Handicapping 2030 World Cup media rights: Who is likely to land the next tournament?

With this summer’s World Cup officially drawing to a close, it’s time to look forward to the next iteration of the quadrennial tournament.

As has become abundantly clear over the past couple of weeks, nearly every major media company will be kicking the tires on broadcast rights for the 2030 World Cup, set to be held primarily in Morocco, Spain, and Portugal. FIFA has not formally engaged any potential bidders, but soccer’s global governing body will reportedly start the process in the coming months, when excitement about the tournament remains high following a successful 2026 tournament.

There are two pressing questions that will drive much of how the bidding process will play out. One, how many teams will participate in the 2030 World Cup? And two, will FIFA mandate hydration breaks in the same way it did for the 2026 tournament? Both questions figure to play major roles in how media companies value broadcast rights for the tournament. When it comes to the number of participating teams, the question could determine how many media companies get a piece of the World Cup in the first place.

Last week, The Athletic reported that FIFA may examine expanding the World Cup once more, from 48 teams in this year’s tournament to 64 teams in the 2030 edition. As Awful Announcing wrote following the report, a 64-team World Cup would open the door for a second broadcast partner to enter the mix. If so, we believe it likely that rights would be split between a broadcast network and a streamer in some fashion.

As for hydration breaks, whether or not FIFA guarantees their presence can change how much companies are willing to bid by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Various reports have listed the following companies as having interest in bidding on rights for the 2030 World Cup: Fox (English-language incumbent), NBCUniversal (Spanish-language incumbent), Disney/ESPN, Amazon/Prime Video, Netflix, YouTube, and Apple TV. Let’s go through each company and handicap which ones make the most sense for the next World Cup.

Fox

As the incumbent English-language broadcaster for the last three men’s World Cups, Fox has to be considered a front-runner to retain rights for the event. The network has already signaled it wants to stay in the international soccer business, recently announcing a renewal of its media rights deal with CONCACAF to retain the Gold Cup in addition to adding Nations League. And Fox Sports president Brad Zager told Sports Business Journal earlier this week that Fox is “absolutely” hoping to retain World Cup rights.

The question becomes how much the network will be willing to pay. In a scenario where FIFA expand to 64 teams and split rights between a broadcast network and a streamer, it’s easy to see Fox as a likely landing spot for the linear package. For one, splitting rights would keep costs reasonable at a time when Fox will likely face a significant increase for NFL rights, and also be forced to reckon with the future of other major packages like its World Series rights. Secondly, Fox, out of all the potential bidders, seems the most open to a linear-heavy approach. Prior reporting suggests that Disney, for instance, sees the World Cup as an opportunity to grow its suite of streaming services, only putting select games on ESPN or ABC. If FIFA values the reach of broadcast television, Fox may put up a more compelling offer than some of its competitors in that regard.

Should FIFA not expand the tournament to 64 teams, Fox’s path forward seems murkier. Splitting a 48-team tournament between two partners doesn’t seem as likely; there’s not as much inventory to go around, and prospective partners could balk at having only 52 games each (assuming inventory is split evenly).

Consider as well that FIFA plans to package the 2030 and 2034 World Cup rights together, and the idea of selling the entirety of the tournament to a linear network whose medium-term future is far from certain seems unlikely. FIFA knows it needs exposure to streaming; look no further than its decision to sell the 2027 and 2031 Women’s World Cups to Netflix. The streamers, of course, also have much deeper pockets than Fox. But there’s also likely an acknowledgement, particularly after the success of the 2026 World Cup, that broadcast television still drives the largest audiences. The sensible way forward for FIFA would be to find a way to have exposure to both during the 2030 World Cup.

Verdict: Assuming expansion to 64 teams, Fox is positioned decently well to retain a portion of World Cup rights in 2030. If the field stays at 48 teams, Fox’s chances likely come down to how much deep-pocketed streamers are willing to pay, at which point the network will weigh whether a bid for the whole tournament is worth it.

