FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread

[Litzki1990]

Its real fun to see we talking more about securitie, policies, and some other regulations things of related to the world cup more than the football and world cup itself.  

Yes i know qualifiers hasnt started yet and we dont have so much to talk, but i think its one of the first world cups talking so much about VISAS and security things. For me like i said before i want to wait a little bit more to know how they are gonna managed this.

There is still a long time left for the football world cup to start. The Qatar World Cup frenzy is not with us yet but it is true that as soon as one World Cup tournament ends, the management has to discuss the next World Cup tournament. Most of the football fans are thinking that it is very difficult to get an American visa, so if the World Cup is held in America, it will be very difficult for the spectators to sit in the stadium and enjoy the games. And many security aspects appear to be discussed as well. Since the World Cup is going to be held in the United States, we should not have any doubts about the security, the World Cup in the United States will be held with maximum security. Since the management has got enough time to plan, hopefully we will see a good World Cup in 2026.

[nullama]

~snip~
Argentina still has to qualify despite being the defending champions? Anyway from your list, only Brazil and Argentina looks certain to me. Competition is extremely strong in CONMEBOL qualifiers. Upsets can always happen and last time it was Uruguay and Ecuador who managed to qualify apart from the two top teams. Colombia lost out and later tried their best to get Ecuador disqualified. Chile and Paraguay lost out as well, and they were also not too happy about it. Peru had a golden chance of qualifying, but they lost to Australia in the playoffs.

Yeah, since a long time ago the champion of the world cup has to go back to the qualifier stage. Only the host gets automatic qualification.

The winner of France 1998, which was France, was actually the last team to qualify automatically as the champion. So, in Korea-Japan 2002 we saw this happening for the last time, more than 20 years ago.

[Sithara007]

~snip~
Argentina still has to qualify despite being the defending champions? Anyway from your list, only Brazil and Argentina looks certain to me. Competition is extremely strong in CONMEBOL qualifiers. Upsets can always happen and last time it was Uruguay and Ecuador who managed to qualify apart from the two top teams. Colombia lost out and later tried their best to get Ecuador disqualified. Chile and Paraguay lost out as well, and they were also not too happy about it. Peru had a golden chance of qualifying, but they lost to Australia in the playoffs.

Yeah, since a long time ago the champion of the world cup has to go back to the qualifier stage. Only the host gets automatic qualification.

The winner of France 1998, which was France, was actually the last team to qualify automatically as the champion. So, in Korea-Japan 2002 we saw this happening for the last time, more than 20 years ago.

OK... Sounds a bit unfair for me. If FIFA can grant automatic qualification to the hosts (that would mean multiple countries using this loophole to gain direct entry to the world cup in 2026), then they could have given this exception to the defending champions as well. And that would mean that an additional qualification slot would be available for the CONMEBOL region, which is also fair given the extreme competition for qualification from that confederation. Either FIFA needs to ask everyone (including hosts) to qualify, or they need to give the direct entry to both hosts and defending champions.

[shogun47]

The saddest part about all the preparations for these World Cup events and also other big events is that so many resources have to be invested into preventing terrorism attacks. The resources going into security research and implementation are a significant share of the total investment. Regrettable that the world can't just live and be in peace, but that is sadly an integral part of our lives. I think this is a huge challenge for a multi-nation World Cup when all the boarders have to be protected and the inner security isn't limited to a small area like in Qatar, but across a whole continent or even two like North and South America.

Security is a very important aspect of the World Cup. Security took a large chunk of Qatar's $ 200 billion expenditure in the last world cup. A county like the US that has powerful enemies makes security even more important. The last terrorist attack in the US on September 11, 2001, has made the country invest more in security.

American borders are always difficult to protect from illegal immigrants but the country will beef up its internal security to ensure that there is no terrorist attack because the US is a major target of some of these extremist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. I am also optimistic that the Russia-Ukraine war would have ended before the world cup. This is because the support of Ukraine by the US and Canada can also pose a security threat.

I wouldn't be afraid of attacks to the extent of the September 11, 2001. But that is where the problem begins because even small attacks can have significant effects on the public's real security and the perceived security. If a small attack happens during a World Cup in the US, I can imagine that this would have consequences on the decisions people make to attend for example public viewing events. And these small attacks are so difficult to prevent from happening. That is what makes the resource expenditure on security measures so high. During an event of that magnitude in terms of the number of people and the area that it takes place it is like searching for the needle in the haystack. But as always we can only hope that nothing is going to happen. The Boston Marathon also got under attack once and the consequences were bitter.

