Alex Morgan et al v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Docket No. 2_19-cv-01717 (C.D. Cal. Mar 08, 2019), Court Docket

Multiple Documents

Part

Description

1

32 pages

2

Statement of Uncontroverted Facts

3

Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden

4

Exhibit 1 - Tom King Deposition Excerpts

5

Exhibit 2 - 2013-2016 Memorandum of Understanding

6

Exhibit 3 - 2005-2012 Collective Bargaining Agreement

7

Exhibit 4 - 2017-2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement

8

Exhibit 5 - 2011-2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement

9

Exhibit 6 - John Langel Depostion Excerpts

10

Exhibit 7 - 2004 John Langel Letter

11

Exhibit 8 - Redacted Document

12

Exhibit 9 - Excerpts from CBA Meeting Notes

13

Exhibit 10 - Sunil Gulati 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts

14

Exhibit 11 - Redacted Document

15

Exhibit 12 - Redacted Document

16

Exhibit 13 - ESPN Article

17

Exhibit 14 - Praptika Raina Deposition Excerpts

18

Exhibit 15 - WNT Match Spreadsheet

19

Exhibit 16 - Jill Ellis Deposition Excerpts

20

Exhibit 17 - Alex Morgan Excerpts

21

Exhibit 18 - Carli Lloyd Deposition Excerpts

22

Exhibit 19 - Sunil Gulati Deposition Excerpts

23

Exhibit 20 - Redacted Document

24

Exhibit 21 - MNT Match Spreadsheet

25

Exhibit 22 - USSF's 1.31.2020 Supplemental Responses

26

Exhibit 23 - USSF Organization Chart

27

Exhibit 24 - Excerpts from 2020 AGM Book of Reports

28

Exhibit 25 - USSF 5.31.2016 Letter to EEOC

29

Exhibit 26 - Redacted Document

30

Exhibit 27 - Redacted Document

31

Exhibit 28 - Redacted Document

32

Exhibit 29 - Megan Rapinoe Deposition Excerpts

33

Exhibit 30 - Rich Nichols Deposition Excerpts

34

Exhibit 31 - Redacted Document

35

Exhibit 32 - Net Revenue Chart

36

Exhibit 33 - Sunil Gulati Deposition Excerpts

37

Request for Judicial Notice

38

Exhibit 1 - USSF Website re WNT

39

Exhibit 2 - Congress Webpage

Alex Morgan et al v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Docket No. 2_19-cv-01717 (C.D. Cal. Mar 08, 2019), Court Docket

40

Exhibit 3 - MNT PA Statement

41 Exhibit 4 - EEOC Webpage

42 Exhibit 5 - USSF Safe Soccer Framework

43 Proposed Order

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:2178

1 Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice) jkessler@winston.com
2 David G. Feher (pro hac vice) dfeher@winston.com
3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166
4 Tel: (212) 294-6700 Fax: (212) 294-4700
5 Cardelle B. Spangler (pro hac vice)
6 cspangler@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
7 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 558-5600
8 Fax: (312) 558-5700

9 Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606) dhleiden@winston.com
10 Lev Tsukerman (SBN: 319184) ltsukerman@winston.com
11 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071
12 Tel: (213) 615-1700 Fax: (213) 615-1750
13 Jeanifer E. Parsigian (SBN: 289001)
14 jparsigian@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
15 101 California St., 35th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (491) 591-1000
16 Fax: (491) 591-1400

17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20 ALEX MORGAN ET AL.,

Case No. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

21

Plaintiffs/Claimants, Assigned to: Judge R. Gary Klausner

22 vs.

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF

MOTION AND MOTION FOR

23 UNITED STATES SOCCER

PARTIAL SUMMARY

FEDERATION, INC.,

JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF

24

Defendant/Respondent. POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN

SUPPORT

25

Date: March 30, 2020

26

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 850

27

28

1 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:2179

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2 TO THE COURT, DEFENDANT, AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on March 30, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon

4 thereafter as counsel may be heard by the above-entitled court, located at 255 East

5 Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, on the eighth floor in Courtroom 850, before

6 the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court for an

7 order granting partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs.

8

Plaintiffs bring this motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56 on

9 the grounds that they are entitled to summary judgment on Defendant’s liability under

10 the Equal Pay Act, for compensation-based discrimination under Title VII, and

11 Defendant’s First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth affirmative defenses. In the

12 alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this motion with respect to any of the

13 individual elements of their EPA and Title VII claims, and with respect to any of

14 USSF’s affirmative defenses, that the Court finds appropriate for summary adjudication

15 in order to streamline the issues to be determined by the jury at trial.

16

Plaintiffs’ Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the

17 accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Statement of Uncontroverted

18 Facts and Conclusions of Law, the Request for Judicial Notice and exhibits attached

19 thereto, the Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden and the exhibits attached thereto, the

20 pleadings and papers on file herein, other records on file in this matter, and any further

21 material and argument presented to the Court at the time of the hearing.

22

This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule

23 7-3, which took place on February 11, 2020.

24

25 Dated: February 20, 2020 26 27 28

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler Jeffrey L. Kessler Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:2180

1
2 I. 3 II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page (s)
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................. 3

4 III. LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................... 4

5 IV. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................ 5

6

A. Plaintiffs are Entitled to Summary Judgment that USSF Violated the

Equal Pay Act.............................................................................................5

7

1. The Undisputed Facts Show that Plaintiffs Were Paid at a Rate

8

Less than the MNT Players..............................................................5

9

2. The Undisputed Facts Show that the Jobs of WNT and MNT

Players Require Equal Skill, Effort, and Responsibility ................. 9 10
3. The Undisputed Facts Establish that WNT Players Perform their

11

Jobs Under Similar Working Conditions as MNT Players for a

12

Single Establishment......................................................................12

13

4. USSF Cannot Meet its Burden to Prove Any of Its Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ EPA Claim ................................................ 13

14

a USSF Cannot Meet its Burden to Establish that Revenue

15

Differences Justified the Difference in the Rate of Pay

Between the MNT Players and WNT Players.....................14

16 b USSF Cannot Justify its Discrimination on the Grounds that

17

the WNT and MNT Have Different Unions and Bargaining

18

Units..................................................................................... 16

19

c The Ted Stevens Act and USOC Exclusive Jurisdiction Are Not Defenses in This Case .................................................. 17

20

d USSF’s Other Affirmative Defenses Fail............................18

21

B. Plaintiffs Are Similarly Entitled to Summary Judgment that USSF

22

Subjected Them to Sex-Based Compensation Discrimination in Violation

of Title VII ............................................................................................... 19

23

1. Plaintiffs Have Produced Direct Evidence of USSF’s Sex-Based

24

Compensation Discrimination ....................................................... 20

25 26 27 28 V.

2. Plaintiffs Also Have Established Indirect Evidence of USSF’s SexBased Compensation Discrimination ............................................ 24
3. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on USSF’s Affirmative Defenses to their Title VII Claim .............................. 24
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 25

i PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:2181

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases

Page(s)

3

Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.,

4

415 U.S. 36 (1974)................................................................................................... 24

5 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

6

477 U.S. 242 (1986)................................................................................................... 4

7 Bence v. Detroit Health Corp.,

8

712 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................. 8, 11

9 Burkey v. Marshall County Bd. of Education,

10

513 F. Supp. 1084 (N.D.W.Va. 1981)..................................................................... 10

11 City of Los Angeles, Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978)................................................................................................. 22
12

13

Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co., 413 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 20

14

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan,

15

417 U.S. 188 (1974)..................................................................................... 12, 13, 17

16 Ebbert v. Nassau Cty.,

17

2009 WL 935812 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) ............................................................ 8

18 EEOC v. BNSF Railway Cmpny.,

19

902 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................... 18

20 Enlow v. Salem–Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc.,

21

389 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 20

22 Gunther v. Washington Cnty., 623 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1979) ............................................................................. 9, 10
23

24 Harper v. City of San Jose, 2011 WL 7109218 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011) ............................................................ 4

25

Lee v. U.S. Taekwondo Union,

26

331 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Haw. 2004)..................................................................... 18

27

28

ii PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:2182

1 Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc.,

2

944 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................... 19

3 Lewis v. Smith,

4

255 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (D. Ariz. 2003) ..................................................................... 24

5 Marcoux v. State of Maine ............................................................................................ 10 797 F.2d 1100, 1102 (1st Cir. 1986)......................................................................... 10
6

7

Maxwell v. City of Tucson, 1984 WL 21130 (9th Cir. July 3, 1984) .................................................................... 9

8

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

9

411 U.S. 792 (1973)................................................................................................. 23

10 Metoyer v. Chassman,

11

504 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................... 23

12 Mickelson v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.,

13

460 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 5

14 Mulhall v. Advance Sec, Inc.,

15

19F.3d 586, 591 (11th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 13

16 Perdue v. City University of New York, 13 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) ....................................................................... 10
17

18

Portis v. First Nat’l Bank of New Albany, Miss., 34 F.3d 325 (1st Cir. 1994)...................................................................................... 23

19

Rehwaldt v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp.,

20

1996 WL 947568 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 1996) ......................................................... 13

21 Rivera v. Philip Morris, Inc.,

22

395 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................... 4

23 Samuels v. We’ve Only Just Begun Wedding Chapel, Inc.,

24

154 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (D. Nev. 2015) ..................................................................... 23

25 Shultz v. First Victoria Nat. Bank,

26

420 F.2d 648 (5th Cir. 1969) ................................................................................... 11

27 Sischo–Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. College Dist., 934 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................. 23
28

iii PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:2183

1 Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston,

2

469 U.S. 111 (1985)................................................................................................. 23

3 UMWA Health & Ret. Fund v. Robinson,

4

455 U.S. 562 (1982)................................................................................................. 25

5 Vasquez v. Cty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................... 20
6 7 Statutes

8 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) ..................................................................................................... 5

9 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)(iv).............................................................................................. 13

10 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) ........................................................................................................ 18
11 36 U.S.C. § 220527....................................................................................................... 17 12
42 U.S.C. § 2000e ................................................................................................... 19, 24 13 14 Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act ........................................................ 17, 18
15 Civil Rights Act of 1964 title VII .......................................................................... passim

16 Equal Pay Act ........................................................................................................ passim

17 Other Authorities
18 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9(b) ................................................................................................... 12 19
29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(c) ................................................................................................... 9 20 21 29 C.F.R. § 1620.15 ........................................................................................................ 9
22 29 C.F.R. § 1620.16 ........................................................................................................ 9

23 29 C.F.R. § 1620.17 ........................................................................................................ 9

24 29 C.F.R. § 1620.18(a) ................................................................................................. 12
25 29 C.F.R. § 1620.23 ...................................................................................................... 16
26 29 C.F.R. § 1620.27 ................................................................................................ 19, 24
27
28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................... 4

iv PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:2184

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

2 I. 3

INTRODUCTION This is the rare case where it is Plaintiffs who are entitled to summary judgment

4 in a wage discrimination case because the undisputed fact of the rate of pay

5 discrimination against the female employees is contained in written collective

6 bargaining agreements and the common defendant employer has not come forward with

7 evidence to meet its burden of proving that this indisputable discrimination is the result

8 of a cause other than gender or that any other affirmative defenses apply. By deciding

9 these issues on summary judgment, the Court will streamline this class action for trial,

10 so that the jury will only have to determine the amount of the damages suffered by class

11 members as a result of the wage discrimination; whether the standards for liquidated

12 damages (under the Equal Pay Act) or punitive damages (under Title VII) have been

13 met, and, if so, what those damages should be; and whether USSF also has violated

14 Title VII with respect to terms and conditions of employment other than pay. There are

15 no genuine issues of fact to prevent the core issues of USSF’s liability for wage

16 discrimination from being decided in Plaintiffs’ favor now.