NBCUniversal

The equation for NBCUniversal isn’t too dissimilar to Fox. As the Spanish-language incumbent, NBCUniversal is also intimately familiar with the value a World Cup can bring to its network, as well as its streaming service Peacock. The company has similarly made moves to retain more soccer rights in recent weeks, nabbing Spanish-language rights for both the UEFA Champions League and Bundesliga. On the English side, NBCUniversal also holds Premier League rights for at least the next couple of years.

Recent reporting indicates NBCUniversal is interested in World Cup rights up to a point. The company reportedly wants to explore a package deal for both English-language and Spanish-language rights, but would balk if the price approaches $2 billion per tournament. (FIFA plans on asking companies for four bids: one for English-language rights, one for Spanish-language rights, one for a combined English-Spanish package, and one for Spanish rights contingent on winning English rights.)

There’s a lot of uncertainty when it comes to NBCUniversal at the moment. In the next 12 months, Comcast plans to spin off the company. The move immediately makes NBCUniversal’s financial position a bit more precarious without the backing of Comcast’s lucrative connectivity business.

So, similar to Fox, NBCUniversal could welcome a more affordable package with inventory that is split with a streamer. As an added bonus, NBCUniversal has both an English-language and Spanish-language broadcast network to offer FIFA.

The question with NBCUniversal is how much they’d be willing to embrace a role as the “linear” partner when they’d certainly want to leverage World Cup inventory to boost Peacock, as it did this year. That tension could create issues if FIFA are trying to court a streamer like Netflix or Amazon to pair with NBCUniversal. Those partners might be more amenable to a partnership with Fox, which doesn’t have a competing SVOD service, if rights are going to be split between linear and streaming.

For this reason, NBCUniversal seems considerably less likely than Fox to land rights, although the company offers some interesting possibilities with its two broadcast networks.

It should be noted, NBCUniversal could offer FIFA both a linear and streaming presence with its broadcast networks and Peacock. However, given reporting about the company’s price sensitivity and the uncertainty surrounding the spinoff, winning rights to the whole tournament does not seem all that likely for NBCUniversal.

Verdict: While possible, NBCUniversal already seems to be more price-conscious than other potential bidders, and streamers might be wary to share rights with them because Peacock is a direct competitor. Not a complete longshot, but also not the favorite.

Disney/ESPN

In many ways, ESPN introduced the World Cup to an American audience. The network broadcast the four men’s World Cups prior to Fox’s three-tournament run. ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro has made clear that his network will be interested in bidding for 2030 rights.

But interestingly, as mentioned before, it seems as if ESPN parent company Disney would be interested in leveraging the World Cup to bolster its streaming services, meaning all matches might not air on ESPN and ABC. Unlike Fox, this means Disney and ESPN might be agnostic on whether the format is 64 or 48 teams. In either scenario, matches will be split between a streaming service and linear television. Along with NBCUniversal, Disney is the only company that can offer the mixed linear-streaming distribution under one umbrella.

Should FIFA be looking for a one-stop shop for both a linear and streaming presence, Disney and ESPN might be the way to go. The company is likely to be a more aggressive bidder than NBCUniversal and has proven, at least from an English-language perspective, to be a very competent steward of the World Cup.

Verdict: A strong contender for either a 48- or 64-team format on paper. Likelihood of winning rights will come down to how aggressive they’d like to bid. Unlikely to share inventory with another partner.

Amazon/Prime Video

A World Cup would be quite the undertaking for Prime Video. The streamer has secured premium soccer rights overseas, but has never produced anything with the volume of inventory a World Cup has. That said, there’s no question Prime Video, with the resources and backing of Amazon, would be able to pull it off if they wanted to.

Prime Video’s lack of experience with an event of the World Cup’s magnitude, however, makes it a prime partner for a broadcaster like Fox. Instead of building the infrastructure from scratch, Prime Video could lean on Fox for talent and production expertise. (Though, it should be noted, World Cup broadcasters don’t have to do any of the match production. That’s left to FIFA’s Host Broadcast Services.)

Out of all the streaming possibilities, Prime Video seems like one of the oddest fits. The platform doesn’t really have a subscriber acquisition or retention problem since most users are subscribed for Amazon’s other Prime perks. The upside, then, would be limited to getting more people onto Amazon platforms so they can do some online shopping. There’s probably more affordable ways for Amazon to do that than buying World Cup rights.