[Leviathan.007]

~snip~
Argentina still has to qualify despite being the defending champions? Anyway from your list, only Brazil and Argentina looks certain to me. Competition is extremely strong in CONMEBOL qualifiers. Upsets can always happen and last time it was Uruguay and Ecuador who managed to qualify apart from the two top teams. Colombia lost out and later tried their best to get Ecuador disqualified. Chile and Paraguay lost out as well, and they were also not too happy about it. Peru had a golden chance of qualifying, but they lost to Australia in the playoffs.

Yeah, since a long time ago the champion of the world cup has to go back to the qualifier stage. Only the host gets automatic qualification.

The winner of France 1998, which was France, was actually the last team to qualify automatically as the champion. So, in Korea-Japan 2002 we saw this happening for the last time, more than 20 years ago.

OK... Sounds a bit unfair for me. If FIFA can grant automatic qualification to the hosts (that would mean multiple countries using this loophole to gain direct entry to the world cup in 2026), then they could have given this exception to the defending champions as well. And that would mean that an additional qualification slot would be available for the CONMEBOL region, which is also fair given the extreme competition for qualification from that confederation. Either FIFA needs to ask everyone (including hosts) to qualify, or they need to give the direct entry to both hosts and defending champions.

That's something that is discussed before about the World Cup hosts getting automatic qualification without any condition with other teams.
The fact about this rule is some countries are not even in the situation to play in the world cup but they are playing there just because they are hosting it. But, imagine a country like America is hosting the next world cup but they don't play there, I think their people will lose interest to host this tournament, and maybe that's why they made this rule.

[Volgastallion]

In the end, six of these teams will qualify to make up the 48 teams in the competition.

It's still too early to bet, but right now my guess is Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Chile and Ecuador.

Yes and i dont like the new distribution of place , also i dont like the new format of 48 teams, its only to make more money for FIFA and broadcasters, but its worst for the level of the tournament, we are gonna see so many low level teams from CONCACAF, ASIA, Africa.

And for worst they only give one more palce to CONMEBOL.

[bitgolden]

~snip~
Argentina still has to qualify despite being the defending champions? Anyway from your list, only Brazil and Argentina looks certain to me. Competition is extremely strong in CONMEBOL qualifiers. Upsets can always happen and last time it was Uruguay and Ecuador who managed to qualify apart from the two top teams. Colombia lost out and later tried their best to get Ecuador disqualified. Chile and Paraguay lost out as well, and they were also not too happy about it. Peru had a golden chance of qualifying, but they lost to Australia in the playoffs.

Yeah, since a long time ago the champion of the world cup has to go back to the qualifier stage. Only the host gets automatic qualification.

The winner of France 1998, which was France, was actually the last team to qualify automatically as the champion. So, in Korea-Japan 2002 we saw this happening for the last time, more than 20 years ago.

That was actually a good one if you ask me, I mean the last champions should be there, even if they are not as good anymore, it just means that the previous champion is there for other teams to beat at least. Even if they fail to go up in the group stages, that still means there are 3 other teams to beat them in the group stages as well. Long story short I supported it but it's gone so never mind that.

Host is still a big issue, of course host will play because it would be hard not to, but when the hosts are growing in size it's becoming an issue. Look at Canada/USA/Mexico right now, that's three teams automatically there, which prevents another 3 team to participate in it as well. I can't really say that it's going to be different or anything but after all we are talking about a situation where too many hosts would mean terrible for other teams.

[Jody.Drummer]

The saddest part about all the preparations for these World Cup events and also other big events is that so many resources have to be invested into preventing terrorism attacks. The resources going into security research and implementation are a significant share of the total investment. Regrettable that the world can't just live and be in peace, but that is sadly an integral part of our lives. I think this is a huge challenge for a multi-nation World Cup when all the boarders have to be protected and the inner security isn't limited to a small area like in Qatar, but across a whole continent or even two like North and South America.

