Media value vs market value: How to correctly price sponsorship

For decades, media value has been the go-to measurement for the sponsorship industry. The rise of AI-driven logo capture technology has only reinforced this reliance, delivering increasingly precise counts of how long and how often a brand is visible. Within its own boundaries, media value remains an excellent tool for benchmarking one sponsorship against another and for tracking changes in exposure over time. But is its dominance over sponsorship pricing misplaced and is there a more credible way to measure what a partnership is truly worth?

The strengths and limitations of media value

The problem arises when media value, designed for benchmarking, is misused as a proxy for valuation. Additionally, many rights holders routinely present it as proof of returns, arguing that media value less the total cost of sponsorship is equal to return on investment.

While this may generate a convenient headline number, it collapses under scrutiny. Media value can tell us how many eyeballs were reached and for how long; it cannot tell us whose eyeballs they were or what action they took next.

The prevalence of this approach has had consequences. In chasing the biggest possible numbers, rights holders have prioritised raw reach over meaningful engagement. Sponsorship proposals are stuffed with inflated impression counts that, on closer inspection, defy belief.

As Nick Meacham, CEO of SportsPro, points out, FIFA and Nielsen’s recent claim that the Club World Cup generated 212 billion social impressions was enough to suggest every person on the planet was impacted 33 times. This is a striking example of how media value can be distorted to produce extraordinary yet ultimately meaningless results.

Similarly, this editor has seen a MotoGP proposal valuing the exposure of a 12-centimetre logo on a bike travelling at 200 miles per hour at $32 million. A figure so inflated that no serious sponsor would take it at face value.

Despite this, rights holders have long defaulted to media value because it is easy to calculate and delivers the kind of big, glossy numbers that help in a sales pitch. The mistake is in assuming that educated brand and marketing leaders actually believe these figures. Increasingly, they do not.

The rise of fair market value

A fundamental shift is occurring in the way sponsorships are credibly valued and priced, one that is moving the industry away from media value as the cornerstone metric and toward a more holistic assessment of fair market value.

Properties such as SailGP have demonstrated how large-scale sponsorships with global brands can be achieved not solely by selling television reach, but by showcasing powerful brand attributes and providing robust audience data.

These partnerships are built on more than impressions; they are grounded in relevance, alignment, and the ability to activate around shared values.

In the UK, Manchester City’s ongoing case with the Premier League over associated-party transactions has brought fair market value into even sharper focus, highlighting the need for sponsorships to be priced against a broader set of criteria than logo minutes on screen.

Fair market value assesses the overall strength of a sponsorship opportunity relative to its peers, then benchmarks it against actual commercial deals. Unlike media value, which focuses almost exclusively on exposure, market value encompasses a broader set of attributes. These include history, success, and innovation, as well as cultural relevance and the softer measures of brand purpose that increasingly underpin successful partnerships today: commitments to sustainability, community, and wider societal contribution.

Moving towards smarter sponsorship pricing

Crucially, this is not an argument against audience reach but rather an expansion of the framework. Media value in sponsorship pricing has its place, but only as an important strand within a well-rounded valuation model that also considers who is being reached, what those audiences care about, and how the association reflects on the sponsor’s brand. Similarly, market value by its nature fluctuates with the market and is therfore not a consitent benchmark for a brand to evaluate the effectiveness of its partnership or their impact on the business.

The industry is on the verge of a significant transformation. Rights holders and brands that continue to lean on overinflated media value figures will increasingly find themselves out of step.

Those that can demonstrate the deeper value of a partnership, supported by evidence of real market comparisons and by qualitative attributes that align with brand objectives, will lead the way.

For rights holders, the path forward is clear. Media valuation should remain part of the toolkit, but it must be presented within the broader context of a comprehensive market valuation. By combining exposure benchmarks with evidence of reputation, community engagement, cultural resonance, and actual market transactions, rights holders can present sponsorship prices that are grounded in commercial reality rather than wishful arithmetic.

For some industries, such as gambling, raw exposure may still be the primary factor in the calculation. However, for most global brands seeking to establish long-term, meaningful partnerships, the future of sponsorship pricing lies in a market valuation that encompasses both reach and resonance.

For more on fair market valuation methodology and results, consider The Sponsor's Premier League fair market sponsorship valuations here.