Yes, in fact FIFA always makes reviews throughout the 4 years of construction of the World Cup and makes inspections with experts and they always keep their reports, in fact when things don't add up they are capable of taking away the venues, as happened in some sub 17 tournaments, now for the World Cup the demanding standards are higher, so the World Cup has to guarantee the highest quality in the stadiums and in the main soccer regulations, these things will always exist, I imagine that in every World Cup new things come up, and hosts have to meet those demands.
The quality of the stadiums and any other facilities should be obviously higher than the last world cup we saw because four years passed and we can have better technologies for stadiums and this can definitely help the hosts, while in some countries they don't have a good financial system like Qatar does, they can't provide good quality facilities if they don't already have enough facilities.
I still wonder what gives FIFA the unwarranted reason to change the football's narrative, letting many countries host the World Cup will not be cost-effective to viewers who make themselves physically available. But this might be more money for FIFA which might be their plan. I will be folding my hands as things unfold, but they will not be able to deliver extras more than what they've been doing in the past.
It's a litmus test though, I hope it's worth it more than before. And as for the quality of stadiums, I bet the US is qualified, no wonder more matches would be played there. So qualified are Canada and Mexico, but playing lower hosts perhaps due to their capabilities.
nailed it - obviously America and Canada are the great countries. But Qatar was no less than them. They have progressed in all phases of life and they have not kept anything for themselves. They even donated the temporary residential spaces to turkey after the earth quack