Without a doubt this is very problematic, as I see on this world cup the raise of a new trend, which is world cups being hosted by many countries as a way to reduce the costs they have pay and to take the world cup to more countries at the same time, so from now on the challenges when it comes to maintaining the security of the world cup will only increase, as without a doubt as the most important sport event around the world it is bound to be targeted by all kind of criminals.

There will always be people who want to ride on big events like this, because they are well aware that the center of attention will be directed at them when there is an event that involves many people, even this is something that will be seen by almost all countries that exist, especially those participating in it.
I'm sure they have considered and prepared as well as possible so that nothing untoward happens.

It's not easy, but when all the elements come together, it will create an atmosphere that will be comfortable later.
I also hope that there are no parties who will pit against each other or provide narratives that will make the atmosphere worse. Just like in the last World Cup, the things that made the atmosphere rowdy were people who made unnecessary narratives. It is natural when such a big event gets a lot of criticism, because after all there will always be shortcomings and it is impossible to be completely perfect, but I mean there is no need to enlarge the usual problems.

[Vaculin]

Argentina still has to qualify despite being the defending champions?

Unfortunately, yes. Argentina will have to qualify again and go through with the traditional process just like every other team despite being the defending champions and the only exception are the hosting countries namely, United States of America, Canada, and Mexico.
In the past two decades or more, every defending champions have the right to be qualified automatically but that rule changed way back 2006 before the FIFA 2026 commenced.

[Hispo]

Argentina still has to qualify despite being the defending champions?

Unfortunately, yes. Argentina will have to qualify again and go through with the traditional process just like every other team despite being the defending champions and the only exception are the hosting countries namely, United States of America, Canada, and Mexico.
In the past two decades or more, every defending champions have the right to be qualified automatically but that rule changed way back 2006 before the FIFA 2026 commenced.

Now you mention it, someone could argue that it can be a lil bit unfair to have three teams which have been guaranteed to qualify only because they are hosting the event in their countries. Having one team to have such a status is completely different than having three of them at the same time, in my opinion.  

Still knowing how good Argentina is, I would not expect them to lose the chance of partaking in the next world cup.

[uneng]

I wouldn't be afraid of attacks to the extent of the September 11, 2001. But that is where the problem begins because even small attacks can have significant effects on the public's real security and the perceived security. If a small attack happens during a World Cup in the US, I can imagine that this would have consequences on the decisions people make to attend for example public viewing events. And these small attacks are so difficult to prevent from happening. That is what makes the resource expenditure on security measures so high. During an event of that magnitude in terms of the number of people and the area that it takes place it is like searching for the needle in the haystack. But as always we can only hope that nothing is going to happen. The Boston Marathon also got under attack once and the consequences were bitter.

Usually these attacks happen when people are distracted or not expecting something to happen, what isn't the case of an event like World Cup, where all the security forces will be paying full attention to every details and making use of the intelligence services to increase the efficiency of the event's security. USA is the main focus of terrorists and riots in general, but at same time it's the most prepared country to deal with such menaces since they have top notch technology and expensive investments on security area. I'm sure they will be monitoring everyone closely to ensure the games happen without nasty incidents.

[Sithara007]

That's something that is discussed before about the World Cup hosts getting automatic qualification without any condition with other teams.
The fact about this rule is some countries are not even in the situation to play in the world cup but they are playing there just because they are hosting it. But, imagine a country like America is hosting the next world cup but they don't play there, I think their people will lose interest to host this tournament, and maybe that's why they made this rule.

I don't agree with this argument. If just one country is hosting the tournament, then it is still OK. And in 2026, three countries are being given automatic qualification, and if they go through the regular qualification process then in all probability none of these teams would secure qualification. And things will get even more complicated in 2030, in case the combined bid from Argentina-Uruguay-Chile-Paraguay wins hosting rights. In this case 4 countries will be given automatic qualification and only two slots will be given for CONMEBOL qualifiers. 

[shogun47]

That's something that is discussed before about the World Cup hosts getting automatic qualification without any condition with other teams.
The fact about this rule is some countries are not even in the situation to play in the world cup but they are playing there just because they are hosting it. But, imagine a country like America is hosting the next world cup but they don't play there, I think their people will lose interest to host this tournament, and maybe that's why they made this rule.

