Talk:2019 FIFA Women's World Cup final

Possibly worth mentioning
S.A. Julio (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * After semi-final win, U.S. set new Women's World Cup record for the longest winning streak (11 matches, previous record of 10 by Norway from 1995 to 1999) and longest undefeated streak (16 matches, previous record of 15 by Germany from 2003 to 2011) (shootouts counted as draws)
 * U.S. have never lost when they have scored first in a Women's World Cup match (lost on penalties in 2011 final, but counted as draw)
 * U.S. hasn't trailed all tournament, has scored in the opening 12 minutes of all 6 matches
 * Naeher became the first U.S. goalkeeper to save a (non-shootout) penalty at the Women's World Cup
 * U.S. undefeated in 73 matches in which Morgan has scored
 * 24 goals in total for the U.S., one short of Women's World Cup record of 25 from 1991 (US) and 2003 (Germany)
 * In semi-final, Morgan becomes first player in Women's World Cup to score on birthday
 * Rapinoe expects to return from injury for final
 * U.S. entered tournament as 1st in FIFA Women's World Rankings
 * Other stats for the Dutch
 * Prize money  Sounder Bruce  06:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Venue section content
Thank you for your work in preparing this article, but I still have to disagree on the size of the Venue section. The further template and links are there for a reason, and this should be a short summary of the stadium's general uses in the context of sports. The construction details (including cost) are not relevant, and the amount of detail given to men's competitions is frankly overbearing. I can assure you that the 2026 final's entry won't have nearly as much detail on the Rose Bowl's previous uses at the Women's World Cup or CONCACAF Women's tournaments, because some degree of separation is needed.  Sounder Bruce  04:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A brief mention of the construction dates and cost seem relevant enough in a background on the stadium, similar to 2018 FIFA World Cup Final. I've further compacted the use of the stadium in other sports, I'd say the section is hardly excessive. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks better, but now you're re-adding a ton of redundant information and links to the Background section. If a record has been broken, it can (and has been) properly mentioned in the Post-match section. There's also no need to add long proseline lists of statistics, as that's not the goal of this project. They must tie into the text and flow properly.  Sounder Bruce  04:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

U.S. team coverage
There were a lot of headlines around this U.S. team, including Rapinoe refusing to visit the WH (along with Morgan) and the presidential/outside response (partially connected to her past of anthem kneeling/not singing), along with accusations of the team's arrogance and the alleged "sypgate" on England's hotel. Any of this worth mentioning? S.A. Julio (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be too much, but would probably fit in the post-match section (especially with the President's response). Same goes for much of the stats that have been added to the end of the Team descriptions, which should be saved and modified based on how the result goes.  Sounder Bruce  15:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Prior meetings
According to US Soccer and their media guide, the match is the 8th meeting between the U.S. and the Netherlands. However, Dutch sources seem to include an additional match, a 3–1 Dutch win in a friendly on 18 April 1996 in San Diego (listed on the unsourced nlwiki article). Apparently Daniëlle Korbmacher scored a hat-trick, though I can't seem to find any English sources regarding the match. For now this probably shouldn't be included in the total since the U.S. don't seem to recognise it, possibly the American side was a "B" team. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not seeing anything from my newspaper databases (which include the local papers in San Diego). The American Soccer History Archives don't show a match on that day, but do show a 6–0 win over the Dutch played two days later, so perhaps it was a scrimmage.  Sounder Bruce  15:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the match report from the KNVB. Apparently Cindy Parlow scored for the U.S. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Forbes on lower revenue = lower pay, if Forbes isn’t reliable then, what is?
In displaying the disparity in revenue generated between the men’s and the women’s game which causes the pay disparity, Mike Ozanain of Forbes states. “When viewed appropriately—based on how much money they generate—women actually make more than men.“ What is wrong with this source? Since when was Forbes not permitted? And if not Forbes, what is? The article as it sits now with claims of “unfair pay” is horribly biased and one sided without any counter to it. What the article also doesn’t touch on (which publications have) is the disparity in number of fans, merchandise, and depth/quality of teams between the men’s and the women’s game. The women’s game is in its infancy. Falconi MK (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:INTEXT applies and we should also look at more than just one person's take on the issue. There are excellent articles on the pay disparity and looks into the USSF's finances that should be taken into account, and they should be included in the USWNT or USSF entries rather than here. Secondly, Forbes has a lot of "contributors" who write blogspam under the Forbes umbrella, so they are not exactly slam-dunk reliable (see WP:RSP).  Sounder Bruce  00:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the issue. In terms of the content of this article right now though, doesn’t it have one persons take on it? (or more than a few with opinions from the same side chiming in). In terms of balance surely a rebuttal of their take on it is required? Falconi MK (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)