17

Nor is this surprising. Plaintiffs in this case are members of the United States

18 Senior Women’s National Soccer Team (“WNT”), four-time World Cup and Olympic

19 champions who—in the words of USSF—are the “best athletes in the world” and “one

20 of the most dominant squads in the history of sport – men or women.”1 Their

21 comparators—the members of the United States Senior Men’s National Soccer Team

22 (“MNT”)—do the same job, for the same employer, but have not been nearly as

23 successful. Despite the WNT’s unbridled success on the field and the undisputed fact

24 that these women brought in more revenue than the MNT during the class period, USSF

25 stubbornly continues to discriminate against Plaintiffs by compensating them at a lesser

26 rate of pay for equal work.

27 1 See Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. 1
28 (https://www.ussoccer.com/teams/uswnt).

1 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:2185

1

Indeed, USSF’s entrenched discriminatory practice persists even in the face of a

2 bi-partisan, unanimous Senate2 and, more recently, the MNT itself, calling for an end

3 to the discrimination. The MNT has issued a statement that it does not know of any

4 factual basis to justify this wage discrimination against the members of the WNT and

5 has urged USSF to rectify it:

6

For more than 20 years, the Federation has resisted any concept of equal

7

pay or basic economic fairness for the USWNT players … This is

8

systematic gender discrimination that should have never happened …

9

What we believe should happen is simple. Pay the women significantly

10

more than our recently expired men’s deal. In our estimation, the women

11

were due at least triple what our expired deal was worth in player

12

compensation.3

13 And even the President of USSF, Carlos Cordeiro, has admitted, both publicly (in 2017

14 and 2018 when he ran for President) and at his deposition in this case, that Plaintiffs

15 have been subjected to discriminatory treatment in comparison to the MNT, that

16 everyone deserves equal pay for equal work, and that changes should be made

17 immediately to rectify the discrimination that he believes exists:

18

Our women’s teams should be respected and valued as much as our men’s

19

teams, but our female players have not been treated equally.

20

***

21

I’m a strong supporter of greater equality, diversity and inclusion

22

throughout U.S. Soccer, and we clearly need to work toward equal pay

23

for the national teams. I believe that where existing agreements are unfair,

24

adjustments should be made immediately. To ensure equal pay going

25

forward, we need to be open to new paradigms while recognizing the

26 2 See RJN, Ex. 2 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate27 resolution/462/text).
3 See RJN, Ex. 3 (https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt28 2017-2021-cba.html).

2 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:2186

1

specific needs and desires of the WNT and MNT. . . [w]e don’t need to

2

wait for CBA negotiations to make these changes; we can start now. It’s

3

the right thing to do. (SUF No. 20–21.)

4

When USSF tried to contest the fact of its wage discrimination in opposition to

5 class certification, the best it could muster was a methodology so flawed that this Court

6 not only rejected it, but found that it would lead to “absurd” results. Yet, this is the

7 same absurd methodology that USSF is now seeking to introduce at trial to once again 8 try to dispute the existence of a rate of pay discrimination that simply cannot be denied.4

9

Nor has USSF come forward with any evidence sufficient to meet its burden of

10 proving a justification based on revenue or profit generation, or any other non-gender-

11 based justification, for its wage discrimination. To the contrary, USSF’s records show

12 that during the class period (June 11, 2015 forward) the WNT has generated more

13 revenue and has earned a larger profit for USSF than the MNT. (SUF No. 55–57.)

14

In sum, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the post hoc justifications offered

15 by USSF for paying WNT players less than MNT players for the same work are based

16 not on actual facts that USSF relied upon when making compensation decisions, but on

17 gender stereotyping—such as the assertion by former USSF President Sunil Gulati that

18 male soccer players have more “speed” and “strength”—that the EPA and Title VII

19 were designed to eliminate as a basis for wage discrimination. (SUF No. 66.) This is

20 precisely the type of indisputable fact record in which summary judgment on liability

21 in favor of the Plaintiffs is warranted as a matter of sound judicial administration, so

22 that the Court can narrow the remaining issues for an efficient and just trial.

23 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24

In April 2016, the four class representatives in this case, Alex Morgan, Megan

25 Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, and Carli Lloyd, each filed a Charge of Discrimination

26 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against USSF,

27

28 4 See Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Expert Testimony.

3 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:2187

1 alleging sex-based compensation discrimination. Dkt. No. 2. These charges were

2 timely brought within 300 days of the discriminatory action. On February 5, 2019, the

3 EEOC issued Right to Sue letters to each of the four Plaintiffs. Id. Plaintiffs timely

4 filed the Complaint on March 8, 2019 (within the 90-day window to assert claims),

5 alleging violations of Title VII as well as the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”). Dkt. No. 1.

6

On November 8, 2019, this Court certified two classes of Plaintiffs seeking relief

7 under Title VII: (1) an injunctive relief class of “all WNT players on the team as of the

8 date of final judgment, or the date of the resolution of any appeals therefrom, whichever

9 is later;” and (2) a damages class of “all WNT players who were members of the WNT

10 at any time from February 4, 2015 (later amended by stipulation to June 11, 2015)

11 through the date of class certification.” Dkt. Nos. 98, 123. The Court also granted

12 conditional certification of Plaintiffs’ collective action seeking relief under the EPA,

13 made up of “all WNT players who were members of the WNT at any time from March

14 8, 2016 through the present.” Id. The Court appointed Morgan, Rapinoe, Sauerbrunn,

15 and Lloyd as the class representatives and Winston & Strawn LLP as class counsel. Id.

16 III. LEGAL STANDARD

17

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine issue

18 of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.

19 R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The

20 moving party is entitled to summary judgment unless there is “evidence on which a jury

21 could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Id. at 252; Rivera v. Philip Morris,

22 Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, a motion for partial summary

23 judgment is the appropriate vehicle to determine less than all of the issues in the case,

24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), and has been found by courts in this circuit to be an efficient

25 method to streamline the issues to be presented to the jury. See Harper v. City of San

26 Jose, No. C 09-05758 JW, 2011 WL 7109218, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011) (“[A]

27 party may move for summary judgment on the liability issues in a claim, leaving the

28 issue of damages, for example, for trial.”).

4 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:2188

1 IV. ARGUMENT

2

A. Plaintiffs are Entitled to Summary Judgment that USSF Violated the

3

Equal Pay Act

4

The Equal Pay Act provides that a common employer, such as USSF, cannot

5 “discriminate … between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees

6 in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees

7 of the opposite sex … for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal

8 skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working

9 conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). In order to prevail on liability under the EPA,

10 Plaintiffs need only show that USSF paid MNT players at a rate more than WNT players

11 for performing substantially similar work. See Mickelson v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 460 F.3d

12 1304, 1310-11 (10th Cir. 2006). There is no genuine issue of material fact that USSF

13 has violated the Equal Pay Act by discriminating against the WNT players in their rate

14 of pay for substantially similar work.

15

1. The Undisputed Facts Show that Plaintiffs Were Paid at a Rate

16

Less than the MNT Players

17

USSF implemented and maintains one compensation policy for the MNT and one

18 for the WNT pursuant to each team’s written collective bargaining agreements.

19 (“CBAs”). (SUF No. 1–3); Dkt. No. 42, USSF Answer at ¶ 44. Each of the members

20 of the WNT and MNT is paid according to the rate of pay base compensation and bonus

21 schedules set forth in those agreements. (SUF No. 1–3.) The WNT’s current CBA has

22 been in effect since January 1, 2017 (“2017 WNT CBA”). (SUF No. 2.) Prior to that,

23 USSF paid the WNT players pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (“WNT

24 MOU”) that was in effect from March 19, 2013 through December 31, 2016, which

25 itself modified a prior CBA that was in effect from 2005 through 2012 (“2005 WNT

26 CBA”). (SUF No. 1.) The MNT’s current CBA was in effect from January 1, 2011 until

27 December 31, 2018 (“MNT CBA”). (SUF No. 3.) The MNT players continue to be

28 paid by USSF in accordance with the expired MNT CBA. (SUF No. 4).

5 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:2189

1

As early as 2004, it is undisputed that the members of the WNT raised concerns

2 about pay equality in a letter from their union’s counsel to the United States Olympic

3 Committee (“USOC”), highlighting (among other things) “USSF’s unwillingness to pay

4 the women anywhere near equal compensation for successes comparable to the men’s.”

5 (SUF No. 5.) During bargaining sessions in 2016, WNT players and their

6 representatives explicitly requested compensation that was equal to the MNT players,

7 but were told that “market realities are such that the women do not deserve equal pay.”

8 (SUF No. 6, 67). USSF would not agree to the players’ demand for equal pay and never

9 offered the WNT the same level of game bonuses that the MNT players have the

10 opportunity to receive under their CBA. (SUF No. 7.) Indeed, although USSF offered

11 the WNT a “pay to play” model that was similar to the one in the MNT’s CBA, it is

12 undisputed that it never offered an equal bonus model for “friendlies” or an equal rate

13 of pay model for the World Cup or other tournament events. (SUF No. 8.)

14

Furthermore, USSF’s own witnesses admitted that the women are not paid

15 equally. First, USSF’s 30(b)(6) witness on the issue of differences in the rate of pay

16 expressly admitted that the MNT and WNT CBAs set forth lower per-game bonuses

17 and compensation for the WNT. (SUF No. 12–19.) And in his race for President in

18 late 2017 and 2018, Mr. Cordeiro unequivocally declared that “[o]ur female players

19 have not been treated equally, that he intended, as President, to work for equal pay and

20 equal resources for female athletes and that “immediate” changes needed to be made,

21 without waiting for any CBA to expire, to rectify the unequal treatment of the WNT.

22 (SUF No. 20–21.) Further, he testified at his disposition that he still believes that

23 unequal opportunities for the WNT exist today, and that he, and other Board members,

24 have been complaining about this unequal treatment for years, while USSF did not

25 redress it. (SUF No. 23–24.) These admissions of discrimination are dispositive.

