Football Field Chart
Executive Summary
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A football field chart presents a valuation range, not a single point estimate, by plotting the low-high output of several methodologies as horizontal bars on a common axis.
- ✓ Typical methodologies included are a DCF valuation range, comparable company trading multiples, precedent transaction multiples, and the 52-week trading range.
- ✓ The chart is used to communicate where independent methodologies converge, which supports the credibility of the valuation range, and where they diverge, which flags assumptions requiring further scrutiny.
- ✓ Each bar's range should reflect a defined sensitivity or scenario basis, not an arbitrary or undocumented spread.
- ✓ A football field is a presentation output, not a valuation methodology in itself — the underlying DCF, comps, and precedent transaction analyses must each be independently sound.
Definition¶
A football field chart is a graphical summary that presents the valuation output of several independent methodologies side by side, each as a horizontal bar spanning a low-to-high range along a common value axis. It is named for its resemblance to the yard-line markings on an American football field. The chart's purpose is to communicate a valuation range, supported by multiple independent approaches, rather than a single point estimate that implies more precision than any one methodology can honestly provide.
Typical Components¶
A football field chart commonly includes some or all of the following bars, each expressed on a consistent basis (typically enterprise value or equity value per share):
- DCF valuation range — generated from a sensitivity analysis across the discount rate and terminal value assumption (perpetuity growth rate or exit multiple)
- Comparable company analysis — a range of implied values derived from trading multiples of a selected peer group, see DCF vs. Comparable Company Analysis
- Precedent transaction analysis — a range of implied values derived from multiples paid in comparable historical M&A transactions
- 52-week trading range — for a listed target, the observed high and low share price over the preceding year
- Sum-of-the-parts valuation — where the target operates multiple distinct business segments, see Sum-of-the-Parts
Interpreting the Chart¶
A well-constructed football field is used to identify convergence and divergence across methodologies. Where the ranges from independent approaches overlap, that overlap supports the credibility of the resulting valuation conclusion. Where a particular methodology's range sits materially above or below the others, that divergence is a prompt to examine the underlying assumptions — an unusually high DCF range relative to trading and transaction multiples, for example, often points to an aggressive terminal growth or discount rate assumption rather than a genuine valuation premium.
The chart is a presentation output, not a valuation methodology in itself. Its credibility depends entirely on the soundness of each underlying analysis that feeds it.
Audit Considerations¶
- Confirm each bar's low and high endpoints trace back to a documented, reproducible basis — a specific sensitivity table for the DCF bar, a specific comparable or precedent set for the multiples bars — rather than being adjusted judgmentally after the fact
- Confirm the basis (enterprise value or equity value per share) is consistent across all bars; mixing bases without a clear bridge produces a misleading chart
- Confirm the comparable company and precedent transaction sets are disclosed and their selection criteria are reasonable, since an unrepresentative peer set will bias the entire chart
- Where the DCF range is materially wider or narrower than the other bars, confirm this reflects the actual sensitivity of the DCF's key assumptions rather than an arbitrarily chosen sensitivity band
Common Errors¶
| Error | Description | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Mixing enterprise value and equity value bars | Some bars plotted on an enterprise value basis, others on equity value per share, without a clear bridge | The chart visually implies a false comparison between non-comparable figures |
| Undocumented or arbitrary ranges | A bar's low-high range is not traceable to a specific sensitivity table or comparable set | The range cannot be independently reproduced or audited |
| Cherry-picked comparable or precedent sets | Peer or transaction sets selected or adjusted to narrow the range toward a desired outcome | Understates genuine valuation uncertainty and biases the conclusion |
Continue Reading¶
Prerequisites¶
- Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Valuation — the parent pillar
- Enterprise Value
Related Glossary¶
Related Technical Guides¶
How OXXON tests thisRun a free structural check with FMAE
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a football field chart show?
It shows the valuation range produced by each of several independent methodologies — commonly a DCF, comparable company analysis, precedent transactions, and 52-week trading range — plotted as horizontal bars on a shared value axis, so a reader can see both the range within each methodology and how the methodologies compare to one another.
