Womens world cup.

Sure. But don't FIFA also have a duty to do that? The BBC is very happy to air the tournament, you're just holding them to ransom.

Poor old Spain will be based in Palmerston North. I'm a Wellington 4 but a Palmy 7 (unless you really like oversized farmboys).

I am equally pleased and disappointed that I could get a sniff of a ticket to one of the Melbourne games.

Controversial I know but I couldn't care less about the Women's world cup.

Chicago: Not interested.

Is it controversial? It shouldn't be. Being a football fan shouldn't mean you also have to be a fan of women's football. There is a lot of football out there and you can't follow/support it all. I do think that clubs in major footballing nations like England should be investing in and developing opportunities for girls and women and I would always encourage people to get a long to a game if they can, but like any other sport it needs to develop its audience with its product not by coercion.

I went to the Forest Women against Stoke game at the weekend, which secured the WNL Northern Division title for them, and there was a crowd of over 1,700 so there is a market for it locally. In fact there always has been as Forest proved pre-WSL and Notts proved in the WSL. I think if Forest capitalised on the women's success this season and moved the whole thing to the City Ground that would only grow.

I would like to watch the World Cup, even though it's a real blow that Beth Mead and Leah Williamson won't be there, because England are a good team, they have some fun personalities, a great coach and play some decent football. I hope it gets onto the BBC, but not through FIFA threats.

yeah, smacks to me as nothing to do with investing in the women's game, but all about FIFA just wanting more money.

I think there's an implication, at times, saying, "this is football, you like football, you should be watching this", while also saying that it's unfair to compare to the two sports because of the physical differences between men and women. Although the former seems to have dropped off a bit as the women's game has become more established in its own right.

I always think it's a bit weird when anyone is performatively uninterested in anything. If you don't care, it seems pretty easy to avoid, especially in a thread titled "Womens world cup".

For me, women's football is about on a par with (men's) rugby union - I'll watch the big games or if I'm in and it's on a TV channel I've got but I wouldn't go out of my way.

If an England womens game was on one channel and Stoke v Middlesbrough was on another channel, I would watch the England game. (Unless we were in the Championship again and the Stoke/Boro game had resonance for us.)

If it was England women or Palace v Villa, I might channel hop.

I can't be arsed with watching women's club football. I get annoyed when I see Arsenal v Man City is on TV, then it turns out to be a women's match.

(It doesn't bother me at all if women's football isn't as fast/physical as men's football. Of course it isn't.)

I think my main annoyance is the mixing of the women's game with the men's game on radio/BBC/TV etc. When I'm listening on FiveLive and it's, I dunno, Blackburn v. Cardiff on the radio and they interrupt for something like "There's been a goal in the Southampton v. Leicester game! .....<my ears prick up> .... and it's Sonia Smith with the winner!". Oh. Right. Got it.

To be fair I have no real solution for this other than getting over myself.

Yes, they seem to prefer confusion rather than be accused of sexism. Just say, "in the WSL, Southampton are playing Leicester - and there's been a goal."

The solution is that there's football and women's football and for broadcasters to acknowledge that. In the same way that they don't feel obliged to call football "association football" to distinguish it from rugby football or american football or aussie rules football because everyone knows what the pre-eminent version is.

But using language that categorises women's football as a sub-set of the default while not doing the same for men's football is an inherently sexist solution and there's no need to do it.

Just refer to the Premier League or the WSL, or begin the report with a player name. Broadcasters are payed to be good with language.

This is more a question than my viewpoint, but do you (people) think that the WSL is getting more coverage than it should, when thinking about viewers and numbers of fans? For instance (I presume) there are many League One clubs that are getting bigger crowds, sponsorship and viewers than WSL teams - yet they don't get the same level of coverage on the BBC Sports pages. One could argue that the women's game is growing, and that by giving it (positively) disproportionate coverage we're encouraging equal-rights and opportunities for women. Like I say ... no strong viewpoint here from me, but it's a moan I've seen people use and on face value it seemed to have a point.

Isn't the devaluation from Euro channels more about timezone, can't see many viewing figures for games played at 3am. If FIFA hadn't selected a stupid place for a tournament they would be making more money.