26

Even if USSF’s admissions were not enough, the written terms of the relevant

27 CBAs establish as a matter of undisputed fact that USSF has paid WNT players at a rate

28 less than MNT players throughout the class period. (SUF No. 9–19.) Under the WNT

6 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:2190

1 CBA, WNT players currently only have the opportunity to receive lower per-game

2 bonuses than MNT players have the opportunity to receive for “wins” and “ties” in most

3 “friendlies.” (SUF No. 12.) WNT players also only have the opportunity to receive

4 lower bonuses than the MNT for winning World Cup qualifying games, for qualifying

5 as a team for the World Cup, and for making the World Cup roster. (SUF No. 13–15.)

6 And WNT players further only have the opportunity to receive lower rates of

7 compensation for other non-World Cup tournaments. (SUF No. 17–18.) And while the

8 terms of the WNT CBAs provide for certain benefits for contracted players in certain

9 situations, WNT players receive a lower rate of pay than the MNT players even when 10 all fringe benefits are taken into consideration.5 Again, USSF’s 30(b)(6) witness

11 designated on rate of pay differences confirmed the differences in rate of pay and these

12 facts cannot be disputed for purposes of this motion. (SUF No. 9–19.)

13

Moreover, while it is not necessary for EPA liability to prove that USSF

14 intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of gender, the record shows

15 that the stated reason by a USSF negotiator for paying the champion WNT players at a

16 lower rate than the MNT was USSF’s belief that “market realities are such that the

17 women do not deserve equal pay.” (SUF No. 67.) And former USSF President Gulati

18 testified that one of the reasons he believed the pay discrimination is justified is because

19 of gender differences in “speed” and “strength,” even though he admitted that the WNT

20 players work just as hard as the men and have been far more successful (discussed below

21 as direct evidence of discriminatory animus under Title VII). (SUF No. 26, 66.)

22

Rather than dispute that WNT players have been paid at a lower rate of pay, USSF

23 has taken the discredited legal position that there is no discrimination because various

24 class members have earned more in total compensation than their male counterparts

25 because they have won more games and been more successful during the class period.

26 Dkt. No. 67 (USSF’s Class Certification Opposition) at 3-4, 9 (asserting that “Plaintiffs’

27 5 See Ex. 6 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Expert Testimony (Expert 28 Report of Dr. Finnie Cook).

7 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:2191

1 proposed Class Representatives each made significantly more money than the highest

2 paid MNT player” from 2015 through 2019). But as this Court has already recognized,

3 the controlling issue is whether an employer has discriminated on the basis of sex with

4 respect to the rate of pay, not total remuneration. Dkt. No. 98, Minute Order on Mot.

5 for Class Certification (“Class Certification Order”) at 5-6 & n.1; Ebbert v. Nassau Cty.,

6 No. 05-CV-5445(FB)(AKT), 2009 WL 935812, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019)

7 (“[T]he EPA…speak[s] in term of rate of pay, not total remuneration … As a matter of

8 common sense, total remuneration cannot be the proper point of comparison.”); Bence

9 v. Detroit Health Corp., 712 F.2d 1024, 1027 (6th Cir. 1983). Indeed, this Court has

10 held that “[t]o hold otherwise would yield an ‘absurd result,’ as this would mean … that

11 ‘an employer who pays a woman $10 per hour and a man $20 per hour would not violate

12 the EPA … as long as the woman negated the obvious disparity by working twice as

13 many hours.” Class Certification Order at 6 (quoting Ebbert, 2009 WL 935812, at *3).

14

There is no ground for USSF to resist summary judgment on the basis of a total

15 compensation analysis that this Court has already rejected. Nor can USSF stave off

16 summary judgment by arguing that the compensation that Plaintiffs received for the

17 separate job of playing on an NWSL team should be taken into account as offsetting the

18 discrimination. It is undisputed that playing for the NWSL is a separate job from being

19 on the WNT, that not all WNT players have been employed by NWSL teams, and that

20 it was former President Gulati and USSF—not the WNT players or their union—who

21 came up with the proposal for USSF to subsidize the NWSL as part of USSF’s—not

22 the players’—objectives. (SUF No. 29–31.) Simply put, the Equal Pay Act does not

23 require a woman to work two jobs to receive what a man can earn for working one.

24

It thus cannot be genuinely disputed that Plaintiffs have proven that they have

25 been discriminated against with a lower rate of pay in comparison to the male players

26 on the MNT—establishing the first element of Equal Pay Act liability.

27

28

8 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:2192

1

2. The Undisputed Facts Show that the Jobs of WNT and MNT

2

Players Require Equal Skill, Effort, and Responsibility

3

There is also no genuine factual dispute that the WNT and MNT players perform

4 “equal work,” which under the EPA is defined as work that is equal in terms of skill,

5 effort, and responsibility. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(c). “Equal work” under the EPA does

6 not mean work that is “identical.” Gunther v. Washington Cnty., 623 F.2d 1303, 1309

7 (9th Cir. 1979). Rather, “substantially equal” is the controlling test. Maxwell v. City of

8 Tucson, 1984 WL 21130, at *3 (9th Cir. July 3, 1984).

9

The first element of substantial equality is skill, which is measured by the

10 experience, ability, education, and training required to perform a job. 29 C.F.R. §

11 1620.15. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that the WNT players are equally as

12 skilled as the MNT players, as numerous USSF witnesses admitted to this fact. WNT’s

13 former head coach testified, without contradiction, that the WNT and MNT players are

14 equally skilled in each key area of soccer—athleticism, “tactical IQ,” tactical

15 proficiency, and mental fortitude (and Mr. Cordeiro deferred to Coach Ellis as the best

16 judge of their skill). (SUF No. 25.) And, of course, there is no dispute that the WNT

17 players have been much more successful than the MNT in recent years. (SUF No. 35.)

18

The second required element of substantial equality is effort, which is defined as

19 the amount of physical or mental exertion needed to perform a job. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.16.

20 The undisputed evidence demonstrates that the WNT players expend just as much effort

21 as the MNT players in performing on the national team—USSF’s President Mr.

22 Cordeiro, its former President Mr. Gulati, and Coach Ellis all testified that the WNT

23 players work just as hard as MNT players. (SUF No. 26.) USSF could not, and does

24 not, dispute the equal work ethic of the team that they refer to on their own website as 25 “one of the most dominant squads in the history of sport, men or women.”6

26

Finally, the third required element of substantial equality is responsibility, which

27 is defined as the degree of accountability required in performing a job. 29 C.F.R. §

28 6 See RJN, Ex. 1 (https://www.ussoccer.com/teams/uswnt).

9 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 32 Page ID #:2193

1 1620.17. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that the WNT players have had

2 substantially equal responsibilities and required accountability as MNT players.

3 Indeed, Mr. Berhalter, testifying as the 30(b)(6) representative of USSF on this topic,

4 attested that the MNT and WNT players’ duties are laid out in their respective CBAs,

5 which set forth substantially similar player responsibilities, such as being available for

6 training, maintaining a high level of competitive soccer skills and physical conditioning,

7 and not using illegal drugs or banned substances. (SUF No. 27–28.) Coach Ellis further

8 testified that key player responsibilities such as attending camp in good athletic shape,

9 acting professionally, performing at a high level, and seeking appropriate treatment for

10 injuries are shared by WNT and MNT players alike. (SUF No. 28.)

11

USSF has argued that WNT and MNT players do not perform equal work because

12 the teams do not literally play against the same opponents and in the same tournaments

13 given that FIFA does not permit women and men to play on the same national teams.

14 But the argument that women have to show that their jobs were “identical” to the jobs

15 of their male counterparts (e.g., on the same team) is not the law. See Gunther, 623

16 F.2d at 1309. The requirements of the EPA apply just as strongly in cases involving

17 sex-segregated jobs. For example, in Marcoux v. State of Maine, female prison guards

18 claimed that they received lower retirement benefits than male prison guards who

19 worked at a separate correctional facility guarding male prisoners. 797 F.2d 1100, 1102

20 (1st Cir. 1986). Applying the EPA “equal work” framework to the plaintiffs’ Title VII

21 claim, the court found that the fact that the plaintiffs guarded female inmates in a

22 separate facility did not preclude a discrimination claim and upheld the lower court’s

23 finding that the jobs were “substantially equal.” Id. at 1106-07; see also Perdue v. City

24 University of New York, 13 F. Supp. 2d 326, 333-34 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (upholding verdict

25 for the coach of a college women’s basketball team on her EPA claim that she was

26 compensated less than the male coach of the men’s team); Burkey v. Marshall County

27 Bd. of Education, 513 F. Supp. 1084, 1092 (N.D.W.Va. 1981) (similar).

28

10 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:2194

1

Here, the facts are undisputed that the jobs of the WNT and MNT players are

2 substantially the same. (SUF No. 32–34.) They play under the same rules, on the same

3 sized fields, and work and practice equally as hard. (SUF No. 26, 32–33.) For this

4 reason, even Mr. Gulati, the 30(b)(6) witness on this subject, eventually had to admit

5 that the fact that there are separate teams and separate competitions, “in and of itself”

6 would not justify the pay gap. (SUF No. 37.)

7

The fallacy of USSF’s argument is thrown into sharp relief when considered

8 outside the sports context. For example, female salespersons selling the same products

9 as male salespersons would not have to show that they travel to the same clients in the

10 same geographic regions in order to assert an EPA claim for being paid less than the

11 men. Nor could an accounting firm justify a pay gap with evidence that their male and

12 female accountants do not prepare tax returns for the exact same clients. All that is 13 required is proof that the two teams had the same “common core of tasks”7, and that has

14 clearly been demonstrated on this record for the members of the WNT and the MNT.

15

USSF has also argued that the teams do not perform equal work because men’s

16 soccer is purportedly more “competitive” than women’s soccer. See USSF Supp. Resp.

17 to Plf.’s Rog. 1 (“[T]he international soccer environment in which the MNT players

18 compete is far more competitive by many measures than that in which Plaintiffs

19 compete … MNT players must achieve more and/or better results against tougher

20 competition in order to qualify for, and succeed in, tournament competition.”). This

21 argument is contrary to the law for the same reasons set forth above — there is no legal

22 requirement of “identical” work. But more fundamentally, this argument is exactly the

23 type of pernicious and offensive gender-stereotyping that the EPA does not permit as a

24 justification for wage discrimination. Shultz v. First Victoria Nat. Bank, 420 F.2d 648,

25 656 (5th Cir. 1969) (the EPA’s goal was “[t]he elimination of those subjective

26 assumptions and traditional stereotyped misconceptions regarding the value of

27

28 7 See RJN, Ex. 4 (https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/equal_pay_day.cfm?).

11 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:2195

1 women’s work”); see also Bence, 712 F.2d at 1029. Whether or not USSF believes that

2 the work of the WNT is not as worthy or as difficult as the work of the MNT, that

3 discriminatory animus is not a legally acceptable defense to an Equal Pay Act claim.

