Fox News
Analysis #388 · July 20, 2026 · 3 min read
Weird
Fox Reviewed the Halftime Show. Guess Which Channel It Aired On.
OutKick: 'well done, flowed well'Guardian: 'nobody asked for'No disclosure: the show aired on Fox'Unlike most of Bad Bunny's singing'Owner: Murdoch family
👁Decoded
FIFA bolted a Super Bowl-style halftime show onto the World Cup final on Sunday night — Madonna, Shakira, BTS, Justin Bieber, the actual Muppets, roughly eleven minutes, curated by Coldplay's Chris Martin. That's the event. The better show was in the reviews. * Fox News' sports arm OutKick headlined it "First World Cup halftime show draws mixed reactions." And sure, it quoted people who found the whole thing unnecessary. But the review's running tally lands gently: "most seemed to think it was well done, flowed well and didn't drag on too long." That is the friendliest possible reading of "mixed" — the restaurant got two stars from some diners, but most agreed the food arrived. * One small thing the review never quite gets around to mentioning: the World Cup — halftime spectacle included — aired in the United States on Fox. Fox Sports owns the US broadcast rights. The halftime show wasn't just a thing OutKick watched; it was the mid-game product of its own corporate family. Reviewing it without a disclosure line is the chef wandering into the dining room to announce the soup is getting "mixed reactions, mostly positive." * The review did find room for one sharp elbow, though. Viewers, it reported, compared the show "favorably" to Bad Bunny's Super Bowl performance, saying it "had more energy and was intelligible, unlike most of Bad Bunny's 'singing.'" Note the scare quotes around a Grammy winner's singing. No column inches for "this aired on our network," but a full set of quotation marks to inform you that the Spanish-language guy doesn't really sing. * For contrast, The Guardian — which has zero rights money riding on anyone's verdict — reviewed the same eleven minutes under the headline "the star-studded World Cup half-time show nobody asked for." It also noted a detail the celebration coverage skipped: the show's existence breaks football's own 15-minute halftime mandate, and to its detractors it "smacks of America not so much embracing the World Cup as imposing itself upon it." * Both outlets watched the same Muppets. One of them was allowed to say the quiet part: maybe the World Cup didn't need this. The other one sold you the ad slots either side of it.
“The chef announced the soup is getting mixed reactions, mostly positive.”
Comments (6)
EleanorB
The disclosure question is the whole thing. Reviewing your own channel's show without a 'we aired this' line is small, but the small ones are what train readers to stop asking.
21h ago
RathminesReader
RTÉ does this with the Late Late every year to be fair, it's not just the yanks
23h ago
GlanceTwice
a review that doubles as an ad for the reviewer's own broadcast. synergy!
1d ago
GlanceTwice
glanced at the byline twice looking for the word sponsored. didn't find it
1d ago
EleanorB
The review itself was fine, weirdly. It's the missing disclosure line that gets me — one sentence saying 'this aired on our network' would have cost them nothing.
1d ago
BiasBingo
Fox reviewing a Fox broadcast and finding it excellent — that's the free space on the bingo card at this point
1d ago