Why use a range instead of a single valuation figure?
A single point estimate implies a precision that valuation methodologies do not actually possess, since every methodology depends on assumptions — discount rate, terminal growth, comparable set, deal multiples — that are themselves uncertain. A range communicates that uncertainty honestly and supports a negotiating or decision-making range rather than a false-precision anchor.
What determines the low and high ends of the DCF bar in a football field?
The DCF bar's range is typically generated from a sensitivity or scenario analysis — commonly varying WACC and the terminal growth rate (or exit multiple) across a defined band, and taking the resulting low and high enterprise or equity value outputs. See the DCF sensitivity analysis technical guide for methodology.
What should an auditor check when reviewing a football field chart?
That each bar's range traces back to a documented, defensible basis — a specific sensitivity table or a specific comparable/precedent set — rather than being adjusted after the fact to fit a desired narrative, and that the underlying analyses feeding the chart are themselves free of structural errors.
Is a football field chart only used in DCF valuation?
No. It is a general valuation presentation tool used whenever multiple methodologies are combined, including comparable company analysis, precedent transactions, leveraged buyout analysis, and sum-of-the-parts valuation, in addition to DCF.
Related Articles
DCF vs. Comparable Company Analysis
Discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation and comparable company analysis (comps) are the two most widely used valuation methodologies, and they derive value in fundamentally different ways. DCF is an intrinsic method, deriving value directly from a company's own forecast cash flows and an independently built discount rate. Comps is a relative method, deriving value by applying multiples observed from similar, publicly traded companies. Neither is a substitute for the other, and institutional valuation practice typically triangulates across both, alongside precedent transactions.
Sum-of-the-Parts (SOTP) Valuation
Sum-of-the-Parts (SOTP) valuation is a technique for valuing a multi-segment or multi-asset business by valuing each distinct segment or asset separately — often using a segment-specific DCF, or a different valuation method suited to that segment's characteristics — and then summing the resulting values, with adjustments for shared corporate costs, net debt, and other consolidated items. SOTP is used where a single, consolidated DCF for the whole business would obscure meaningful differences between segments, such as different growth rates, risk profiles, discount rates, or capital structures. Because different segments can warrant materially different discount rates and terminal growth assumptions, applying a single blended discount rate across a diversified business, as a consolidated DCF implicitly does, can significantly misstate the value of one or more segments.
Enterprise Value (EV)
Enterprise value (EV) is the total value of a company's core operating business, independent of its capital structure — it represents what the business as a whole is worth to all capital providers combined, before distinguishing between debt and equity claims. Enterprise value is the direct output of discounting unlevered free cash flow (FCFF) at WACC. To move from enterprise value to the value attributable to equity holders specifically, net debt, minority interests, and other non-operating adjustments must be deducted — the enterprise-to-equity bridge.
Equity Value
Equity value is the value of a company attributable specifically to its equity holders, as distinct from enterprise value, which represents the value of the whole operating business attributable to all capital providers combined. Equity value is derived from enterprise value by deducting net debt, minority interests, and preferred stock, and adding back non-operating assets. Equity value divided by diluted shares outstanding produces value per share, the figure most directly comparable to a company's quoted share price.
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Valuation
Discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation values a business, project, or asset as the present value of the cash flows it is expected to generate in the future. It is the most theoretically grounded of the major valuation methodologies, resting directly on the principle that a dollar of cash flow is worth more today than the same dollar received in the future, and that value is created when future cash flows exceed what capital providers require as compensation for the time value of money and risk. This page is the hub for the Knowledge Centre's DCF content: what DCF is and why it works, how free cash flow and discount rates are built, how terminal value is calculated and stress-tested, the method variants practitioners choose between, and — distinctively — how DCF failure modes map onto FMAE's existing structural audit rule taxonomy, since no generic valuation resource ties DCF mechanics to a named, testable audit standard.