Colts climb NFL valuation ladder

September 11, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
footballLucas Oil Stadium has pushed the Indianapolis Colts into the upper echelon of the National Football League in terms of team value. The team jumped from 21st most valuable team last year to eighth among 32 NFL teams this year, according to Forbes Magazine’s annual NFL team valuation.

Forbes valued the Colts at $1.08 billion, a significant jump from last year’s $911 million. Only the New York Jets and New York Giants had bigger percentage gains than the Colts. Those two teams will be moving into a new $1.3 billion stadium in 2010. No team had a bigger ratings jump than the Colts.

The Dallas Cowboys, who will move into a new stadium next year, were rated most valuable at $1.61 billion. The Washington Redskins were second with a $1.54 valuation, followed by the New England Patriots at $1.32 billion, New York Giants at $1.18 billion and New York Jets at $1.17 billion. The Houston Texans at $1.13 billion and Philadelphia Eagles at $1.12 billion are the other teams ahead of the Colts. The Chicago Bears at $1.06 billion and Baltimore Ravens at $1.06 billion round out the top 10.

The average NFL team is now worth more than $1 billion, marking the first time any professional sports league has passed over that barrier. The 2008 average, according to Forbes, is $1.04 billion, up 8.7 percent from last year. When Forbes first started valuing NFL teams 10 years ago, the average team valuation was $288 million. Forbes said the valuations are calculated using multiples of revenue based on historical transactions.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • How nice for Mr. Irsay.
  • This is the ebb and flow of valuations based on how recently a new stadium comes on board (all lots of new revenue). The Colts will gradually slip down the rankings for the next 20+ years until another stadium is built. Read the article for who jumped in the rankings - the guys with new stadiums. As other teams get new stadiums over the next 10-20 years, they will in general leapfrog the Colts.

    Hey, the increase for the Colts is ONLY $169 million, or 19%. He doesn't get to spend that money unless he sells, which he never will.
  • I wonder who is at the bottom of the list?
  • The Minnesota Vikings, according to Forbes have the least valuable team, with a valuation of $839 million. Oakland is next from the bottom at $861 million. Another interesting note, the Colts revenue grew from $184 million last year to a projected $203 million this year.
  • That was the whole point of the new stadium from the City's point of view. We were in a multi year contract that required us to guarantee the Colts were in the middle of the pack in revenue. The cost to the City would have been $15 to $20 million a year out of the taxpayers pockets. The City struck a new deal with Irsay for the stadium in exchange for a 30 year contract that gave him more profits from the stadium. If all the numbers in the above post are right, the amount of money he is getting is in line with what we would have had to pay him. His revenue should grow as should the City's as the new CC comes on line and more conventions are attracted to the City.
  • Maybe city leaders should be tapping into Mr. Irsays good fortune to promote the city and attract significant non-Colts events/conventions to the stadium and convention center to help cover the taxpayers projected $10+ million annual operating deficit.
  • Or Nick we let Irsay continue to market the stadium and Indy for those events. He has shown he has a nack for promotions and sales. His deals for naming rights shows that. It is in his best interest to bring as many events as possible to the Stadium and Indy benefits as well. Let him get to work and I think you will see him do wonders for himself and the City.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT