I've just finished reading Victor Davis Hanson's The Western Way of War, and while he does a detailed job of describing what these battles were actually like, there is no discussion of the political outcomes of these battles between two infantry phalanxes. I just don't understand the stakes.
I presume that the battles were often about territory, and so the winner presumably took some territory from the loser (or took unchallenged ownership of previously-disputed territory). But were there other typical changes to the status quo apart from borders moving?
And how were the "consequences" decided? Were the stakes somehow agreed-upon before the battle commenced? Were there post-battle surrender negotiations? Were there ancient Potsdam Conferences?
As this is a Greek Warfare question, we of course turn to the work of u/Iphikrates for insight. More can always be said, of course, so if anyone else would like to have a go at what the Greeks fought over, please don't let this post stop you!
For the meantime, here are some previous answers that deal with the stakes of Greek wars:
Also, I must note that there's been a good bit of change in the study of Greek warfare since the turn of the millennium, and that going past Hanson could well be in order. For this, I commend to your attention Iphikrates' flair profile, specifically the historiography section. (It's also an excellent resource for Greek warfare in general!)