According to Gianni Infantino, the reasoning behind Fifa’s decision to expand number of teams at the Women’s World Cup from 24 to 32 is twofold: to further capitalise on the growth of women’s football around the world, and to incentivise more member associations to “organise their women’s football programme knowing they have a realistic chance of qualifying”.

The Fifa president added that “we all have a duty to do the groundwork and strengthen women’s football development infrastructure across all confederations.” These are noble aims, but they are also unrealistic.

Reporting on the 2019 Women's World Cup: 'It was a turning point' Read more

Specifically, this decision seems to ignore the structural problems that exist within and across various federations, as well as within Fifa itself; problems of investment, transparency, and accountability that overwhelmingly affect women’s football at grassroots and national levels.

During this year’s World Cup in France, the Nigerian national team threatened to stage a sit-in protest at their hotel over unpaid bonuses and allowances after they were knocked out of the last 16. Some of the outstanding payments dated back to 2016. While the Nigerian Football Federation eventually released the money to its players, it was the third time since 2004 that the Super Falcons have protested against their confederation over lack of payment and entitlements.

Thailand’s 13-0 defeat to eventual champions USA highlighted the gulf between teams that are appropriately funded (and even that is debatable) and teams that are not. Thailand’s loss underscored the role of team manager and main benefactor Nualphan Lamsam, whose financial support has allowed the team to train and compete on the world stage. Thailand does not even have a domestic women’s league, so players must work second jobs – many in Lamsam’s own company – while training for national team competitions.

While Argentina’s men’s team is one of the most decorated and has boasted some of history’s greatest players, their women’s team was so under-funded by their federation that they did not play a single game between 2015 and 2017. Fifa even removed Argentina from the world rankings due to inactivity. After failing to qualify for the 2015 World Cup, head coach Carlos Borello was fired and not replaced for two years, while the players regularly went without being paid for their work. Many took to social media to protest their treatment by the AFF, including captain Estefanía Banini, who has consequently been excluded from the 2019 Pan-American Games for her public comments criticising the federation .

Similarly, Jamaica’s women’s national team, who made their first ever appearance at a World Cup this year, were completely disbanded in 2008 due to lack of funding. In 2014, Bob Marley’s daughter Cedella took things into her own hands, raising money for the team to re-form and train together. Despite this, the Jamaican Football Federation disbanded the team again in 2016, a year after also dissolving its women’s league. Neither Jamaica’s head coach Hue Menzies, nor any of his coaching staff, have ever been paid by the JFF, making their appearance at the World Cup all the more remarkable.

It is not that these federations aren’t able to invest in their women’s programs. It’s that they choose not to.

According to Fifa’s Forward 2.0 programme, every member federation is entitled to money from Fifa. However, to receive the maximum amount of funding, federations must meet a certain number of criteria that includes investment in women’s football. This criteria includes: a) organising a regular, nation-wide women’s competition that lasts over a period of six months, involves at least 10 teams, and plays at least 90 matches; b) has an active women’s A national team that plays at least four official or friendly matches in one calendar year; c) organises regular, nation-wide girls’ competitions in at least two age categories with the same specifications as the women’s competition; and d) has active girls’ national teams in at least two age categories who play at least four games per calendar year. Federations that are identified as “needing the most assistance,” meaning they produce less than $4m per year in revenue, can also apply for extra funding as long as they meet the above criteria.

Whether federations choose to unlock this extra funding by ticking these women’s football boxes is another issue entirely. Fifa seems to believe that adding eight extra spots to the World Cup will inspire these federations to reform and begin investing appropriate amounts into their women’s programs.

But if Fifa couldn’t guarantee that allocated funds were given to the women’s teams of the 24 nations that qualified for the 2019 tournament, who’s to say the eight extra teams will do anything different? Indeed, if all nations now have a mathematically likelier chance of qualifying by virtue of the expanded format, why would they change anything at all?

Don’t get me wrong – I hope they do. I hope Infantino is right and that all these federations see the 2023 World Cup, the pinnacle of women’s football, as an achievable goal, and that they all implement long-term, sustainable strategies to get there.

But growing the women’s game globally requires more work than simply setting up a few extra chairs at the table. While there is definitely merit to the idea of using World Cup qualification to incentivise federations to invest in their women’s programs, the stories that came out of this year’s tournament – of teams succeeding despite their federations, not because of them – proves that incentives in the form of a few extra World Cup spots is not enough.