I always supported the idea that if you are going to do a world cup, then you do it in a nation filled with football history and culture. There is nothing else you need, it could be even a poor nation and they would still have everything you need.
Argentina is famously a poor nation, they had record breaking inflation after inflation and you could stay at a five star hotel literally for 10 bucks a day, that is the cheapness level and poverty level they have, and yet if you do a world cup there, between the amazing stadiums and the football culture and people who would love to watch it, you are going to end up with a lot of fans and a great world cup. Wealth doesn't equal a good world cup, love of football does equal it without a doubt though.
it's not easy to host the world cup, even a country like brazil ends up in a lot of debt for hosting the olympics, with huge inflation it will only kill argentina if it hosts the world cup
I see that the 2026 world cup is actually very unique because the 3 countries have different economic strengths and in the future it will be a great solution for other countries (to not host the world cup alone)
Does countries host worldcup without support from FIFA?, I am very curious to know, because I don't see why hosting the World cup should lead to debt for the country that hosted it, if this is true, then it means several countries will not be willing to host the tournament in the fear of accumulating debt, most especially, countries that are already in lots of debt already..
Hosting the world cup has always been a privilege for any country, atleast, this is what I think, if a country should host the world cup and end up in debt because of it, then I don't see how that is a privilege.