Exactly, I think since we had an economic crisis in most of the countries and they don't have good situations it was a wise move to let a country like America host the world cup because they have enough potential to host the great events and even if Mexico and Canada were not co-hosting the world cup America could easily host the world cup by itself.
I doubt that this has anything to do with the economic crisis or with the pandemic as the bid to become the World Cup host was made in 2017. I think that the USA along with Mexico and Canada had the strongest application in the field. I don't know whether this trend that there will be joint co-hosting will continue in the future, but I am still an advocate of this decision. There are so many countries in the world and if you want to give most of them a fair chance to host a World Cup anytime soon, allowing for co-hosting makes a lot of sense.
I think it would certainly help smaller countries or countries with no economical resources to host the whole event to still be part of it. They would not need to invest so much in infrastructure, security or places to keep tourists happy, since all the event would eventually move to a neighbor country.
For example, Nepal and Mongolia are counties that by their own could not host a World Cup but they could if decided to co-host with China.
Of course, all of it would not be that easy, there are neighbor countries which have political and ideological disagreements among them, which would not allow them to coordinate such big event as orderly and quickly as it is supposed to. Whether we like it or not, when talk about more than one country, we need to think of geopolitics.