Did Fox have an excellent World Cup or simply outperform low expectations?

Fox wrapped up a record-setting World Cup run on Sunday with a marathon day-long broadcast surrounding Spain’s 1-0 win over Argentina in extra time. Since then, reviews of Fox’s coverage have been largely positive. The Athletic’s Andrew Marchand showered Fox’s World Cup studio with praise. Clay Travis called the production “virtually flawless” (though Fox still employs him as a contributor, so take that with a grain of salt). Barrett Media called Fox’s work “masterful.” Even ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro said last week that he was “very impressed” with Fox’s coverage, adding, “I don’t know, honestly, how they could have done better with the product.”

That’s high praise from the top executive of a direct competitor, and emblematic of the general consensus towards Fox’s World Cup coverage.

But it’s fair to ask whether Fox’s presentation of the World Cup was truly as spectacular as some are saying, or if the network outperformed the low expectations it had set for itself during prior World Cup cycles.

When we polled our readers earlier this year about which major sporting events they’d like to see move to a different broadcast partner, two events stood out among the rest: ESPN’s NBA Finals coverage and Fox’s World Cup coverage.

It seems Fox took that sentiment to heart, because the network made several intentional changes to its coverage that made for a much better product this time around. The decision to bring in Rebecca Lowe, a hired arm from NBC’s Premier League studio, was brilliant and brought a levity to the desk that Rob Stone, a talented host in his own right but someone who only covers soccer on a seasonal basis for Fox, had not provided in the past. Analysts Thierry Henry and Zlatan Ibrahimović brought star power and playing credentials that spurred a much-needed transition of Alexi Lalas from main character to supporting cast this year. Down the roster, analysts like Javier “Chicharito” Hernandez and Peter Schmeichel were standouts.

Then there was the production. Outdoor sets galore with thousands of raucous fans setting the mood and atmosphere for whatever game was about to come on. Fox has always been brilliant at manufacturing the big-game feel, and the World Cup was no exception. On top of that, the network provided plenty of field-level access during its pregame shows, throwing to reporters or game announcers before matches to provide updates.

It was clear Fox invested, and the network deserves credit for that, although investing in your broadcast becomes considerably easier when you’re buying rights for 33 cents on the dollar and then being gifted hundreds of millions in hydration-break-related revenues.

But for all the progress Fox made between 2022 and 2026, there is still considerable room for improvement. Perhaps that starts in the booth, where our readers pretty clearly identified two tiers of broadcast teams in terms of quality. Four duos rated quite favorably, while five duos, including Fox’s lead team of John Strong and Stu Holden, received lackluster grades. While I am personally partial to the Strong-Holden duo, and they might’ve received a more critical eye from our readers purely because of their exposure, Fox would benefit from some added depth in the booth.

Then some programming shortfalls left viewers wanting. Often, it felt like Fox cut its postgame coverage quite short, especially when games aired on Fox’s broadcast channel. Sometimes this was because of local news obligations in the evening, but other times it was simply to get to James Corden’s late-night World Cup show that surely nobody with an adequate number of brain cells wanted to watch. Several times throughout the tournament, exciting games would end with barely any post-match coverage simply so we could get to James Corden on time. FS1 should’ve been better utilized in these situations to carry additional studio coverage.

Of course, it’s difficult not to mention Fox’s hydration-break commercials as another diminishing factor for the network, particularly when its Spanish-language competitor Telemundo opted not to use full-screen ads during the stoppages.

Don’t get me wrong. Fox deserves a lot of credit for how much it improved from its first two World Cup go-arounds. The network identified shortcomings and addressed them. But I’m left wondering how much of the positive reaction to the network’s coverage is simply a function of comparatively weak coverage in 2018 and 2022.

For instance, Fox is rightfully being praised for its retooled studio coverage (usually with a Lalas caveat), but shouldn’t we expect giants of the game like Henry and Ibrahimović to be on our televisions providing analysis for the biggest sporting event in the world? Here, the network might be benefiting from the low bar it previously set with its studio.

There’s also a home-court advantage at play here. In many ways, Fox got to lob an alley-oop to Victor Wembanyama in the open court; as long as the ball gets in his vicinity, it’s getting thrown down for a highlight-reel dunk. In the same way it would be difficult to screw up a wide-open lob to Wemby, it would’ve been difficult for Fox (or any network) to screw up a home World Cup in any meaningful way. The quality of the tournament on the field and the excitement that overtook the country off the field was too good. The United States starting off by clinching its group with wins in its first two games certainly greased the wheels.

The combination of the obvious improvements Fox made to its coverage and the benefits any broadcaster would’ve gotten from a home World Cup make this a tricky tournament to assess from a broadcast perspective. It’s clear that Fox was much better this year than in any prior World Cup on its air. But it’s also been a dozen years since American viewers have had any other network to compare World Cup coverage to.

So did Fox set the new standard, or finally catch up? It’s difficult to say. Maybe we’ll find out in four years, when another broadcaster could get a crack at presenting the World Cup.