4

In any event, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the competition faced by the

5 WNT has been just as strong, if not stronger, than the competition faced by the MNT.

6 (SUF No. 39.) Since 2014, the WNT has played, on average, teams with higher FIFA

7 rankings than the MNT every year except 2018. (Id.) And the only reason for the 2018

8 anomaly was, as Coach Ellis explained, because the WNT played lower-ranked

9 opponents in the run-up to winning the 2019 World Cup. (SUF No. 40.) Equal work

10 requires equal pay.

11

3. The Undisputed Facts Establish that WNT Players Perform

12

their Jobs Under Similar Working Conditions as MNT Players

13

for a Single Establishment

14

There can further be no genuine issue of material fact that the WNT and MNT

15 players perform their jobs under similar working conditions for a single employer,

16 USSF. In the EPA context, “similar working conditions” refers to the job’s physical

17 environment and potential hazards. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.18(a); Corning Glass Works v.

18 Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 201-03 (1974). WNT and MNT players practice and play

19 games on the same-sized fields and by the same rules. (SUF No. 32–33.) Their off-

20 the-field duties are similar as well, including media appearances. (SUF No. 27–28.)

21 And the undisputed facts show that the WNT players were required to play on artificial

22 turf substantially more often than the MNT players through at least November 2017,

23 meaning that their job conditions were actually more hazardous than the MNT players.

24 (SUF No. 38.)

25

Furthermore, a business enterprise such as USSF is considered a “single

26 establishment” for purposes of the EPA where the employer has centralized control of

27 job descriptions, salary administration, and job assignments. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9(b)

28 (“[A] central administrative unit may hire all employees, set wages, and assign the

12 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:2196

1 location of employment.”); Brennan, 519 F.2d 53, 58 (5th Cir. 1975) (finding a single

2 establishment based on centralized control of hiring, wages, work assignments,

3 scheduling and daily job duties). And employees are considered to work for a “single

4 establishment” even if their jobs are not performed in the same physical place. See,

5 e.g., Rehwaldt v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 1996 WL 947568, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28,

6 1996); Mulhall v. Advance Sec, Inc., 19F.3d 586, 591 (11th Cir. 1994).

7

Here, USSF is a “single establishment” because it is undisputed that it has

8 centralized control over WNT and MNT job descriptions, budgeting, planning,

9 scheduling, event marketing, and decisions relating to licensing and broadcasting. (SUF

10 No. 45–53.) With few exceptions (such as coaches and press officers), the majority of

11 USSF employees perform work for both the WNT and the MNT. (SUF No. 41–43.)

12 USSF’s central administration also makes decisions about game venues, hotels, travel,

13 meals and other terms of employment for both teams as part of the same process. (SUF

14 No. 50–52.) And, as described in more detail below, the MNT and WNT are both

15 promoted by Soccer United Marketing (“SUM”), the for-profit marketing arm of Major

16 League Soccer, in a manner such that a breakdown of broadcast and sponsorship

17 revenues between the two teams “can’t be done.” (SUF No. 59–62.)

18

4. USSF Cannot Meet its Burden to Prove Any of Its Affirmative

19

Defenses to Plaintiffs’ EPA Claim

20

As shown above, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiffs were

21 paid at a rate less than their male counterparts for equal work under similar working

22 conditions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs should prevail on their EPA claims unless USSF

23 can prove the pay gap is justified. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)(iv); Brennan, 417 U.S. at 196-

24 97. Because USSF cannot meet its burden, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment

25 as a matter of law on USSF’s liability for their EPA claims.

26

USSF argues that the following “factors other than sex” justify the pay gap: (1)

27 that USSF had a “good-faith belief” that the MNT had generated and would continue to

28 generate more revenue and profit than the WNT; and (2) the WNT and MNT have

13 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:2197

1 different unions that bargained for different terms in their respective collective

2 bargaining agreements. USSF also asserts the following, additional affirmative

3 defenses: (1) that the USOC has exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute; (2) that the

4 statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’ claims; (3) that the Central District of California is

5 the improper venue for Plaintiffs’ claims; and (4) that USSF’s decisions were made “for

6 legitimate business reasons and not for any discriminatory or other lawful purpose.” 7 Each of these defenses fails.8

8

First, there is no genuine issue of fact that USSF cannot meet its burden of proof

9 to establish its supposed revenue justification for three separate reasons: (1) there is no

10 evidence USSF actually did any such revenue or profit justification analysis at the time

11 of the discriminatory compensation decisions; (2) USSF has admitted that because it

12 jointly marketed broadcast and sponsorship rights for the MNT, WNT, and other USSF

13 properties together, it is “impossible” for USSF to break down those key revenues

14 between the two teams; and (3) the undisputed facts establish that from 2015 to date,

15 and projecting into the future—the entire class period—the WNT has generated more

16 revenues and profits than the MNT for USSF with respect to revenues that USSF does

17 record separately for the teams (such as ticket revenues). (SUF No. 55–61.) Second,

18 the text of the EPA itself, as well as Supreme Court case law, firmly establish that

19 collective bargaining agreements do not provide a defense to EPA (or Title VII) claims.

20 And none of USSF’s remaining defenses have any merit.

21

a USSF Cannot Meet its Burden to Establish that Revenue

22

Differences Justified the Difference in the Rate of Pay

23

Between the MNT Players and WNT Players

24

USSF has asserted that the pay discrimination in favor of the MNT is justified by

25 its “belief” that the activities of the MNT had generated and would continue to generate

26 more game-related revenue and net profits, as well as higher broadcasting and

27 8 USSF also asserts affirmative defenses relating to Plaintiffs’ entitlement to punitive 28 and liquidated damages, which are not relevant to this Motion.

14 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 32 Page ID #:2198

1 sponsorship revenue, than the activities of the WNT. (SUF No. 70.) But the undisputed

2 evidence shows that the WNT generated more game-related revenue and earned more

3 net profits during the class period, and that it is “impossible” to allocate broadcasting

4 and sponsorship revenue between the WNT and MNT. (SUF No. 55–62.) Because

5 USSF’s “belief” is not based on any facts, this defense must fail.

6

First, USSF did not produce any evidence that it did an analysis of any

7 comparative revenues and profits generated by the MNT and WNT to justify its pay

8 discrimination at the time that bargaining took place. It is frivolous for USSF to assert

9 “good faith” reliance on a mythical revenue analysis that never existed

10 contemporaneous to the discrimination. To the extent that USSF claims that it

11 nonetheless had a “belief” that the MNT generated more revenue, such an unsupported,

12 sexist “belief” is not a cognizable justification for wage discrimination. Mere post hoc

13 assertions that the discrimination was justified by differences in revenue without any

14 contemporary analysis to back this up from the negotiations is not just insufficient, it

15 shows that the entire claim is pretextual.

16

Second, the undisputed evidence establishes that a substantial portion of the

17 revenue associated with the teams—sponsorship and broadcast revenue—cannot be

18 allocated between the MNT and WNT because the teams were jointly marketed. But

19 without such data, USSF had no way of knowing whether its pay discrimination could

20 somehow be related to actual revenue differences. (SUF No. 59, 61–62.) Indeed,

21 USSF’s Managing Director of Administration, Tom King testified that a breakdown of

22 revenues between the two teams “can’t be done,” and USSF testified that it never did a

23 study or other analysis attempting to allocate these revenues between the teams. (SUF

24 No. 59–62.) Gender-based assumptions that women have less revenue potential is not

25 a “good faith” basis for a revenue justification defense. This is especially true where,

26 as here, the evidence shows that, during the class period, the WNT players have been

27 more recognized and have generated more interest from soccer fans than MNT players.

28 (SUF No. 36.)

15 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 32 Page ID #:2199

1

Third, the undisputed facts show that, not counting the broadcasting and

2 sponsorship revenues which cannot be allocated, the MNT generated less per-game

3 revenue and profits than the WNT during the class period. (SUF No. 55– 57.) In fact,

4 USSF’s own verified interrogatory responses state that the WNT generated $85,022,153

5 in “revenue generated by MNT and WNT matches controlled by U.S. Soccer” from

6 April 1, 2015 through September 30, 2019, while the MNT only generated $75,924,625

7 in such revenues during this period. (SUF No. 55–56.) Further, the WNT earned over

8 $10,000,000 in profits during this period, while the MNT lost over $6,000,000. (SUF

9 No. 57.) And the current USSF projection for the next fiscal year is that the WNT will

10 generate more revenues again. (SUF No. 58.) The undisputed facts thus establish that

11 since 2015, it is the WNT that has been the more successful revenue generator and

12 earner for USSF. (SUF No. 55– 57.) Indeed, the MNT itself recently issued a release

13 stating that, with the 2017 WNT CBA, “the women did not benefit from the dramatic 14 increase in revenue associated with the USWNT.”9

15

b USSF Cannot Justify its Discrimination on the Grounds

16

that the WNT and MNT Have Different Unions and

17

Bargaining Units

18

USSF makes the argument that the WNT’s collective bargaining agreement

19 absolves it of its obligations to comply with the EPA (and Title VII) because the WNT

20 agreed to the compensation terms in its CBA and because the union for the WNT

21 purportedly had different bargaining objectives than the union for the MNT with respect

22 to compensation. This is wrong as a matter of law. All employees who are the victims

23 of discrimination agree to the pay that they receive and it is no more a defense to argue

24 that a union agreed to accept less money on the basis of gender (because that was all it

25 could get the employer to agree to) than it would be to argue that a union agreed to

26 accept a salary at less than the minimum wage. Indeed, EPA regulations specifically

27

28 9 See RJN, Ex. 3.

16 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:2200

1 provide that a collective bargaining agreement perpetuating pay discrimination affords

2 the employer no defense to a charge under the Act. See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.23. And to

3 Plaintiffs’ knowledge, there is not one case in which a court has ever held that, contrary

4 to the EPA’s regulations, collective bargaining agreements are a defense to an EPA

5 claim. E.g., Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S., at 208–210 (rejecting

6 contention that EPA violations caused by pay differential to day and night inspectors

7 were cured when a new collective bargaining agreement went into effect). The same is 8 true for Title VII, as discussed below.10

9

Further, the undisputed facts show that WNT representatives (including the

10 WNTPA and its counsel) did ask USSF for equal pay in collective bargaining and USSF

11 rejected that request. (SUF No. 6–7.) Indeed, Mr. King, supported by his own

12 bargaining notes, admitted that the WNT asked for equal compensation to the MNT,

13 but USSF never agreed to propose such equal compensation terms. (SUF No. 6–7.) To

14 underscore the point, the EEOC complaint was filed and served on USSF in early 2016,

15 so USSF can hardly claim that it did not know that the WNT players have been seeking

16 equal pay for equal work. The fact that the CBAs had different compensation and

17 benefit terms requires that this be accounted for in the ultimate back pay damages 18 analysis, but it does not serve as a defense to an equal pay claim.11

19

c The Ted Stevens Act and USOC Exclusive Jurisdiction

20

Are Not Defenses in This Case

21

USSF claims that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred “to the extent that they conflict

22 with the authority granted to U.S. Soccer by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur

23 Sports Act and/or are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Olympic

24 Committee.” ECF No. 42 at 17-18 (Seventh Affirmative Defense). But USSF produced

25 no evidence that Plaintiffs were required to present their claims to the USOC, and the

26 law is clear that Plaintiffs were not required to do so. The Ted Stevens Act permits (but

27 10 See also Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Expert Testimony, Section II.A.1. 28 11 See also id.

