If you believe the pre-tournament billing, when the final concludes in Lyon a month later, women’s football will have taken a seismic step forward.

The build-up feels better covered than ever.

Whether it is positive steps such as the unveiling of specially-designed kit for women’s teams or the negative side, namely the vast financial gap in pay between men and women.

Reports of the World Cup final being claimed to have been sold out in just 30 minutes further highlight the progress made in recent years.

On March 17, a record top-flight domestic attendance for a women’s game was achieved when 60,739 spectators watched Barcelona beat Atletico Madrid at Wanda Metropolitano. This was promptly followed by 39,000 watching  Juventus beating Fiorentina at Allianz Stadium.

There are a few takeaways from these fixtures.

The first is the undoubtedly positive figures and how effective promotion, particularly online, can achieve results. With many spectators likely attending a women’s league match for the first time, the hope is the experience would lead to return visits and ensure greater sustainability.

With sustainability key, I do have a slight concern over the tickets for the Juventus match being free. By giving tickets away the product is being sold short, by opting not to sell it at all.

Long-term ticket revenue will be required for clubs to be financially viable, so it should become ingrained in spectators' minds that it is normal for them to pay to watch. I am sure the crowd fixture would not have been impacted had they been made to pay a nominal fee.

For instance, I did not bat an eyelid when I paid to attend a friendly between England and the United States in Milton Keynes prior to the last World Cup.

Another positive regarding the attendances is how they have stimulated debate about how other leagues and clubs can do better.

England manager Phil Neville recently called for top Premier League clubs to “throw open” their stadiums for women’s football matches.

"What I would say is that some of the big teams in England have got to open their big stadiums and fill it,” Neville said, according to the BBC. “I think our game in this country is at a far better place than it is in Spain and Italy.

“If Man United or Arsenal win the league, throw open your stadium. Champions League game for Chelsea – why not play it at Stamford Bridge? Get 30,000 or 40,000. Now my players are at the level where our big clubs have got to open their stadiums.”

Brighton have already heeded Neville’s call with their upcoming Women’s Super League match due to take place at Amex Stadium. Season ticket holders have been offered free tickets to attend, with the remainder sold for a small sum.

It will be interesting to see whether other clubs follow suit. Would it be possible to play men's and women's fixtures on the same day at a stadium, as has been done in rugby?

Personally, I thought Tottenham Hotspur missed an opportunity to promote their women’s team when they held one of their test events for the 62,062 stadium a couple of weeks ago. An academy side played at the venue, despite the women’s team playing on the same date.

The club would have been assured of a strong attendance, regardless, given fans were eager to finally step inside the much delayed venue. As well as providing excellent promotion of the women’s team, the club would certainly have benefitted from the publicity of driving a step forward for the game in England.

The venue’s grand opening finally took place earlier this week with the stadium having repeatedly been referred to this week as “the best in the world”.

Countless articles have drawn the comparison to how the venue is better than arch rivals Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium, which opened in 2006. The 17,500 single tier stand and a design to boost the acoustics have been cited as ways the atmosphere will be improved, alongside ensuring fans are closer to the pitch.

There are certainly pros and cons with the venues being completed 13 years apart. The major con is being forced to play catch-up, with the finances outstripped by a rival.

The pros are that lessons have been learned. Ideas which have worked can be readily adopted, while faults can easily be improved upon.

One wonders whether this can also be applied to the women’s game.

Women’s football is clearly having to play catch-up. That’s what banning the game in England will do. There are many issues left to resolve, which were well explained by my colleague Nancy Gillen here.

On a positive note, the women’s game does not have so many ills that come with men’s professional football. For instance, there were the much-publicised figures about how much Premier League clubs spent on agents' fees.

Figures, released earlier this week, stated that £260 million ($338 million/€301 million) had been paid by the top 20 English clubs in the 2018 to 2019 season. Most people deemed the figure obscene and almost as out of control as the transfer fees themselves.

FIFA have been attempting to reform the transfer market which has been viewed to have become a business in its own right, with players increasingly treated as commodities to be traded on to line other’s pockets. The influence of agents over players and clubs has been viewed as increasingly worrying.

At this moment, the women’s game does not appear to be faced with these issues, thankfully.

While global spending on transfer fees in the women’s game was $493,235 (£378,000/€439,000) in 2018 compared to $7.1 billion (£5.4 billion/€6.3 billion) for men’s players, a report from FIFA last year forecast the growth of a transfer market in the women’s game, as a direct consequence of increased investment.

"Transfer activity is so far relatively limited, but this is a normal consequence of the fact that the market for female professional players is still in the early stages of its development,” the report stated.

"That said, consistent investments from all stakeholders in recent years have contributed to the rapid growth of the women's game at all levels. There are therefore clear signs that these numbers will only grow in future.

“Either directly or indirectly, the growth of the game is likely to influence aspects such as transfer types, the proportion of transfers with fees, and the role of certain associations in global transfer streams.”

It is possible a groundbreaking World Cup in France, investment from sponsors and top men’s teams placing a greater focus on the women’s game could go some way to changing this.

It might not happen in the short term, but you could imagine an “arms race” scenario in the future in a similar vein to the men’s game.

After all the top three teams in the Women’s Super League this season are Manchester City, Arsenal and Chelsea, clubs who aren’t shy of spending money on their men’s teams.

Increased funds in the women’s game would clearly be welcomed, whether it is to make clubs more financially viable and aid the promotion of the sport. Wealth of the clubs would clearly benefit players through increased wages.

One hopes when greater investment occurs, as it should, the women’s game can avoid some of the ills present in men’s football.