cost them money.

The NFL shares TV revenue. Sponsorships, gate, merchandise to a degree, none of that is split.

Hosting a playoff game is worth something like 8 million to an owner. Teams that regularly host playoff games make more.

Good teams make more in sponsorships and coporate partnerships. They are more visible, they play more games, they play more primetime games, they have more recognizable players, they are more marketable.

 

The Bears would make more money if they  were consistently good.

 

If you're such an economic genius why ain't you rich?  Then you could buy your own NFL team and win SBs every year!!!!

Much of what you've posted is based on your own suppositions not on having actually "seen the books" and not on reality.  And some is plain incorrect.

Sponsorships and corporate partnerships are advertising for the companies who join in them and pay the Bears for that advertising.  Market size and penetration and brand recognition have far more to do with that than a winning record.  Win or lose the Bears have always enjoyed profitable sponsorships and partnerships because they are a high profile NFL brand and a favored sports team in a very large market.  That's what attracts sponsors and what they're paying for.

This has been beaten to death over Ted Phillips admission that the "Bears Brand" and their corporate sponsorships never suffer when the team is losing.

The Bears sell out every game so the gate isn't really impacted by no shows.  Tickets were paid for by fans who decided not to use them and the gate is also split between home and guest.  However, parking and concessions may be impacted to some degree.  Possibly merchandise sales as well but if I'm not mistaken as it relates to NFL licensed merchandise that's an NFL Properties profit center so revenues are shared.

Playoff games and a SB will earn teams more money but much of that revenue is also shared.

And that last statement is no more than a bold claim that in no way can you prove.

Winning teams may also have much higher payrolls and ancillary expenses that may reduce profitability.  Surely with their current payroll and sums spent on the new facilities at Halas Hall the Bears expenses have also increased dramatically during the Ryan Pace era.  Fortunately as a family the McCaskey's are a frugal bunch so I'm sure there's still a lot of money in the bank to pay for it all.  They ain't hurtin'.