Given that most companies continue to focus on hoarding cash, there has been a great deal of comment in recent weeks on the huge investment that firms, such as McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Budweiser, have spent on sponsorship of events like the FIFA World Cup-the global football (or soccer for you North Americans) championship.

FIFA World Cup sponsors argue that expensive brand management is a worthwhile investment, even in the face of uncertain economic conditions. The question is when the payback is worth the cost and how to measure that return.

Coca Cola and AB InBev-owner of the Budweiser brand-were among the largest FIFA sponsors. They say that the investment has paid off in spades. AB InBev, for example, said last week that its UK sales of Bud rose almost 19 percent last quarter, and cite their FIFA sponsorship as the driving reason. Coca Cola attributes its rise in Latin American sales to the sponsorship agreement, as well.

McDonald's, however, is a little less effusive-saying sales increased in some markets, but dropped off in mainland Europe during the event, as people stayed home to watch matches.

Aside from increased sales over the short term, companies use a broad variety of measures to determine how much brands contribute to their corporate bottom line. And those measures can involve both qualitative and quantitative factors, making it that much more difficult to determine the true value of sponsorship of events such as the FIFA World Cup.

Interbrand and Millward Brown Optimor (MBO) both have well-known brand value rankings.

In order to determine brand value, Interbrand looks at financial strength, the importance of the brand in driving consumer selection, and the likelihood of ongoing revenue generated by the brand.

The Optimor ranking uses a combination of factors including brand equity and financial performance, earnings generated by the brand, customer bonding to the brand, and growth potential of the brand.

Coca Cola ranks first on the Interbrand ranking, with a brand value of $68.7 billion, but in contrast, on the Millward Brown Optimor Brandz ranking, the drinks maker comes just 5th-with a brand value of $68 billion. Coca Cola is outranked on Optimor by Google, IM, apple and Microsoft, respectively.

On the Interbrand ranking, McDonald's comes in 6th with a $32.3 billion brand value, and on Optimor the golden arches also rank 6th - with a $66 billion brand value. Budweiser, the third big sponsor at FIFA, comes in 30th on the Interbrand ranking and 38th on Optimor. Interbrand's ranking was released in September 2009, while Optimor's ranking is from April 2010.

Clearly-given the big differences in rankings and values found on the two lists--there is a great deal of subjectivity to the concept of brand value, as Global Finance points out here.

They cite Professor Eusebi Nomen from Esade Business School, who explains that the terms ‘value' and ‘brand' are two concepts used for quite subjective meanings, especially in the marketing domain. He notes that the valuation method used for rankings such as Interbrand contain a great deal of subjectivity. He says: "It is more a divertimento to flag attention than a valuation that could be accepted in serious financial or legal contexts."