Home-field advantage at major sporting events has always held both sporting and political significance. In some cases, without external political pressure, hosting the tournament provided a genuine sporting boost. The most emblematic example is Uruguay 1930, the first world champion in history. From 1930 to the present, hosting the World Cup has meant a sporting impetus, a political platform, or, in some cases, a privileged entry for countries without a footballing tradition. As a historical review by the Argentine News agency revealed, organizing a World Cup has never been purely a logistical matter.
Among the most controversial episodes are two World Cups held under military regimes that used the competition for political purposes. The 1934 World Cup in Italy, during Benito Mussolini's fascist government, was marked by suspicions of refereeing pressure and a manipulated organization to favor the host team. In these cases, home-field advantage served as both emotional and structural fuel.
The global growth of football has opened the door for host nations with little World Cup history, benefiting from geopolitical decisions and automatic qualification as hosts. South Africa 2010 became the first African country to host a World Cup. Although they were eliminated quickly, they enjoyed the privilege of years of exclusive preparation and direct access to the tournament, something unthinkable for their previous sporting level.
Home-field advantage is a factor as historical as it is decisive. History shows that playing a World Cup at home grants sporting, structural, and, at certain times, even political benefits. Although eliminated in the group stage, South Africa achieved a huge structural impact: new stadiums, improved infrastructure, and global visibility. Qatar 2022, with no previous World Cup experience, reached the tournament as host following a controversial FIFA election. From disputed champions to teams without tradition that gained direct entry, the status of host has become an element that shaped outcomes, boosted projects, or generated controversies.
What is clear after nearly a century of competition is that the World Cup has never been played solely on the field: being home has always been an advantage that has left a deep mark on the tournament's history. The 1978 World Cup in Argentina, held under a military dictatorship, also raised serious questions. The tournament was surrounded by strong international criticism, especially regarding the political context, the propagandistic use of the event, and the memorable 6-0 victory over Peru, a result that generated suspicions that persist to this day.
Without external political interference, the 'Celeste' (Uruguay's team) leveraged massive support in Montevideo and confirmed its footballing prowess of the era. England 1966 is also mentioned, which won its only title boosted by the strength of playing at home, although the final against West Germany was marked by the famous 'ghost goal'. Other hosts reached decisive stages without political controversies: Brazil 1950 reached the final, France 1998 won with authority, and Germany 2006 finished in the semi-finals.
