I guess so because I'm sure that Canada and Mexico won't be sitting quietly while they are just being handed with 10 games each while the USA will be hosting the remaining games which gives them more profits to their economy and business establishments near the venues. It's quite unfair to think that USA will be hosting 84 games if that's indeed the case.
To answer that question, Canada and Mexico aren't subsidiary hosts. They're co-hosts of USA this coming 2026, hence why their national teams did automatically got the advantage of being qualified directly. These 3 countries won the bid together, just like what happened in 2002 World Cup where Japan and South Korea hosted it together.
Well.. this is a difficult topic. I know that formally both Canada and Mexico are the co-hosts. At least on paper, they have the same rights as that of the United States. But at the same time, most of the matches are being staged in the United States and they are taking care of most of the expenses. So we can't say that in this case the status of the US is the same as that of the other two countries. However, I am not sure about the revenue distribution. IMO, revenues (apart from ticket sales) may be split equally between the three countries.
I suppose all of those topics should have been talked about before the world cup by the representatives of the three countries, after all winning the bid for the world cup would have been way more difficult for each individual country and by uniting they were able to create an irresistible bid as each country has something different to offer, for Canada this is the first opportunity to host a world cup, the US offers a growing market as soccer is slowly getting more popular there and by taking the world cup there FIFA hopes soccer becomes even more popular, and Mexico offers seniority by becoming the first country to host the world cup three times.