Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 1271.7x · EV/EBITDA 336.3x · ROE N/A. (2013–2026 historical series)
Price-based multiples — how expensive the stock is relative to earnings, sales, book value, and cash flow
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $9.8B | $9.7B | $5.0B | $4.5B | $4.5B | $3.7B | $4.2B | $3.5B | $3.3B | $3.7B | $2.3B |
| Enterprise Value | $10.8B | $10.7B | $6.1B | $5.5B | $5.6B | $4.6B | $5.2B | $4.5B | $3.3B | $2.5B | $1.2B |
| P/E Ratio → | 1271.72 | 1255.75 | — | 77.10 | 99.50 | 71.90 | — | — | 289.29 | 25.90 | — |
| P/S Ratio | 8.49 | 8.45 | 4.84 | 4.41 | 5.13 | 4.49 | 10.02 | 5.83 | 4.55 | 2.35 | 1.77 |
| P/B Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1.23 | 1.39 | 0.93 |
| P/FCF | 159.94 | 159.09 | 57.21 | 49.99 | 30.07 | 20.81 | — | — | — | 186.10 | 13.07 |
| P/OCF | 156.35 | 155.52 | 54.95 | 49.20 | 29.84 | 20.70 | — | 985.66 | 20.58 | 16.86 | 10.42 |
P/E links to full P/E history page with 30-year chart
Enterprise-value multiples — capital-structure-neutral measures of total business value
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 9.29 | 5.84 | 5.40 | 6.34 | 5.59 | 12.53 | 7.45 | 4.51 | 1.62 | 0.88 |
| EV / EBITDA | 336.28 | 334.66 | 336.45 | 37.15 | 63.44 | 50.34 | — | — | — | 17.30 | 21.46 |
| EV / EBIT | 373.31 | 274.51 | 1384.68 | 41.60 | 49.91 | 53.55 | — | — | — | 76.33 | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 175.08 | 68.93 | 61.13 | 37.22 | 25.90 | — | — | — | 127.73 | 6.52 |
Margins and return-on-capital ratios measuring operating efficiency
Full margin charts and quarterly trend are on the Earnings History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 27.7% | 27.7% | 27.0% | 39.7% | 37.8% | 38.4% | 30.9% | 37.4% | 36.9% | 31.6% | 26.5% |
| Operating Margin | 2.5% | 2.5% | 1.4% | 14.2% | 9.6% | 10.5% | -18.8% | -15.3% | -8.0% | 1.5% | -4.0% |
| Net Profit Margin | 0.7% | 0.7% | -2.2% | 5.7% | 5.4% | 6.2% | -3.4% | -30.2% | 1.6% | 9.1% | -5.5% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | -14.6% | 0.4% | 5.5% | -2.9% |
| ROA | 0.5% | 0.5% | -1.5% | 4.1% | 3.4% | 3.6% | -1.0% | -7.1% | 0.3% | 3.7% | -2.0% |
| ROIC | 3.0% | 3.0% | 1.5% | 14.7% | 8.5% | 8.1% | -7.3% | -4.0% | -2.1% | 1.2% | -3.3% |
| ROCE | 3.0% | 3.0% | 1.5% | 16.2% | 9.2% | 8.5% | -7.6% | -4.5% | -1.9% | 0.8% | -1.8% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 35.69 | 35.69 | 65.72 | 7.41 | 12.63 | 10.90 | — | — | — | 0.73 | 1.95 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | -0.01 | -0.44 | -0.47 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 30.56 | 30.56 | 57.22 | 6.77 | 12.18 | 9.90 | — | — | — | -7.91 | -21.53 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 15.99 | 11.72 | 11.14 | 7.14 | 5.09 | — | — | — | -58.38 | -6.54 |
| Interest Coverage | 1.85 | 1.85 | 0.20 | 4.83 | 4.93 | 7.30 | -7.46 | -20.98 | -11.20 | 9.45 | -18.38 |
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 1.86 | 1.85 | 1.90 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 1.86 | 1.85 | 1.90 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.31 | 0.03 | 1.64 | 1.67 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.29 | 0.47 | 0.19 | 0.41 | 0.35 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 27.93 | 15.29 | 28.46 | 31.08 | 33.58 | 79.21 | 7.05 | 8.00 | 24.74 | 29.01 |
Earnings, FCF, buyback, and dividend yields — total returns to shareholders
Full dividend history and growth charts are on the Dividend History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | — | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.8% | — | — | 23.5% | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | 1.2% | 357.6% | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2026 | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 0.1% | 0.1% | — | 1.3% | 1.0% | 1.4% | — | — | 0.3% | 3.9% | — |
| FCF Yield | 0.6% | 0.6% | 1.7% | 2.0% | 3.3% | 4.8% | — | — | — | 0.5% | 7.7% |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 1.6% | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.6% | 0.3% | 6.4% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 5.4% | 0.5% | 0.0% | 24.3% | 0.6% | 0.3% | 6.4% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $24M | $24M | $24M | $24M | $24M | $24M | $24M | $24M | $24M | $24M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 14 years · Updated daily
Live VCP patterns, Cup & Handle overlays, support/resistance, and AI trade plans.