I don't agree with this argument. If just one country is hosting the tournament, then it is still OK. And in 2026, three countries are being given automatic qualification, and if they go through the regular qualification process then in all probability none of these teams would secure qualification. And things will get even more complicated in 2030, in case the combined bid from Argentina-Uruguay-Chile-Paraguay wins hosting rights. In this case 4 countries will be given automatic qualification and only two slots will be given for CONMEBOL qualifiers. 

Seriously, if the hosting nation does not participate in the group stage, it would be a stupid situation for the domestic fans and the argument that there is less enthusiasm in the streets of the hosting country when they don't even play is of course true. The difference would be huge! What if you go in a local bar and the home country is playing, do you know what's going on in that bar? Everyone will be cheering, commentating, laughing, screaming, hoping for the goal of their own nation in order to stay in the tournament. Saying that it doesn't matter whether the hosting nation plays or not is nonsense. All these domestic people are welcoming the guests with joy and of course I would want the hosting nation to get a free ticket to play the group stage. They've done the work to create a welcoming atmosphere and even if they are an inferior sports team, it would still create a lot of positive if energy if they can participate. It should remain as it is that the hosting nations can play the group stage without qualifying.

Think about the pressure during the qualifiers while they are turning their country upside down to be a successful host and then in the last game they miss the qualification. That would be bad.

[Lida93]

After one World Cup tournament is over, the next World Cup tournament is usually worked on. Organizing such a big tournament requires big planning along with huge amount of financial support which may be very challenging for the authority to manage in two years. If the number of new teams increases every year, it will take more time than usual to organize a tournament which will make it difficult for the management to control the tournament and if there is a continuous match for a long time then there will be a lot of pressure on the players thinking about all these things. Maybe the football world cup will be held every four years instead of every two years.

It takes longer than 4 years, we have known that this world cup will be held at this place before the last one was even played, why? Because we would love to see nations get a lot more ready for something like this. I feel like this is going to be pretty amazing, we are going to get so much more entertainment here without a doubt.

I do not know how long it takes to rebuild stadiums, because we are not going to really just tore down a whole stadium to build a new one or even need that (which can still be done) or build a whole new one, but I am pretty sure that 4 years is enough of a time, now 3 years left of course. There is a new stadium in Las Vegas that took 2 billion dollars to build, I wonder if there will be any games at all there, would love to see the final there.

The saddest part about all the preparations for these World Cup events and also other big events is that so many resources have to be invested into preventing terrorism attacks. The resources going into security research and implementation are a significant share of the total investment. Regrettable that the world can't just live and be in peace, but that is sadly an integral part of our lives. I think this is a huge challenge for a multi-nation World Cup when all the boarders have to be protected and the inner security isn't limited to a small area like in Qatar, but across a whole continent or even two like North and South America.

The Western world has made many enemies as a result of the role they play in the globe generally but that not withstanding there are always enemies of peace no matter to whom it may concern. As for the security of the whole process throughout the world cup period I believe the host countries would do everything possible to beef up security no matter the cost because the number of tourists all over the world  that would be visiting to witness the games is gonna boast up the host countries economies that whatever amount spent on security would be gained double. What I think should be of more concern isn't in the amount to be spent but making sure no attack see the light of day.

[shogun47]

After one World Cup tournament is over, the next World Cup tournament is usually worked on. Organizing such a big tournament requires big planning along with huge amount of financial support which may be very challenging for the authority to manage in two years. If the number of new teams increases every year, it will take more time than usual to organize a tournament which will make it difficult for the management to control the tournament and if there is a continuous match for a long time then there will be a lot of pressure on the players thinking about all these things. Maybe the football world cup will be held every four years instead of every two years.

It takes longer than 4 years, we have known that this world cup will be held at this place before the last one was even played, why? Because we would love to see nations get a lot more ready for something like this. I feel like this is going to be pretty amazing, we are going to get so much more entertainment here without a doubt.

I do not know how long it takes to rebuild stadiums, because we are not going to really just tore down a whole stadium to build a new one or even need that (which can still be done) or build a whole new one, but I am pretty sure that 4 years is enough of a time, now 3 years left of course. There is a new stadium in Las Vegas that took 2 billion dollars to build, I wonder if there will be any games at all there, would love to see the final there.

