At the time, I was strongly against the idea, arguing that women’s football was not ready for the expansion of its most prestigious international tournament.

I was still haunted by the United States’ 13-0 thrashing of Thailand, who were making their Women’s World Cup debut in 2019.

While the reigning world champions were right to be absolutely ruthless in their approach to the match, the result prompted questions over a lack of competitiveness in the tournament.

I felt the scoreline, the highest margin of victory in a World Cup match, men or women, damaged the image of the tournament and would prevent people from tuning in.

While FIFA claimed the expansion to 32 teams would raise the standard of the women’s game across the world, I questioned whether a bottom-up approach with a focus on grassroots football would be more effective.

But I must make a public admission. I was wrong. Well, partly.

The expansion of the Women’s World Cup to 32 teams has been one of the best things about this year’s tournament.

While there still have been one-sided scorelines, with Spain and Japan both beating Zambia 5-0, and Germany thrashing Morocco 6-0, these matches have still felt competitive.

In these encounters, the lower-ranked teams have not rolled over and capitulated, but rather lost because they were subject to unstoppable attacking football from their opponents.

In other fixtures, debutant teams have more than held their own against sides much higher in the world rankings.

Haiti frustrated European champions England in their opening match of Group D, and although they lost 1-0, their performance warranted at least a draw.

Ireland caused trouble for both co-hosts Australia and Olympic champions Canada, while Vietnam restricted the US to only a 3-0 victory.

Both Portugal and the Philippines have recorded wins during their debut appearance at the Women’s World Cup, against Vietnam and co-hosts New Zealand, respectively.

Essentially, it has been the most competitive Women’s World Cup yet, a tribute to the rising standard of women’s football across the globe.

I said my argument against the expansion of the Women’s World Cup to 32 teams was only partly wrong, however, and that is because it has not necessarily led to increased investment from governing bodies.

In fact, many of the most impressive performances at this year’s tournament have been in spite of adequate funding and resources, rather than because of it.

Nigeria stunned Australia, a team 30 places higher in FIFA’s world rankings, with a 3-1 victory in Group B, putting the Matildas' progression into the knockout stages at risk.

But the Super Falcons were actually considering a boycott of the Women’s World Cup on the eve of the tournament, after the Nigeria Football Federation told the players they would not be paid match bonuses.

Manager Randy Waldrum had already gone on record to complain about unpaid wages to players, chaotic travel arrangements, interference in selection decisions and the cancellation of a pre-tournament meet-up, painting a picture of discontent in the Nigerian camp.

Or how about Jamaica, who held France to a gutsy 0-0 draw, despite going down to 10 players after star striker Bunny Shaw was sent off.

The Reggae Girlz had to crowdfund their journey to Australia due to a lack of support from the Jamaica Football Federation.

As such, while the expansion of the Women’s World Cup has worked out, the increased chance of qualifying for the tournament does not seem to have encouraged governing bodies to step up and support its women’s team appropriately.

It is possible that it has actually had the opposite effect. Opening up more places at the Women’s World Cup could well have reduced the incentive for governing bodies to put everything into ensuring their team qualifies for the tournament, simply because the process now may be easier.

Regardless, the 2023 Women’s World Cup can certainly be deemed to be an enormous success so far.

I have been based in Sydney since the start of the tournament and have been pleasantly surprised by the buzz around the city.

Perhaps this is because of my experience of France at the 2019 Women’s World Cup. I was only in the country briefly during the tournament, but there was little sign of a major sporting event taking place, even in one of the host cities, Nice.

In contrast, the main streets in Sydney are flanked by Women’s World Cup flags, while a giant football has been plonked in the middle of Martin Place. Advertising adorns buses and other public transport, while there are prominent signs letting ticket holders know they are able to travel to matches for free.

The attendance figures have been astonishing, too. The average attendance across Australia and New Zealand has been around 27,000, with records falling in both countries.

New Zealand’s opener against Norway was attended by 42,137, the biggest crowd in the country's football history.

Australia’s first match against Ireland had to be moved to a stadium with a higher capacity due to the demand for tickets, with 75,784 fans turning out on the day.

But it has been most impressive to see the less high-profile matches also attract thousands of spectators. I attended Colombia versus South Korea at 12pm on a weekday, when people should have been at work or school. But a crowd of 24,323 filled Sydney Football Stadium, creating one of the best atmospheres of the tournament so far.

These attendances have started to become the norm back in Europe. The current record crowd for a Women’s Super League match is 47,367, set at the Emirates for the North London Derby, while Barcelona have attracted crowds of 90,000 plus to Camp Nou for Women’s Champions League encounters.

It is therefore easy to forget the significance of such high attendances in women’s football, but it must not be forgotten that these huge crowds are only a recent development, and it has been an astonishing achievement to attract thousands of fans on a consistent basis during the World Cup.

My only real gripe is the broadcasting situation here in Australia. Just a handful of matches are available on free-to-air TV during the tournament. The rest are on subscription-only Optus Sport, shutting off an audience who are not willing to pay to watch the matches on TV and cannot make it to the stadium to watch in person.

Perhaps I am spoiled by the broadcasting of every major international football tournament on free-to-air channels in England, but it does seem to be an oversight from FIFA when they struck a deal with Optus.

It will also be interesting to see what happens if Australia or New Zealand – or even both teams – exit the tournament at the group stage.

The progression of both sides hangs in the balance after defeats against Nigeria and the Philippines, respectively. Australia has a must-win match against Canada on Monday (July 31), while New Zealand need to beat Switzerland.

The impact of a home country going far in a tournament was clear to see after England won Euro 2022, with the surge of interest in women’s football far beyond what even the most optimistic could have dreamed off.

For the sake of the women’s game in this part of the world, it would be significant if at least one of the host countries could embark on a lengthy run into the knockouts.

Interest in the tournament could well fizzle out here if the Matildas exit tomorrow, but for now, both Australia and New Zealand can be proud of a well-organised, engaging and exciting Women’s World Cup so far.