High-probability breakout stocks crossing their pivot across 5 pattern engines.
DCF models, multiple analysis, and analyst estimates.
10-year return with dividends reinvested.
Compare growth, multiples, and margins vs sector.
Quick answers to the most common questions about buying MSGS stock.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.'s current P/E ratio is 1271.7x. The historical average is 68.6x. This places it at the 100th percentile of its historical range.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.'s current EV/EBITDA is 336.3x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 33.7x.
Based on historical data, Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. is trading at a P/E of 1271.7x. This is at the 100th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. has 27.7% gross margin and 2.5% operating margin.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 35.7x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Negative equity and high leverage
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Valuation Disconnect from Cash Flows
MSGS trades at an extreme EV/EBITDA of 323.05x, a significant premium to peers like Liberty Media (29.67x) and Warner Bros. Discovery (14.32x), suggesting the market is pricing the asset value of the franchises rather than current earnings power.
The astronomical valuation multiples, including a P/E of 1,216.69x, are not justified by the company's recent operational performance, which includes quarters with negative net margins. This pricing appears to reflect a 'trophy asset' premium, valuing the Knicks and Rangers as scarce, appreciating properties in a private market context rather than as going-concern cash flow generators. Investors are effectively paying for the long-term media rights and brand equity, not for the thin operating margins generated in any given season.
Championship Boost Masks Structural Margin Pressure
While Q4 2026 gross margin expanded to 43.6%, the operating margin of 11.1% represents a significant compression from the 23.0% achieved in Q4 2024, indicating that cost growth is outpacing revenue gains even during a favorable championship cycle.
The profitability profile is defined by extreme volatility, with gross margins swinging from 77.0% in Q1 2026 to 17.8% in Q3 2026, driven by the timing of player salary obligations and league revenue sharing. The underlying trend suggests that the high fixed-cost structure, dominated by player compensation under league CBAs, is eroding operating leverage. The recent championship win provided a temporary top-line boost, but the corresponding increase in SG&A and player-related costs has limited the flow-through to operating income, highlighting the business's inherent margin fragility.
Capital Returns Volatile and Below Cost
ROIC has been highly erratic, ranging from -2.6% in Q1 2026 to 7.5% in Q4 2024, and the most recent quarter's 3.1% return appears insufficient to generate positive economic value given the company's high leverage and the implied cost of capital.
The return on invested capital profile is inconsistent, reflecting the lumpy nature of sports team earnings and the significant working capital swings that distort the capital base. The negative equity position complicates traditional ROE analysis, but the ROIC trend suggests the business is not consistently compounding value from its invested capital. The drivers are almost entirely margin-based, as asset turnover remains low and stable, indicating that any improvement in returns must come from operational profitability rather than capital efficiency.
Leverage Constrained by Negative Equity
With total debt of $1.1B against a shareholders' equity deficit of -$263.3M, the company's leverage is structurally high, and the D/EBITDA ratio of 36.09x in Q4 2026 indicates debt service is heavily reliant on consistent, strong cash flow generation.
The balance sheet is characterized by negative equity, a result of sustained losses and likely capital returns to shareholders, which places the company in a vulnerable position. The high debt load, combined with volatile EBITDA, creates significant refinancing risk, particularly if the team's on-court performance declines and media rights face secular headwinds. Interest coverage, while positive at 8.57x in Q4 2026, has been negative in other quarters, demonstrating that the debt service burden is not comfortably covered during weaker operational periods.
Chronic Working Capital Deficit Managed Seasonally
The current ratio has remained below 1.0 for the entire period, ending at 0.50 in Q4 2026, a structural deficit that appears to be managed through the seasonal timing of large cash inflows from season ticket sales and sponsorships.
The liquidity position is chronically weak on a point-in-time basis, with current liabilities consistently exceeding current assets. This is not necessarily indicative of imminent distress but rather reflects the business model, where deferred revenue (cash collected upfront for tickets) is a major current liability. The company relies on the predictable, seasonal cash cycle to meet obligations. Under severe stress, such as a prolonged period of poor team performance or a macroeconomic downturn affecting corporate sponsorships, this structural deficit could become problematic if the expected seasonal cash inflows fail to materialize.
The Misapplied Metric: Price-to-Earnings
The P/E ratio is the most commonly misapplied metric to MSGS, as it is rendered meaningless by the company's volatile, non-recurring earnings and the market's focus on asset value rather than current profitability.
Using a P/E of 1,216.69x to value MSGS is analytically flawed because the denominator (earnings) is highly distorted by the timing of player contract costs, league distributions, and one-time items like coaching changes. The market does not price this company on a multiple of its current, thin earnings. A more appropriate framework is an EV/EBITDA analysis benchmarked against private market transaction multiples for sports franchises, or a sum-of-the-parts valuation that separately values the media rights and the team operations. The P/E ratio obscures the true investment thesis, which is centered on the scarcity value of the underlying assets.