The saddest part about all the preparations for these World Cup events and also other big events is that so many resources have to be invested into preventing terrorism attacks. The resources going into security research and implementation are a significant share of the total investment. Regrettable that the world can't just live and be in peace, but that is sadly an integral part of our lives. I think this is a huge challenge for a multi-nation World Cup when all the boarders have to be protected and the inner security isn't limited to a small area like in Qatar, but across a whole continent or even two like North and South America.

The Western world has made many enemies as a result of the role they play in the globe generally but that not withstanding there are always enemies of peace no matter to whom it may concern. As for the security of the whole process throughout the world cup period I believe the host countries would do everything possible to beef up security no matter the cost because the number of tourists all over the world  that would be visiting to witness the games is gonna boast up the host countries economies that whatever amount spent on security would be gained double. What I think should be of more concern isn't in the amount to be spent but making sure no attack see the light of day.

That was well said but I was rather referring to the fact being sad that we need to spend so much money on security that could be spent otherwise in a much more efficient and reasonable way. It could be spent on nutrition, but talking about sports it could also be spent on support for sports infrastructure especially in countries that are not very rich, but that is not the world we live in.

As the USA is involved I think it is a double-edged sword because the incentive for terrorists to pul off a successful attack is much higher when their enemy is the "best" at upfront investigation, surveillance and prevention of attacks.

[Lida93]

After one World Cup tournament is over, the next World Cup tournament is usually worked on. Organizing such a big tournament requires big planning along with huge amount of financial support which may be very challenging for the authority to manage in two years. If the number of new teams increases every year, it will take more time than usual to organize a tournament which will make it difficult for the management to control the tournament and if there is a continuous match for a long time then there will be a lot of pressure on the players thinking about all these things. Maybe the football world cup will be held every four years instead of every two years.

It takes longer than 4 years, we have known that this world cup will be held at this place before the last one was even played, why? Because we would love to see nations get a lot more ready for something like this. I feel like this is going to be pretty amazing, we are going to get so much more entertainment here without a doubt.

I do not know how long it takes to rebuild stadiums, because we are not going to really just tore down a whole stadium to build a new one or even need that (which can still be done) or build a whole new one, but I am pretty sure that 4 years is enough of a time, now 3 years left of course. There is a new stadium in Las Vegas that took 2 billion dollars to build, I wonder if there will be any games at all there, would love to see the final there.

The saddest part about all the preparations for these World Cup events and also other big events is that so many resources have to be invested into preventing terrorism attacks. The resources going into security research and implementation are a significant share of the total investment. Regrettable that the world can't just live and be in peace, but that is sadly an integral part of our lives. I think this is a huge challenge for a multi-nation World Cup when all the boarders have to be protected and the inner security isn't limited to a small area like in Qatar, but across a whole continent or even two like North and South America.

The Western world has made many enemies as a result of the role they play in the globe generally but that not withstanding there are always enemies of peace no matter to whom it may concern. As for the security of the whole process throughout the world cup period I believe the host countries would do everything possible to beef up security no matter the cost because the number of tourists all over the world  that would be visiting to witness the games is gonna boast up the host countries economies that whatever amount spent on security would be gained double. What I think should be of more concern isn't in the amount to be spent but making sure no attack see the light of day.

That was well said but I was rather referring to the fact being sad that we need to spend so much money on security that could be spent otherwise in a much more efficient and reasonable way. It could be spent on nutrition, but talking about sports it could also be spent on support for sports infrastructure especially in countries that are not very rich, but that is not the world we live in.

I grab your sentiment mate which is logical. But I doubt if government would wanna simk money into an area that doesn't seem to look like an area of priority to them at the moment and like you said it's very sad it is so. Hosting the world cup gives a lot of prestige and pride to the host country in the international scene.
Furthermore, about infrastructural development, provisions of facilities without inclusion of adequate security measures makes such facilities of no use as people may not be comfortable publicly making use of those facilities under a security threat. So either way security is important no matter the location concerned.

[Leviathan.007]

That's something that is discussed before about the World Cup hosts getting automatic qualification without any condition with other teams.
The fact about this rule is some countries are not even in the situation to play in the world cup but they are playing there just because they are hosting it. But, imagine a country like America is hosting the next world cup but they don't play there, I think their people will lose interest to host this tournament, and maybe that's why they made this rule.

