Quote from: Leviathan.007 on May 20, 2023, 02:24:36 PM

Quote from: shogun47 on May 20, 2023, 11:23:06 AM

Quote from: Hispo on May 20, 2023, 01:00:38 AM

Quote from: shogun47 on May 19, 2023, 11:59:42 PM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on May 19, 2023, 11:54:02 PM

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.

Especially when it comes to World Cups a decision has to be made between inclusion in terms of size of the World Cup and the capacities of the hosting countries, and still a sense of exclusivity to keep the tournament exciting.

Due to the idea to include more countries also as participants, many potential host countries are not able to pull that off anymore. The USA could do it and countries with unlimited resources like Qatar could do it, but now that more and more nations are added to the final round of the tournament, lots of infrastructural limits in many countries are exceeded. That is why I expect that several host nations will be the norm for the World Cup going forward.

In fact, America got more resources than a country like Qatar and they got much more potential for the world cup than Qatar because in Qatar they didn't have enough sports facilities and they had to spend too much money for it while in America there is enough stadiums and all they to do is to repair all they got, this way America will not spend money like Qatar.

Yes, you have got a good point when comes to the infrastructure of the United States. They may be able to save some money on it, but because America is more likely to receive more people than Qatar, it would translate on increasing expenses on security and probably management of Visas or personnel to take care of the immigration papers of all that people who wish to attent do the event.

Also, I am sure it has been mentioned before, but Qatar likely had some bribed European politicians so they would talk wonders about the country and downplay the accusations of mishandling of workers and human right violations. Mexico, USA and Canada won't need to bribe anyone, I guess.