17 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 32 Page ID #:2201

1 in no way requires) athletes to file complaints with the USOC. See 36 U.S.C. § 220527

2 (“[a]n amateur sports organization or person that belongs to or is eligible to belong to a

3 national governing body may seek to compel the national governing body to comply

4 with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title by filing a written complaint

5 with the corporation”) (emphasis added). Courts have thus consistently held that this

6 statute does not preclude discrimination and related claims. See, e.g., Lee v. U.S.

7 Taekwondo Union, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1260 (D. Haw. 2004) (holding that the statute

8 did not preempt federal discrimination claim because the remedy sought was “not

9 within the exclusive jurisdiction of the USOC,” noting that “the Amateur Sports Act

10 does not nullify or supersede other federal laws that provide private rights of action to

11 ensure freedom from discrimination”).

12

d USSF’s Other Affirmative Defenses Fail

13

Plaintiffs are also entitled to summary judgment against USSF’s other affirmative

14 defenses because USSF has not (and cannot) come forward with any probative evidence

15 to prove these defenses. See EEOC v. BNSF Railway Cmpny., 902 F.3d 916, 921 (9th

16 Cir. 2018) (affirming summary judgment on liability where Defendants “did not offer

17 evidence sufficient to support any affirmative defense”). While it is difficult to imagine

18 USSF actually pursuing any of these defenses at trial, during the meet and confer prior

19 to filing this motion, USSF refused to confirm that it was dropping these defenses.

20 Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs submit that they timely filed their

21 EPA claims within three years of USSF’s discriminatory pay action. 29 U.S.C. §

22 255(a). Further, USSF’s claim that “every decision that [USSF] made with respect to

23 the conduct alleged in the Complaint was for legitimate business reasons and not for

24 any discriminatory or other unlawful purpose” is not a proper affirmative defense and, 25 in any event, has not been supported with any probative evidence.12

26

27 12 USSF has also asserted the affirmative defense of “improper venue.” ECF No. 42 at 28 17. But this Court already found venue to be proper. Dkt. No. 56.

18 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 32 Page ID #:2202

1

B. Plaintiffs Are Similarly Entitled to Summary Judgment that USSF

2

Subjected Them to Sex-Based Compensation Discrimination in

3

Violation of Title VII

4

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any employee with

5 respect to her “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because

6 of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

7 2(a)(1) (emphasis added). In contrast to the EPA, plaintiffs alleging sex-based

8 compensation discrimination under Title VII need not establish that they are performing

9 equal work for unequal pay. Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., 944 F.3d 97, 110 (2d Cir. 2019).

10 Indeed, “if an employer used a transparently sex-biased system for wage determination,

11 women holding jobs not equal to those held by men would be denied the right to prove

12 that the system is a pretext for discrimination.” Id. (citing Washington County v.

13 Gunther, 452 U.S. 161, 179 (1981)). In order to prevail on their Title VII sex-based

14 compensation discrimination claim, Plaintiffs need only show that sex “was a

15 motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also

16 motivated the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).

17

As an initial matter, as set forth in Section IV.A above, Plaintiffs have established

18 that there is no genuine issue of material fact that they were performing equal work for

19 unequal pay during both class periods and that USSF cannot establish any of its

20 affirmative defenses to its pay discrimination under the EPA. Such a showing, by itself,

21 also establishes liability, as a matter of law, under Title VII. See 29 C.F.R. § 1620.27

22 (“[i]n situations where the jurisdictional prerequisites of both the EPA and title VII of

23 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., are satisfied, any

24 violation of the Equal Pay Act is also a violation of title VII.”).

25

Plaintiffs also are entitled to summary judgment under Title VII for the additional

26 reasons that it has produced both direct and indirect evidence of discrimination that

27 USSF cannot rebut with any affirmative defenses. As shown above, USSF has admitted

28 that it pays WNT players at a lesser rate of pay than the MNT players in accordance

19 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 32 Page ID #:2203

1 with the terms of its CBAs. See supra, Section IV.A. The record also establishes that

2 USSF has used sex-based stereotypes to try to justify the disparity, and has failed to

3 provide equal opportunities for women players to earn as much compensation as male

4 players. (SUF No. 69.) Indeed, President Cordeiro admitted at his deposition that he

5 still believes that the WNT players do not have equal opportunities today, and that he

6 and numerous other USSF board members have repeatedly pointed this out at Board

7 meetings without USSF taking any action to redress this longstanding practice of gender

8 discrimination. (SUF No. 23.) As Mr. Cordeiro said during his campaign, “[o]ur

9 women’s teams should be respected and valued as much as our men’s teams, but our

10 female players have not been treated equally.” (SUF No. 20.)

11

1. Plaintiffs Have Produced Direct Evidence of USSF’s Sex-Based

12

Compensation Discrimination

13

In the context of proving a Title VII violation, direct evidence is “evidence which,

14 if believed, proves the fact [of discriminatory animus] without inference or

15 presumption.” Vasquez v. Cty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634, 640 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing

16 Goodwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir. 1998)). The Ninth Circuit

17 has defined this proof as “evidence of conduct or statements by persons involved in the

18 decision-making process that may be viewed as directly reflecting the alleged

19 discriminatory attitude ... sufficient to permit the fact finder to infer that that attitude

20 was more likely than not [the cause of] the employer’s decision.” Enlow v. Salem–

21 Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Walton v.

22 McDonnell Douglas Corp., 167 F.3d 423, 426 (8th Cir.1999)). It “typically consists of

23 clearly sexist, racist, or similarly discriminatory statements or actions by the

24 employer.” Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co., 413 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2005).

25

Plaintiffs have come forward with precisely this category of direct evidence of

26 USSF’s discriminatory intent. First, as noted above, Carlos Cordeiro admitted in 2017

27 and 2018 that the WNT players were not paid equally to MNT players and that female

28 players were not given the same opportunities as their male peers. (SUF No. 20–21.)

20 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 32 Page ID #:2204

1 Mr. Cordeiro, in fact, campaigned for his presidency on the platform that the WNT

2 players should be treated equally and that one of his goals as President would be

3 “working towards equal pay.” (SUF No. 20.) More specifically, Mr. Cordeiro stated:

4 “we clearly need to work toward equal pay for the national teams.” (SUF No. 21.) That

5 Mr. Cordeiro—then Vice President of USSF and a member of its Board of Directors—

6 would make such damning admissions was so alarming to then-President Sunil Gulati

7 that he admonished Mr. Cordeiro: “Carlos, I’ll bite my tongue on this document

8 certainly publicly since it’s political season; however, for a US Soccer officer to make

9 the following statement in a public document while we have a pending EEOC charge is

10 incredibly irresponsible.” (SUF No. 22.)

11

In his deposition, Mr. Cordeiro attempted to backpedal by claiming that what he

12 meant by “equal pay” was “equal opportunity.” But this change in wording is of no

13 help to USSF in trying to defend against a Title VII claim. Mr. Cordeiro testified:

14

I had a concern—which is why I ran for president—that our women lacked

15

equal opportunity. And lacking equal opportunity to play competitive

16

matches and competitive tournaments that had significant payouts was a

17

significant disadvantage for our women. So I believe then and I continue

18

to believe now that working for quote ‘equal pay and equal resources’ is

19

all about creating more opportunity for our women so they can play more

20

competitive events that would drive more revenue and more compensation.

21 (SUF No. 69.) By clearly admitting, under oath, that USSF failed to provide WNT

22 players with equal opportunity to drive more revenue and, thus, earn more

23 compensation, USSF admitted not only that USSF does not pay them at an equal rate

24 of compensation (which cannot be disputed), but that it is not possible for USSF to even 25 try to justify this discrimination based on any purported difference in revenue.13

26
27 13 See EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 10: Compensation Discrimination, §10IV(F)(2)(f) (“Commission will scrutinize this defense [of revenue production] carefully
28 to determine whether the employer has provided reduced support for revenue

21 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:2205

1 Further, Mr. Cordeiro’s admission that this lack of equal opportunity has been widely

2 recognized and discussed by board members for years, with no remedial action by

3 USSF, provides further direct evidence of a longstanding discriminatory animus behind

4 USSF’s compensation scheme. (SUF No. 23.)

5

Second, in his 30(b)(6) capacity, former USSF President Sunil Gulati testified

6 that one of the reasons USSF used to justify setting the WNT’s compensation lower

7 than the MNT’s compensation was the difference in “speed” and “strength” between

8 men and women and the fact that organizations like FIFA separate soccer players on

9 the basis of “genetics” and “biology.” (SUF No. 66.) Such a sexist stereotype is

10 precisely the type of gender-based motivation that is direct evidence of the

11 discriminatory animus which violates Title VII. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles, Dep’t of

12 Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (“In forbidding employers

13 to discriminate against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at

14 the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex

15 stereotypes.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

16

Third, one of USSF’s lead negotiators, outside counsel Russ Sauer, stated during

17 collective bargaining negotiations that the specific reason that USSF would not agree

18 to an equal system of compensation between the WNT and MNT was that “market

19 realities are such that the women do not deserve equal pay.” (SUF No. 67.) This

20 statement has been attested to by both the former Executive Director of the WNTPA

21 and class representative Megan Rapinoe, while the USSF representative who took

22 bargaining notes could not “remember” whether this statement was made. (SUF No.

23 67–68.) At the time Mr. Sauer made this discriminatory assertion to explain the reason

24 why the pay disparity against the WNT was maintained, USSF knew that its own

25 financials showed that since 2015, the WNT had generated and earned more revenue

26
27 production to the lower paid employee. If that is the case, then the difference in revenue will not justify the compensation disparity. [A] mere assumption that the higher paid
28 employee will produce greater revenue will not justify the compensation disparity.”).

22 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 32 Page ID #:2206

1 that the MNT for USSF—so that the “market realities” could not, in fact, support the

2 discriminatory treatment of WNT players. (SUF No. 55–57.)

3

Such unabashed discriminatory statements are direct evidence of the required

4 showing of discriminatory intent. See Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 937–38 (9th

5 Cir. 2007) (holding that remarks by members of senior management, such as “[t]here

6 are no people of color on senior staff, and it's very unlikely that there will be,” constitute

7 such direct evidence); Sischo–Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. College Dist., 934 F.2d 1104,

8 1111 (9th Cir. 1991) (direct evidence of sex stereotyping where employee referred to

9 female plaintiff as “an old warhorse” and to her students as “little old ladies”),

10 superseded on other grounds by statute. The same is true in Title VII cases involving

11 equal pay claims. See, e.g., Portis v. First Nat’l Bank of New Albany, Miss., 34 F.3d

12 325, 329 (1st Cir. 1994) (finding that statements like “[Plaintiff] wouldn’t be worth as

13 much as the men would be to the bank” and “[Plaintiff] would be paid less because she

14 was a woman” “require[d] no additional inference to conclude that [Plaintiff] was

15 wrongfully treated because of her sex”).

