The speculative nattering kicked in at around the same time the last scrap of golden confetti had found a resting place on the turf at, um, New York New Jersey Stadium. As the no-showbiz Spanish team lifted the hardware, chatter about where fans new and old might expect to watch the 2030 and 2034 installments of the FIFA World Cup began sparking like the faulty wiring in Argentina midfielder Leandro Paredes’ overheated brain.

Slipshod speculation is one of the things that makes fandom so much fun—if nothing else, all the jawing about FIFA’s looming media-rights dance helped take some of the sting out of the prospect of a World Cup-free Monday—but maybe let’s hold off for a bit with the Nostradamus routine. The thing is, nobody has even the slightest idea of what might transpire when Gianni Infantino’s crew puts the next two tourneys up for bids in about six months’ time, largely because the particulars surrounding the 2030/2034 package have yet to be revealed.

While it’s a safe bet to assume that the incumbents at Fox Sports and Telemundo are all-in on renewing their respective deals, neither party knows precisely what it will be vying for a half-a-year from now. Among the decisions that have yet to be reached by the gang at FIFA HQ include particulars related to the format, the available advertising inventory and the possibility that FIFA may look to offer an exclusive, all-inclusive rights package to one lucky stateside outlet.

FIFA’s coy unwillingness to confirm that it will be running back its controversial hydration breaks further complicates the business of working out the media math.

New to the 2026 World Cup, the adjustment had a quantifiable impact on revenue generation here in the States. As Sportico reported earlier this week, the 36-day soccer tourney churned up $1.19 billion in total ad sales revenue across Fox Sports and Telemundo/Peacock, a haul that was nearly thrice the volume of what the FIFA partners managed four years ago in Qatar ($441.9 million). The 170% increase was largely driven by higher unit costs, the expansion of the field from a 32- to a 48-team format and the introduction of the mid-half H₂O pauses—the latter of which Fox was keen to convert into bonus commercial time.

In embracing the breaks as a new opportunity to jam more marketing bucks into the funnel, Fox waltzed off with a bigger share of the World Cup’s largesse. Per Guideline estimates, Fox commanded 70% of the overall sales haul, which works out to $835.2 million—almost double the combined takeaway from Qatar. Telemundo kept things old school, electing to keep its cameras trained on the pitch during the breaks, but in doing so the Spanish-language network may have left another $250 million on the table.

Trouble is, FIFA hasn’t clarified whether the hydration breaks will be back for the Spain/Portugal/Morocco lollapalooza in 2030. The party line in Zürich maintains that the introduction of the mid-half caesuras was motivated entirely by worries about overheating—a noble concern after having convened the last World Cup in the Arabian Desert—and that FIFA’s Technical Study Group is still examining the results from this year’s trial run. When asked last week if he’d had a chance to study any data related to how the breaks may have impacted the players’ well-being, Arsène Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global football development, told reporters that further study was necessary before a decision could be made about 2030 and beyond.

“We will have to analyze [the data] after the World Cup, but it didn’t look to me as if they changed the outcome of the competition,” Wenger said. “We have not come to a conclusion yet, but I promise that you will get one.” The former Arsenal manager went on to suggest that many “people were not happy with” the breaks, a sentiment he said was especially pronounced during matches held in climate-controlled arenas.

(FIFA has yet to make a call on whether it will trot out the breaks for next year’s Women’s World Cup in Brazil, although since that event is being staged during the Southern Hemisphere’s winter season, concerns about the risks of overheating are considerably fewer.)

In the absence of any confirmation that FIFA may elect to further expand the field to a 64-team format—which would grow the live broadcast inventory from 104 matches to 128—no one with any skin in the game has anything but a rough idea of exactly what it is they may be vying for when the rights hit the market. It’s not like a 23% boost in the number of available games won’t have an appreciable impact on FIFA’s asking price or anything.

If the group stage exploits of Cape Verde are anything to go by, it’s probably safe to say that growing the field from 32 to 48 nations did not dilute the talent pool during North America’s World Cup. While that sustained level of quality (and FIFA’s $15 billion payday) suggest that a further expansion to 64 teams is all but preordained, the stakeholders have yet to make a definitive ruling on the 2030 format. Clearly there’s little to be gained from trying to set a dollar value on a sports package when an additional 24 matches are in play, especially when the break structure has yet to be determined.

For whatever it’s worth, CONMEBOL president Alejandro Domínguez seems confident that another expansion is inevitable. In a series of posts to his X account that went live earlier this week, Domínguez suggested the centenary of the World Cup would be marked “with a competition featuring 64 teams.” Word from FIFA is that a final decision remains TBD.

Exclusivity presents another unknown value, as was demonstrated by Netflix in December 2024. In snapping up the English- and Spanish-language rights to the 2027 and 2031 Women’s World Cup, the streamer effectively consolidated the events under one media roof. Should FIFA choose to bundle the men’s rights into one bilingual package, the subsequent upheaval would invalidate the budgeting projections for any would-be stateside partner; moreover, it would give a deep-pocketed tech player like Netflix (market cap: $287.8 billion) a distinct advantage over the legacy TV outlets.

Lastly, the price of staging the next two events must reflect the reality of another disruptive Middle Eastern campaign. With Saudi Arabia signed on to host the 2034 World Cup, FIFA will have to trot out a reprise of the November-December schedule that was necessitated by holding the 2022 tourney in Qatar. (Average daily high in Doha during the summer months: 106º F.)

The resultant upheaval and intersection with Fox’s frenzied fall football schedule played a key role in establishing the network’s rock-bottom $485 million rights fee in 2026, and while the Strait of Gibraltar setup won’t trigger a similar adjustment in 2030, the Saudi event will pose a challenge for NFL and college football rights-holders.