Verdict: Longshot. Other bidders will be more desirous than Prime Video.

Netflix

Out of the four streamers on the list, Netflix offers the most compelling argument for World Cup rights. The platform already has rights to the 2027 and 2031 Women’s World Cups, and the men’s World Cup fits the bill of a sports property it can “eventize.” Netflix also finds itself in a bit of a rut as a business. The platform’s engagement is down, and the stock has dropped by 44 percent in the past year.

In response, Netflix is making bigger and bigger bets on sports. The streamer has formalized an expanded media rights deal with the NFL and will air at least four games per season through 2029-30. It has gotten into the MLB business, securing rights for Opening Night, the Home Run Derby, and the Field of Dreams Game. And it continues to lean into combat sports with great success.

Few events could serve as a shot in the arm to Netflix’s lagging engagement numbers quite like a World Cup. Unlike Amazon, Google, and Apple, Netflix’s only business is content. It’s why the streamer’s engagement numbers have been so concerning for shareholders. For that reason, Netflix would have the most to gain from broadcasting a World Cup. For five weeks, Netflix would have a monopoly on the eyeballs of sports fans, who would then peruse the streamer’s other offerings. If the streamer wants to maximize the all-important time-on-platform stat, there’s no better way than a World Cup.

For FIFA, Netflix is a safe bet from a reach standpoint; the platform reportedly has over 90 million subscribers in the United States. By contrast, only about 65 million households still subscribe to a pay-TV bundle.

The only question is if Netflix would willingly share inventory with a linear network. FIFA might want that, but at the right price, it’d surely be fine awarding exclusivity to Netflix.

Verdict: The most likely of any streaming partner. Hard to imagine Netflix won’t be one of the finalists for 2030 rights.

YouTube

An intriguing possibility for the next World Cup is YouTube, mostly because we have no idea what that would look like. Would YouTube use the World Cup to launch some sort of paid subscription tier filled with premium content? Would matches stream for free, like the platform’s NFL game from Brazil? Would it be a mix of both?

It’s difficult to say, and YouTube could go any number of ways with its proposition to FIFA.

YouTube, however, does seem like it’d be a perfect platform to split rights with a linear partner. For one, YouTube is already in the linear business with YouTube TV, so it would be amenable to sharing games with a traditional broadcast network as a means of converting more users into YouTube TV subscribers. One can also imagine any number of collaborations and activations YouTube could do with the creators on its platform to expose the World Cup to new audiences, which would no doubt be attractive to FIFA.

But it’s fair to say a World Cup on YouTube would be unconventional and a big leap for FIFA to take. A linear partnership could quell some of those concerns, but a YouTube World Cup would certainly look much different than just about any other major sporting event ever broadcast to an American audience.

Verdict: Wild card. Dependent on the specifics of YouTube’s proposal. Can’t be ruled out but certainly not the most likely outcome.

Apple TV

Lastly, we arrive at Apple TV. As far as sports rights go, Apple has been quite selective. The company recently secured Formula One races, continues to broadcast Friday MLB games, and most importantly for the purpose of this article, holds global rights for MLS.

While Apple TV seems to always warrant a mention in reporting on future World Cup rights, it is almost always as a throw-in. Just like every other media rights deal involving Apple, it’s unclear how seriously the company is taking its foray into live sports.

It’s fair to say that, like Netflix, the streamer might be wary of sharing inventory with a linear partner. But unlike Netflix, Apple TV is at quite the disadvantage from a reach perspective. The streamer simply does not have a very large subscription base, and from an engagement standpoint, Netflix’s share of television viewership is about 15-times greater than Apple TV.

Even if Apple TV is a serious bidder, it would seem like a bit of a reach for FIFA to agree to put the World Cup on such a small platform.

Verdict: Probably the biggest longshot out of the seven possibilities on this list.

The post Handicapping 2030 World Cup media rights: Who is likely to land the next tournament? appeared first on Awful Announcing.

Advertisement