16

Because Plaintiffs have come forward with direct evidence of USSF’s

17 discriminatory animus from the statements of their most senior representatives,

18 Plaintiffs have met their burden to show discrimination under Title VII and there is no

19 need to consider whether the WNT and MNT players are similarly situated. Thus, the

20 Court should move directly to the question of whether USSF has met its burden to

21 establish that any of its affirmative defenses justified the discrimination. McDonnell

22 Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston,

23 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985) (instructing that “the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable

24 where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination”); Samuels v. We’ve Only

25 Just Begun Wedding Chapel, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1094 (D. Nev. 2015). As set

26 forth in Section IV.B.1 above and in Section IV.B.3 below, USSF has failed to meet its

27 burden of proof to establish any affirmative defense, and this is another reason summary

28 judgment should be granted.

23 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 32 Page ID #:2207

1

2. Plaintiffs Also Have Established Indirect Evidence of USSF’s

2

Sex-Based Compensation Discrimination

3

Plaintiffs have further established indirect evidence of sex-based compensation

4 discrimination by USSF because the undisputed evidence shows that USSF paid the

5 WNT players at a rate less than the MNT players, despite the WNT and MNT players

6 being similarly situated. See supra, Section IV.A. Because Plaintiffs have

7 demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of fact that the WNT performs “equal work”

8 as the MNT under the EPA, they have also shown that their jobs are “similar” under the

9 Title VII framework, and nothing more is required to prove compensation

10 discrimination. See Lewis v. Smith, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1060 (D. Ariz. 2003)

11 (because “Title VII contains a broader prohibition on discriminatory wages than that

12 mandated by the Equal Pay Act,” “Plaintiff does not need to show substantial equality

13 to pursue a Title VII claim.”); see also 29 CFR § 1620.27 (“[i]n situations where the

14 jurisdictional prerequisites of both the EPA and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

15 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., are satisfied, any violation of the Equal Pay Act

16 is also a violation of title VII.”).

17

3. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on USSF’s

18

Affirmative Defenses to their Title VII Claim

19

Under Title VII, a defendant may attempt to justify a disparity in pay using the

20 same affirmative defenses available under the EPA. As set forth above, however, USSF

21 has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact in support of any of its affirmative

22 defenses in this case. See supra, Section IV.A.4.

23

Furthermore, just as there is no authority holding that collective bargaining

24 provides a defense to EPA claims, collective bargaining agreements or their

25 corresponding negotiations do not provide a defense to a Title VII claim where the

26 agreement provides for facially discriminatory pay disparities. To the contrary, for

27 decades, the Supreme Court has held that employers cannot use collective bargaining

28 agreements to evade the anti-discrimination laws like Title VII. See, e.g., Alexander v.

24 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 32 Page ID #:2208

1 Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 51–52 (1974) (“[W]e think it clear that there can be

2 no prospective waiver of an employee’s rights under Title VII … Title VII’s strictures

3 are absolute and represent a congressional command that each employee be free from

4 discriminatory practices. Of necessity, the rights conferred can form no part of the

5 collective bargaining process since waiver of these rights would defeat the paramount

6 congressional purpose behind Title VII. In these circumstances, an employee’s rights

7 under Title VII are not susceptible of prospective waiver.”); UMWA Health & Ret. Fund

8 v. Robinson, 455 U.S. 562, 575 (1982) (“The terms of any collective bargaining

9 agreement must comply with federal laws that prohibit discrimination on grounds of

10 race, color, religion, sex or national origin; that protect veterans; that regulate certain 11 industries; and that preserve our competitive economy.”) (citations omitted).14

12

Finally, there are no facts to support USSF’s statute of limitations defense to

13 Plaintiffs’ Title VII claim because the EEOC charge was timely filed within 300 days

14 of the discriminatory pay decision on April 6, 2016, and the Complaint was timely filed

15 within 90 days of Plaintiffs’ receipt of their Right to Sue letters. See supra, Section II.

16 V. CONCLUSION

17

For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

18 grant this motion for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the classes’

19 Equal Pay Act and Title VII claims. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court

20 grant this motion with respect to any of the individual elements of their EPA and Title

21 VII claims, and with respect to USSF’s affirmative defenses, that the Court finds

22 appropriate for summary adjudication in order to streamline the issues to be determined

23 by the jury at trial.

24
25 14 USSF also has asserted that “Plaintiffs’ claims arising under Title VII are barred to the extent that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.” Dkt. No. 42
26 at 17 (Fifth Affirmative Defense). During the parties’ meet and confer, USSF clarified 27 that it is pursuing this affirmative defense only as to Plaintiffs’ Title VII working
conditions claims. While even that defense lacks any merit, it is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ 28 instant motion relating solely to their compensation-related Title VII claims.

25 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 32 Page ID #:2209

1 Dated: February 20, 2020 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler Jeffrey L. Kessler Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:2210

1 Jeffrey L. Kessler (admitted pro hac vice) jkessler@winston.com
2 David G. Feher (admitted pro hac vice) dfeher@winston.com
3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue
4 New York, New York 10166 Telephone: (212) 294- 6700
5 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700

6 Cardelle B. Spangler (admitted pro hac vice) cspangler@winston.com
7 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive
8 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600
9 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700

10 Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606) dhleiden@winston.com
11 Lev Tsukerman (SBN: 319184) ltsukerman@winston.com
12 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
13 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1700
14 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750

15 Jeanifer E. Parsigian (SBN: 289001) jparsigian@winston.com
16 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California St., 35th Floor
17 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-1000
18 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400

19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -WESTERN DIVISION

21

22 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

23

Plaintiffs/Claimants,

24 v.

25 UNITED STATES SOCCER 26 FEDERATION, INC.,

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Assigned to: Judge R. Gary Klausner STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

27

Defendant/Respondent. Date: March 30, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m.

28

Place: Courtroom 850

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2211

1 Plaintiffs Alex Morgan, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit the following
2 Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Local Rule
3 56-1 in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
4 I. STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
5

6 Fact.

Uncontroverted Fact

No.

7 1 In 2015 and 2016, U.S. Senior Women’s

Supporting Evidence Declaration of Diana Hughes

8

National Team (“WNT”) players were

Leiden (“Leiden Decl.”), Ex.

compensated under the terms of the

1 (30(b)(6) Deposition of

9

Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) Tom King on January 23,

10

entered into between the U.S. Women’s

2020) (“King 30(b)(6) Tr.”)

National Team Players Association

110:17–111:4; Leiden Decl.,

11

(“WNTPA”) and the United States Soccer Ex. 2 (MOU),

12

Federation (“USSF”) on March 19, 2013, which WNTPA_00004575; Leiden

itself modified a prior CBA that was in effect Decl., Ex. 3 (2005 WNT

13

from 2005 through 2012 (“2005 WNT CBA”). CBA),

14

USSF_Morgan_028424.

15 2 16 17 18

Since January 1, 2017, WNT players have been King 30(b)(6) Tr. 47:3–

compensated under the terms of the Collective 48:21; Leiden Decl., Ex. 4

Bargaining Agreement (“WNT CBA”) entered (WNT CBA),

into between the WNTPA and USSF on April USSF_Morgan_000587, at

4, 2017.

USSF_Morgan_000610.

19 3

Since 2015, U.S. Senior Men’s National Team King 30(b)(6) Tr. 47:3–

20

(“MNT”) players have been compensated under 48:21; Leiden Decl., Ex. 5

21

the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“MNT CBA”) entered into

(MNT CBA), USSF Morgan_000530, at

22

between the U.S. National Team Players

USSF_Morgan_000548.

23

Association (“NTPA”) and USSF on November 20, 2011, effective January 1, 2011.

24

25 4

Though the MNT CBA expired on December King 30(b)(6) Tr. 34:1– 31, 2018, its terms have remained in effect and 35:16; Dkt. No. 64-15

26

will remain in effect until the NTPA and USSF (Declaration of Mark

27

enter into a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Levinstein), ¶¶ 4–5.

28

1

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:2212

15 2 3 4 5 6

In 2004, members of the WNT raised concerns Leiden Decl., Ex. 6

about pay equality in a letter from their union’s (Deposition of John Langel

counsel to the United States Olympic

on November 21, 2019),

Committee (“USOC”), highlighting (among 250:10–255:3; Leiden Decl.,

other things) “USSF’s unwillingness to pay the Ex. 7 (November 15, 2004

women anywhere near equal compensation for Letter to the USOC),

successes comparable to the men’s.”

WNTPA 00010895, at

WNTPA_00010898.

76 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

During bargaining sessions in 2016, WNT players and their representatives explicitly requested compensation from USSF that was equal to the MNT players.

Leiden Decl., Ex. 8 (Deposition of Tom King on January 23, 2020) (“King Tr.”) 20:18–21:24, 49:15– 50:18, 56:12–57:8, 60:22– 61:13, 67:8–19; Leiden Decl., Ex. 9 (CBA – WNT – Meeting Notes – All Bargaining Sessions for 2017–2021 Agreement), USSF_Morgan_005638, at USSF_Morgan_005653– USSF_Morgan_0005657; Leiden Decl., Ex. 10 (30(b)(6) Deposition of Sunil Gulati on December 17, 2019) (“Gulati 30(b)(6) Tr.”) 54:18–55:20.

20 7 21 22 23

USSF would not agree to the players’ demand for equal pay and never offered the WNT the same level of game bonuses that the MNT players have the opportunity to receive under their CBA.

King Tr. 47:22–49:14.

24 8 Although USSF offered the WNT a “pay to King Tr. 47:22–49:14; Leiden

25

play” structure that was similar to the structure Decl., Ex. 30 (Deposition of of the MNT CBA, USSF never offered the Rich Nichols on December 4,

26

WNT an equal bonus structure for “friendlies” 2019) (“Nichols Tr.”)

27

or an equal rate of pay structure for the World 100:25–101:19. Cup or other tournament events.

28

2

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:2213

19 2
3
4 10
5
6
7

The amounts of per-game and other categories MOU, WNTPA_00004575,

of bonuses WNT players were given the

at WNTPA_00004577,

opportunity to earn in 2015 and 2016 are listed WNTPA_00004583.

in the term sheet attached to the MOU.

The amount of per-game and other categories of WNT CBA at

bonuses WNT players were given the

USSF_Morgan_000642.

opportunity to earn since 2017 are listed in

Exhibit A to the WNT CBA.

