"You can't be what you can't see," Sport Minister Yvette Berry usually says.

That's why the government snubbed the men's Twenty20 cricket World Cup to instead spend its money on hosting five games for the women's tournament.

It's why the government has been long-term supporters of Canberra United and the Canberra Capitals.

But this week we arrived at talk about the FIFA women's World Cup and Australia's bid to host the tournament in 2023.

Imagine if Australia's bid is successful. Imagine a nation going wild with Matildas fever and visitors from around the world flocking to the country to watch the best international players.

And imagine Canberra, the self-proclaimed "capital of women's sport", playing absolutely no part in one of the biggest events in the world.

Just last week Berry was preaching the growth of women's sport in Canberra and the government's initiative to have greater female representation on club and association boards.

"You can't be what you can't see," Berry said again in reference to the increase in female directors.

MORE CANBERRA SPORT

Perhaps that's why many are still scratching their heads after the government's decision to withdraw from Australia's World Cup bid.

A potential schedule clash at Canberra Stadium was used as one of the reasons. The cost of hosting games is another.

The ACT could have hosted up to six games, which would have cost millions of dollars but after consultation with Capital Football, they decided to invest in a $24.5 million football facility in Throsby.

The overall deal included securing regular Socceroos and Matildas content to the capital rather than spending their money on a one-hit tournament.

But what's the cost of being invisible during the World Cup?

More than 80 million people watched the World Cup final between the United States and Netherlands earlier this year.

That figure was a 56 per cent increase on the audience for the same game in 2015. Fast forward another four years and that number is expected to grow again.

The Matildas set a new record crowd for a women's international in Australia after defeating Chile in front of more than 20,000 fans at Parramatta Stadium earlier this month.

It came just days after the FFA announced a landmark collective bargaining agreement which sees the top-tiered Matildas players earning the same amount as the Socceroos for their international duties.

Imagine championing Sam Kerr and the Matildas in the capital after they instigated one of the most significant moves toward achieving pay parity and professionalising women's football.

But how can junior girls in Canberra aspire to be something they won't get a chance to see in their own backyard?

The World Cup is worth the investment, despite the price tag.

The face of women's sport has changed so much in the past five years and the logical next step to grow opportunities for female athletes is to increase the viewing price.

Some women's competitions are still in the situation of paying to have their games broadcast on television.

If Canberra isn't a part of the World Cup bid, are we saying female soccer is only worth it if it's cheap?

Would this be the case for a men's World Cup bid? The ACT government once considered building a 45,000 seat stadium so it could be included in Australia's men's World Cup bid.

But on other hand, it's hard to criticise the government because it does invest a lot in women's sport. Canberra United and the Capitals receive yearly funding and the Australian Opals, women's golf, Matildas and Australian women's cricket side regularly play here.

There will be eight women's international cricket matches at Manuka Oval in January and February, thanks to government funding.

Twenty20 World Cup organisers hope to attract sell-out crowds, including 100,000 for the final at the MCG. Canberra will feel a part of that.

But if the soccer World Cup comes to Australia ... we won't be able to see it.