I don't agree with this argument. If just one country is hosting the tournament, then it is still OK. And in 2026, three countries are being given automatic qualification, and if they go through the regular qualification process then in all probability none of these teams would secure qualification. And things will get even more complicated in 2030, in case the combined bid from Argentina-Uruguay-Chile-Paraguay wins hosting rights. In this case 4 countries will be given automatic qualification and only two slots will be given for CONMEBOL qualifiers. 

Imagine a weak team with bad potential which is not ready to play in the world cup and they don't deserve to play in this tournament host the world cup, we know instead of this team there could be one other team with a better situation and a stronger squad could get the qualification.
That's why I still think getting an automatic qualification is not fair at all.   

[letteredhub]

That's something that is discussed before about the World Cup hosts getting automatic qualification without any condition with other teams.
The fact about this rule is some countries are not even in the situation to play in the world cup but they are playing there just because they are hosting it. But, imagine a country like America is hosting the next world cup but they don't play there, I think their people will lose interest to host this tournament, and maybe that's why they made this rule.

I don't agree with this argument. If just one country is hosting the tournament, then it is still OK. And in 2026, three countries are being given automatic qualification, and if they go through the regular qualification process then in all probability none of these teams would secure qualification. And things will get even more complicated in 2030, in case the combined bid from Argentina-Uruguay-Chile-Paraguay wins hosting rights. In this case 4 countries will be given automatic qualification and only two slots will be given for CONMEBOL qualifiers. 

Imagine a weak team with bad potential which is not ready to play in the world cup and they don't deserve to play in this tournament host the world cup, we know instead of this team there could be one other team with a better situation and a stronger squad could get the qualification.
That's why I still think getting an automatic qualification is not fair at all.   

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.

[Finestream]

After one World Cup tournament is over, the next World Cup tournament is usually worked on. Organizing such a big tournament requires big planning along with huge amount of financial support which may be very challenging for the authority to manage in two years. If the number of new teams increases every year, it will take more time than usual to organize a tournament which will make it difficult for the management to control the tournament and if there is a continuous match for a long time then there will be a lot of pressure on the players thinking about all these things. Maybe the football world cup will be held every four years instead of every two years.

It takes longer than 4 years, we have known that this world cup will be held at this place before the last one was even played, why? Because we would love to see nations get a lot more ready for something like this. I feel like this is going to be pretty amazing, we are going to get so much more entertainment here without a doubt.

I do not know how long it takes to rebuild stadiums, because we are not going to really just tore down a whole stadium to build a new one or even need that (which can still be done) or build a whole new one, but I am pretty sure that 4 years is enough of a time, now 3 years left of course. There is a new stadium in Las Vegas that took 2 billion dollars to build, I wonder if there will be any games at all there, would love to see the final there.

The saddest part about all the preparations for these World Cup events and also other big events is that so many resources have to be invested into preventing terrorism attacks. The resources going into security research and implementation are a significant share of the total investment. Regrettable that the world can't just live and be in peace, but that is sadly an integral part of our lives. I think this is a huge challenge for a multi-nation World Cup when all the boarders have to be protected and the inner security isn't limited to a small area like in Qatar, but across a whole continent or even two like North and South America.

The Western world has made many enemies as a result of the role they play in the globe generally but that not withstanding there are always enemies of peace no matter to whom it may concern. As for the security of the whole process throughout the world cup period I believe the host countries would do everything possible to beef up security no matter the cost because the number of tourists all over the world  that would be visiting to witness the games is gonna boast up the host countries economies that whatever amount spent on security would be gained double. What I think should be of more concern isn't in the amount to be spent but making sure no attack see the light of day.

That was well said but I was rather referring to the fact being sad that we need to spend so much money on security that could be spent otherwise in a much more efficient and reasonable way. It could be spent on nutrition, but talking about sports it could also be spent on support for sports infrastructure especially in countries that are not very rich, but that is not the world we live in.

As the USA is involved I think it is a double-edged sword because the incentive for terrorists to pul off a successful attack is much higher when their enemy is the "best" at upfront investigation, surveillance and prevention of attacks.

I understand what you mean mate but sadly, first world countries or any other countries are not putting their vast resources for something that will not give them those needed revenues or at least with competitive profits, it's all of an investment for them and while some are inclined to give some of their funds to the needy, we can say that it cannot be on par with the resources they are putting into an events like this.

[Sithara007]

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.