8 11 9 10 11

The amount of per-game and other categories of MNT CBA at

bonuses the MNT players were given the

USSF_Morgan_000572–74.

opportunity to earn since 2015 are listed in the

“2015–2018” column of the chart at Exhibit A

to the MNT CBA.

12 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 18 19 20

WNT players are only given the opportunity to WNT CBA at

earn lower per-game bonuses under the WNT USSF_Morgan_000642at 24;

CBA than MNT players are given the

MNT CBA at

opportunity to earn under the MNT CBA for USSF_Morgan_000572;

“wins” and “ties” in most “friendlies.”

King 30(b)(6) Tr. 68:25–

88:18.

WNT players are only given the opportunity to WNT CBA at

earn lower bonuses under the WNT CBA than USSF_Morgan_000642;

MNT players are given the opportunity to earn MNT CBA at

under the MNT CBA for “wins” or “ties” in USSF_Morgan_000572;

World Cup qualifying games.

King 30(b)(6) Tr. 68:25–

88:18.

21 14 22
23
24
25

WNT players are only given the opportunity to WNT CBA at

earn a lower bonus for qualifying for the World USSF_Morgan_000642;

Cup under the WNT CBA than the MNT

MNT CBA at

players are given an opportunity to earn under USSF_Morgan_000572;

the MNT CBA for qualifying for the World King 30(b)(6) Tr. 68:25–

Cup.

88:18.

26 15 WNT players are only given the opportunity to WNT CBA at

27

earn lower bonuses under the WNT CBA than USSF_Morgan_000642;

MNT players are given the opportunity to earn MNT CBA at

28

under the MNT CBA for making their

USSF_Morgan_000572;

3

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:2214

1

respective World Cup rosters.

2

King 30(b)(6) Tr. 68:25– 88:18.

3 16 4 5 6 7

WNT players are only given the opportunity to WNT CBA at

earn lower bonuses under the WNT CBA than USSF_Morgan_000642;

MNT players are given the he opportunity to MNT CBA at

earn under the MNT CBA for placing first, USSF_Morgan_000573;

second, or third in the World Cup.

King 30(b)(6) Tr. 68:25–

88:18.

8 17 9 10 11 12
18 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

WNT players are only given the opportunity to WNT CBA at

be compensated at a lower rate under the WNT USSF_Morgan_000642;

CBA for non-World Cup tournaments than the MNT CBA at

MNT players are given the opportunity to be USSF_Morgan_000573–74;

compensated under the MNT CBA for non- King 30(b)(6) Tr. 68:25–

World Cup tournaments.

88:18.

WNT players are only given the opportunity to WNT CBA at receive a flat payment of $5,000 for winning USSF_Morgan_000642; the SheBelieves Cup and the Tournament of MNT CBA at Nations under the WNT CBA, while MNT USSF_Morgan_000573–74; players are given the opportunity to receive per- King 30(b)(6) Tr. 68:25– game win, draw, and loss bonuses for non- 88:18. World Cup tournament games, as well as bonuses for placing second, third, and fourth place in those tournaments under the MNT CBA.

20 19 WNT players were only given the opportunity MOU at WNTPA_00004583;

21

to receive lower per-game bonuses under the MNT CBA at

MOU than MNT players are given the

USSF_Morgan_000572–74;

22

opportunity to receive under the MNT CBA for King 30(b)(6) Tr. 111:25-

23

all categories of bonuses the two teams shared 116:17. under those agreements.

24

25 20 26

USSF President Carlos Cordeiro admitted while Leiden Decl., Ex. 11

campaigning for the USSF presidency in

(Deposition of Carlos

December 2017 that “[o]ur women’s teams Cordeiro on January 29,

27

should be respected and valued as much as our 2020) (“Cordeiro Tr.”)

men’s teams, but our female players have not 85:15–21, 93:22–99:9;

28

been treated equally” and that he believed that Leiden Decl., Ex. 12 (“Why

4

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:2215

1

the USSF should work toward and ensure equal I’m running for President of

2

pay for WNT players.

3

US Soccer”, E-mail chain dated December 21, 2017), USSF_Morgan_044331, at

4

USSF_Morgan_044332;

Leiden Decl., Ex. 13 (Carlos

5

Cordeiro, USSF presidential

6

candidate, answers ESPN’s

questions),

7

USSF_Morgan_044356, at

8

USSF_Morgan_044359–

USSF_Morgan_044360.

9

10 21 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Cordeiro also stated during his campaign: “I’m Cordeiro Tr. 93:6–99:9; a strong supporter of greater equality, diversity Carlos Cordeiro, USSF and inclusion throughout U.S. Soccer, and we presidential candidate, clearly need to work toward equal pay for the answers ESPN’s questions), national teams. I believe that where existing at USSF_Morgan_044359– agreements are unfair, adjustments should be USSF_Morgan_044360. made immediately. To ensure equal pay going forward, we need to be open to new paradigms while recognizing the specific needs and desires of the WNT and MNT. . . [w]e don’t need to wait for CBA negotiations to make these changes; we can start now. It’s the right thing to do.”

19 22 Cordeiro was reprimanded for releasing his “Why I’m running for

20

campaign literature about female soccer players President of US Soccer”, E-

21

not being treated equally by then-President mail chain dated December Sunil Gulati, who told him in an email, “Carlos, 21, 2017, at

22

I’ll bite my tongue on this document certainly USSF_Morgan_044332;

23

publicly since it’s political season; however, for Cordeiro Tr. 93:22–99:9. a US Soccer officer to make the following

24

statement in a public document while we have a

25

pending EEOC charge is incredibly irresponsible.”

26 23 Cordeiro told members of USSF’s Board of Cordeiro Tr. 75:12–76:8,

27

Directors that female soccer players were not 76:24–77:11, 79:1–9. treated equally on more than one occasion

28

during his eleven years on the Board of

5

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:2216

1

Directors and further testified that discussions

2

regarding unequal opportunity for the WNT

players were “cumulative conversations” during

3

Cordeiro’s years on USSF’s Board of Directors

4

that was expressed by numerous Directors in

addition to Cordeiro.

5

6 24 7 8
25 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Cordeiro still believes that WNT female soccer Cordeiro Tr. 52:12–55:16. players are not treated equally or given equal opportunities by USSF.

WNT players are equally as skilled as MNT Leiden Decl., Ex. 16

players, including in key areas of soccer such as (Deposition of Jill Ellis on

athleticism, “tactical IQ,” tactical proficiency, January 15, 2020) (“Ellis

and mental fortitude.

Tr.”) 241:23–243:14;

Cordeiro Tr. 174:5–12;

Leiden Decl., Ex. 17

(Deposition of Alex Morgan

on December 19, 2019)

212:17–20; Leiden Decl., Ex.

18 (Deposition of Carli Lloyd

on December 20, 2019)

108:11–109:7, 130:25–

131:12.

18 26 19 20 21 22

WNT players and MNT players expend equal Cordeiro Tr. 163:13–23;

amounts of effort performing on their respectiveLeiden Decl., Ex. 19

national teams.

(Deposition of Sunil Gulati,

Volume II, on December 18,

2019) (“Gulati Vol. II Tr.”)

134:7–11; Ellis Tr. 243:15–

17.

23 27 Both WNT and MNT players’ responsibilities Leiden Decl., Ex. 20

24

as national team players are outlined in their (30(b)(6) Deposition of Jay

25

respective CBAs and USSF’s Safe Soccer

Berhalter on December 12,

Framework.

2019) (“Berhalter 30(b)(6)

26

Tr.”) 242:23–246:4.

27

Request for Judicial Notice,

Ex. 5 (U.S. Soccer Safe

28

Soccer Framework

6

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:2217

1 2
28 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

handbook).

WNT players have had substantially equal WNT CBA at

responsibilities and required accountability as USSF_Morgan_000606–

MNT players such as being available for

USSF_Morgan_000610;

training, maintaining a high level of

MNT CBA at

competitive soccer skills and physical

USSF_Morgan_000546–548;

conditioning, not using illegal drugs or banned USSF Safe Soccer

substances, attending camp in good athletic Framework at 1; Ellis Tr.

shape, acting professionally, performing at a 240:4-241:22.

high level, and seeking appropriate treatment

for injuries.

10 29 11

Playing for the NWSL is a separate job from Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr. 242:4–

being on the WNT.

19.

12 30 13

Not all WNT players are required to be employed by NWSL teams.

Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr. 242:4– 19.

14 31
15
16
17 32 18
19 33
20
21 34
22
23

It was former President Gulati and USSF—not Leiden Decl., Ex. 33

the WNT players or their union—who came up (Deposition of Sunil Gulati,

with the proposal for the USSF to subsidize the Volume I, on December 17,

NWSL as part of USSF’s—not the players’— 2019) 42:6–43:14.

objectives.

WNT and MNT players are both subject to the Cordeiro Tr. 163:14–18;

same rules of the game.

Gulati Vol. II Tr. 132:16–

133:22.

WNT and MNT players play on the same-sized Cordeiro Tr. 163:14–18;

field.

Gulati Vol. II Tr. 132:16–

133:22.

There is no relative quality difference or

Gulati 30(b)(6) Tr. 154:8–22.

difference in appeal of games played by the

WNT versus games played by the MNT.

24

25 35 26 27 28

The WNT has been more successful as a team than the MNT since 2015.

Cordeiro Tr. 163:24–164:8; Leiden Decl., Ex. 15 (WNT Game History 2014–2019), USSF_Morgan_070835; Leiden Decl., Ex. 21 (MNT

7
STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:2218

1

Game History 2014–2019),

2

USSF_Morgan_070834.

3 4 36 5 6 7 8 9 10
37 11 12 13 14 15 38 16 17

WNT players have been better known by and Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr.

have generated higher levels of interest from 159:22–169:20; Leiden Decl.,

soccer fans than the less successful members of Ex. 31 (Slides from USSF’s

the MNT.

August 20, 2019 Business

Review Meeting),

USSF_Morgan_022060, at

USSF_Morgan_022136 –

USSF_Morgan_022137,

USSF_Morgan_022140.

Sunil Gulati testified that the fact that there are Gulati 30(b)(6) Tr. 159:21– separate competitions and separate teams that 160:6. the MNT and WNT compete in and against “in and of itself” does not justify the difference in pay.

The WNT played games on turf 11 times from Leiden Decl., Ex. 22 (USSF’s

2015–2017, while the MNT played one game Supplemental Responses to

on turf during that time.

Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories

Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11), at 9.

18 39 Since 2014, the WNT has played, on average, WNT Game History 2014–

19

teams with higher FIFA rankings than the MNT 2019,

every year except 2018.

USSF_Morgan_070835;

20

MNT Game History 2014–

21

2019. USSF_Morgan_070834.

22

23 40 24

The average ranking of WNT opponents was Ellis Tr. 246:11–247:12. lower than the average FIFA ranking of MNT opponents in 2018 because the WNT played

25

lower-ranked opponents in the run-up to the

2019 World Cup.

26

27 41 28

The majority of USSF employees work for both Leiden Decl., Ex. 23 (USSF

the WNT and the MNT.

