If they made the goals smaller, Lauren James wouldn't have scored a goal of beauty in midweek. She knows the power the keeper has, and that affects how she hits her 30 yard effort, into the top corner.
There's no doubt a lot of differing reasons for the broadcasting and corporate support.
An altruistic view would be the broadcasters embracing a rapidly growing sport, aimed towards not only women, but an already broad, very successful, football audience.
Corporate sponsors also see the massive benefits in supporting that rapidly growing sport, from top to bottom, where they're already supporting the men's game.
A realistic view is that they know that it showcases their name, for less money, to a lot more people/ potential customers/ viewers.
A more cynical view is that having finally realised how racist, sexist and elitist they've been since their inception, broadcasters and companies are being well and truly hoisted by their own publicised values, marketing and HR policies.
It's the absence of it, for all those years, that makes it seem like there's a disproportionate amount.
And the other reasons. I think all of the above, and more, are at work.
If exposure/ sponsorship is to reflect participants/ attendees, then arguably women's football gets a lot of front page coverage.
But football is broader than that in our society. The above points show why it's getting more exposure.
As for the game, I really enjoy it. Different physical attributes changing modern tactics, makes it really interesting ( that Lauren James goal for example). Full bloodied play, with practically zero time wasting or fakery.
I don't really get the standard thing. I don't go to my local team, comparing them to Barcelona. I go to see two competitive teams put in a good game. I'm perfectly fine watching women's football.
It's often smaller grounds, with good atmospheres which I really like too.
It's one where had it not been for the level of publicity, I'd not be watching it now. So, I'm really glad they did it.