Quote from: Daniel91 on Today at 10:54:29 AM

Quote from: freedomgo on July 15, 2023, 08:24:21 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on July 14, 2023, 03:10:12 AM

Quote from: letteredhub on July 13, 2023, 05:28:30 PM

There is nothing much to argue about in this rule which has been a rule that previous hosts have enjoined over the years. @Leviathan.007 how fair would it be that your country is a host of the world cup tournament with the so much inconveniences that follows the whole process of preparations and arrangement of hospitality to all tourists that would be in attendance? It makes no sense at all that's why the express slot are given to host countries and nothing unfair about that, it's rather understandable.

Just one question to you.

If a country can't qualify for the FIFA World Cup, why should that country be given the hosting rights? This was very evident during the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Qatar was given automatic entry to the tournament since they were the hosts. And what happened after that? They lost all three of their group stage matches and got crashed out of the tournament. I still believe that if a more deserving country from AFC was given that slot, then they would have performed much better. Anyway, in this case United Arab Emirates was the team that was ranked 6th in the AFC qualifiers. I don't know how they would have performed, had they been given the chance.

There is nothing we can do about that topic because this rule has been established already by the FIFA that the ones who will host the event will be given a special treatment to qualify automatically without having to go through the regular process and we have grown accustomed by that rule, and so I don't see any new about this because performance is certainly not a basis for a country(s) to host the FIFA World Cup, it's on the business side, national teams are not included in the negotiations in the first place.

The rule that the host has the right to automatic participation in the World Cup has existed since the very beginning, when the first World Cup was held in Uruguay in 1930.
I think it turned out to be a good rule because there would certainly be fewer fans at the matches and less interest in the matches if the home team did not play.
After all, the same rules exist in other team sports such as basketball, handball, waterpolo etc.
When the USA hosted the FIFA World Cup in 1994, it helped to increase interest in soccer in the USA, their league and national team got better and they have played an increasingly prominent role in the World Cups ever since.
The USA has become a very important market for soccer, and it all started with the organization of the World Cup in 1994. That is why it is always important that even weaker hosts can perform and play at the World Cup and help the promotion and development of football in their countries.
After all, from the next world cup, the number of participants will increase so that even weaker national teams from other continents will get the opportunity to play at the world cup.

Indeed mate. Having the host countries a privilege to have their team qualified directly does come with a reason for a purpose of getting the home crowd riled up because they have their own team who will face the other national teams and for which will make the home crowd watch the games as it will be entertaining for them in that way.

This rule wasn't made just because of a reason that they are the hosts, it is made to maximize the profits in-order to make the event more successful because foreign crowds plus home crowds will be a good combination that will result them into a much wanted revenues. Let's not forget that all of this is also a business behind the curtains.