The USWNT has filed a motion in its equal pay lawsuit asking the judge to forgo a trial and award the players $67 million in back pay. U.S. Soccer, on the other hand, has asked for the case to be dismissed. (Photo by Maddie Meyer - FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images)

In a pair of dueling motions filed late Thursday, the U.S. women’s national team and the U.S. Soccer Federation both sought to finally put an end to the ongoing wage discrimination dispute that has lingered since 2016. The USWNT has asked the judge to forgo a trial and rule in their favor, while U.S. Soccer has asked for the case to be dismissed.

The USWNT is seeking back pay of nearly $67 million, arguing that U.S. Soccer made compensation decisions based purely on “gender stereotyping,” citing depositions from former U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati and current president Carlos Cordeiro.

U.S. Soccer, meanwhile, argues that the USWNT players have been paid under the exact structure they sought in collective bargaining negotiations and the players “asked for a very different contract” that offered them benefits the men didn’t get in their contracts.

The motions, which were filed as part of a procedural deadline, set the stage for a possible trial just as the USWNT will be preparing to go to Japan for the 2020 Olympics.

While there is no specific timeline for the judge to decide what to do with each side’s argument, the judge in this case, R. Gary Klausner, has tended to keep things moving at a steady pace. After all, both sides of the case had asked for a trial to be set well after the Olympics, but the judge set it for May 5, three months before the Olympics begin.

If the judge does not agree with either of these motions, the next step is to proceed with a trial, unless the two sides can give mediation another chance.

The USWNT’s side

Retroactive pay

The USWNT’s lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment, which means the judge would find the players had been discriminated against without the need to go to trial. As part of that, they filed a lengthy analysis determining the women were due up to $67 million in retroactive pay.

That $67 million figure is, in some ways, at the heart of this dispute. U.S. Soccer would probably be willing to settle this lawsuit for some sort of payout, but that figure is eye-popping considering U.S. Soccer plans to spend around $143 million total this year and lose about $20 million in the process. A $67 million hit would be significant.

The way the USWNT’s legal team arrived at that number is by taking the U.S. men’s national team CBA and applying it to the performance of players on the USWNT.

There’s no question that the men’s team earns larger game bonuses. The men can earn as much as much as $17,625 per game if they win, whereas contracted USWNT players can’t earn more than $8,500. That could account for some differences in pay because the women play a lot of games – and win a lot of games – whereas the men do not.

But one flaw in applying the men’s CBA to the women, which U.S. Soccer will surely push back on, is that a significant chunk of that money will have come from bonuses determined by FIFA.

The USMNT, as a team, can earn up to around $25 million if it wins the World Cup, in large part because FIFA would give U.S. Soccer $34 million as a prize. But U.S. Soccer has only agreed to give the women $2.5 million because FIFA offers such a smaller prize for the Women’s World Cup. It appears the USWNT is, in this specific example, holding U.S. Soccer responsible for FIFA’s discrimination against women.

View photos U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro is a key figure in the USWNT's equal pay lawsuit.. (Photo by Emilee Chinn/Getty Images) More

Proof of discrimination

First, the USWNT seeks to establish that even representatives of the U.S. Soccer Federation believed the women had been discriminated against.

They cite a deposition where current president Carlos Cordeiro confirms that his campaign platform called for, in part: “Equal resources for our women’s program from the coaching staff to the training facilities to the travel accommodations. We don’t need to wait for CBA negotiations to make these changes. We can start now. It’s the right thing to do.”

Story continues