Organization Chart),

USSF_Morgan_005792.

8

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:2219

1 2 42
3 4 43
5
6 44
7
8

The employees that do work exclusively for one USSF Organization Chart, team work under a common USSF director. USSF_Morgan_005792.
Press officers Michael Hamilton (MNT) and USSF Organization Chart, Aaron Heifetz (WNT) work under USSF Chief USSF_Morgan_005792. Communications Officer Neil Buethe.
WNT General Manager Kathryn Markgraf and USSF Organization Chart, MNT Coach Gregg Berhalter work under USSF USSF_Morgan_005792. Sporting Director Earnie Stewart.

9 45 10

USSF senior staff makes venue decisions for Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr. 257:7–

both teams.

261:2.

11 46 12
13

USSF chooses opponents for both the MNT and King Tr. 11:21–12:19. WNT with the input of each teams’ head coaches.

14 47 15 16 17 48 18 19 20 21 49 22 23

Yearly budgets for the MNT and WNT roll up Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr. 39:23; into one budget submitted for approval by the 41:1. USSF Board.

The same individuals at USSF make decisions King Tr. 11:1–9; Leiden

about both the MNT and WNT budgets.

Decl., Ex. 14 (Deposition of

Praptika (Pinky) Raina on

January 21, 2020) 23:7–18,

89:19–90:16.

Every year, USSF’s Board of Directors vote on Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr. 39:15– a final budget that includes budgets for both the 41:7; Cordeiro Tr. 215:16– MNT and WNT, which is also approved by 217:21. USSF’s National Council.

24 50 25 26

The same individuals at USSF make the

King Tr.18:14–20; Ellis Tr.

decisions about what flights both MNT and 159:22–160:10.

WNT will take and whether the MNT and WNT

take charter flights as part of a single process.

27 51
28

The same individuals at USSF make the

King Tr.13:9–14:1.

9
STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:2220

1

decisions about what hotels the MNT and WNT

2

stay at as part of a single process.

3 4 52 5 53 6 7 8
54 9 10 11 12 13 55 14 15 16 17 56 18 19

USSF manages both MNT and WNT events. Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr. 36:9– 11.
The WNT and MNT share the same team of Supplemental Responses to event marketing and promotion employees who Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories determine the appropriate amount of advertising Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11, at 13. resources to devote to each match.

The revenue from matches controlled by USSF Leiden Decl., Ex. 24

and the broadcasting and sponsorship revenue (excerpts of USSF 2020

generated by USSF’s agreement with Soccer Annual General Meeting

United Marketing are the primary drivers of Book of Reports), Section IV,

USSF’s revenue.

page 5.

The WNT has generated more revenue than the Supplemental Responses to MNT in matches controlled by USSF and for Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories which U.S. Soccer received revenue from FiscalNos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11, at 16. Year 2016 (beginning April 1, 2015) through September 30, 2019.

The WNT generated $85,022,153 amount in Supplemental Responses to revenues for this period while the MNT only Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories generated $75,924,625 of revenues during this Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11, at 16. period.

20 57 The WNT earned $10,235,153.89 in profit Leiden Decl., Ex. 32 (Federal

21

during the period of April 1, 2015 – October 31, Rule of Evidence 1006

2019, while the MNT lost $6,093,087 during Summary, Net Revenues

22

this period.

Fiscal Year 2016–Fiscal Year

23

2020 (through October 31,

2019)).

24

25 58 26

USSF projected that the WNT would generate USSF 2020 Annual General more revenue than the MNT in all of Fiscal Meeting Book of Reports, Year 2020 (April 1, 2019–March 31, 2020) and Section IV, Source and Use

27

Fiscal Year 2021 (April 1, 2020–March 31, of Funds FY ’20 & Source

2021).

and Use of Funds FY ’21.

28

10

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:2221

1

2 59 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 60 19 20
61 21 22

The WNT and MNT’s sponsorship and

Leiden Decl., Ex. 25 (USSF’s

broadcast rights are jointly marketed by Soccer letter to the EEOC on May

United Marketing (“SUM”).

31, 2016) (“May 31, 2016

EEOC Correspondence”),

USSF_Morgan_004237, at

USSF_Morgan_004250;

Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr. 64:15–

65:10; King Tr. 44:24–45:13,

83:17–84:17; Gulati 30(b)(6)

Tr. 57:21–58:13; Leiden

Decl., Ex. 26 (March 30,

2004 Agreement between

USSF and SUM),

USSF_Morgan_000875;

Leiden Decl., Ex. 27

(October 19, 2007 Agreement

between USSF and SUM),

USSF_Morgan_000906;

Leiden Decl., Ex. 28 (January

1, 2015 Agreement between

USSF and SUM),

USSF_Morgan_000933.

No analysis was ever done by USSF to allocate Gulati 30(b)(6) Tr. 59:14– sponsorship and broadcast revenue between the 60:7. WNT and MNT.

A breakdown of how much sponsorship and broadcast revenue should be allocated to the MNT and WNT “can’t be done.”

Berhalter 30(b)(6) Tr. 64:15– 65:10; King Tr. 44:24–45:13, 83:17–84:17.

23 62 24
25

USSF has told the EEOC that it is impossible to May 31, 2016 EEOC

attribute sponsorship or broadcast revenue to Correspondence, at

either the MNT or WNT.

USSF_Morgan_004250.

26 63 27

Class Representatives Alex Morgan, Megan Dkt. No. 2, Exhibit A to Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, and Carli Lloyd Plaintiffs’ Complaint. filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC

28

in April 2016.

11

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:2222

1 2 64 3

The EEOC issued each player right-to-sue letters on February 5, 2019.

Dkt. No. 2, Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

4 65 5

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with this Dkt. No. 1, Plaintiffs’

Court on March 8, 2019.

Complaint.

6 66 7 8 9 10 11

Sunil Gulati testified that one of the reasons thatGulati 30(b)(6) Tr. 151:9– WNT’s compensation was justifiably lower 155:20. than the MNT’s compensation is an “absolute difference in quality” based on the “speed and strength of the men versus the speed and strength of the women” and the separation of men and women into separate teams by FIFA based on “genetics” and “biology.”

12 67 USSF’s outside counsel, Russell Sauer, stated Leiden Decl., Ex. 29

13

during collective bargaining negotiations that (Deposition of Megan “market realities are such that the women do Rapinoe on January 17,

14

not deserve equal pay.”

2020), 108:19–109:20;

15

111:1–24; Nichols Tr. 128:9– 23.

16

17 68

Mr. King could not remember if the statement King Tr. 52:7–56:7. “market realities are such that the women do

18

not deserve equal pay” was made by Mr. Sauer

19

or anyone else for the USSF at any bargaining session.

20

21 69 22

Mr. Cordeiro testified: “I had a concern—which Cordeiro Tr. 59:22–60:11. is why I ran for president—that our women lacked equal opportunity. And lacking equal

23

opportunity to play competitive matches and

competitive tournaments that had significant

24

payouts was a significant disadvantage for our

25

women. So I believe then and I continue to

believe now that working for quote ‘equal pay

26

and equal resources’ is all about creating more

27

opportunity for our women so they can play

more competitive events that would drive more

28

revenue and more compensation.”

12

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:2223

1 70 2 3 4 5

USSF has asserted that the pay discrimination USSF’s Supplemental

in favor of the MNT is justified by their

Responses to Plaintiffs’

“belief” that the activities of the MNT had Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6,

generated and would continue to generate more and 11, at 3–5.

game-related revenue and net profits, as well as

higher broadcasting and sponsorship revenue,

than the activities of the WNT.

6 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7 1. A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine
8 issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
10 2. A motion for partial summary judgment is the appropriate vehicle to
11 determine less than all of the issues in the case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), and has been
12 found by courts in this circuit to be an efficient method to streamline the issues to be
13 presented to the jury. Harper v. City of San Jose, No. C 09-05758 JW, 2011 WL
14 7109218, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011).
15 3. The Equal Pay Act provides that an employer cannot “discriminate …
16 between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such
17 establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the
18 opposite sex … for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill,
19 effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”
20 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).
21 4. In order to prevail on liability under the EPA, Plaintiffs need only show
22 that USSF paid MNT players at a rate more than WNT players for performing
23 substantially similar work. See Mickelson v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 1304, 1310-
24 11 (10th Cir. 2006).
25 5. Under the EPA, the controlling issue is whether an employer has
26 discriminated on the basis of sex with respect to the rate of pay, not total
27 remuneration. Dkt. No. 98, Minute Order on Mot. for Class Certification (“Class
28

13
STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:2224

1 Certification Order”) at 5-6 & n.1; Ebbert v. Nassau Cty., No. 05-CV-
2 5445(FB)(AKT), 2009 WL 935812, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (“[T]he
3 EPA…speak[s] in term of rate of pay, not total remuneration … As a matter of
4 common sense, total remuneration cannot be the proper point of comparison.”); Bence
5 v. Detroit Health Corp., 712 F.2d 1024, 1027 (6th Cir. 1983).
6 6. The EPA prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of sex in
7 wages paid for “equal work,” which under the EPA is defined as work that is equal in
8 terms of skill, effort, and responsibility. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.13(c). “Equal work” under
9 the EPA does not mean work that is “identical.” Gunther v. Washington Cnty., 623
10 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir. 1979). Rather, “substantially equal” is the controlling test.
11 Maxwell v. City of Tucson, 1984 WL 21130, at *3 (9th Cir. July 3, 1984).
12 7. Under the EPA, the rate of pay must be equal for persons performing
13 equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed
14 under “similar working conditions,” which refer to the job’s physical environment and
15 potential hazards. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.18(a); Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S.
16 188, 201-03 (1974).
17 8. A business enterprise is considered a “single establishment” for purposes
18 of the EPA where the employer has centralized control of job descriptions, salary
19 administration, and job assignments. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.9(b).
20 9. A collective bargaining agreement perpetuating pay discrimination
21 affords the employer no defense to a claim under the Equal Pay Act or Title VII. See
22 29 C.F.R. § 1620.23; Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 51–52 (1974)
23 UMWA Health & Ret. Fund v. Robinson, 455 U.S. 562, 575 (1982).
24 10. The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act permits (but in no
25 way requires) athletes to file complaints with the United States Olympic Committee.
26 See 36 U.S.C. § 220527. The statute does not preempt discrimination and related
27

28
14
STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:2225

1 claims. See, e.g., Lee v. U.S. Taekwondo Union, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1260 (D. Haw.
2 2004).
3 11. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to
4 discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
5 conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color,
6 religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
7 12. In contrast to the EPA, plaintiffs alleging sex-based compensation
8 discrimination under Title VII need not establish that they are performing equal work
9 for unequal pay. Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., 944 F.3d 97, 110 (2d Cir. 2019).
10 13. In order to prevail on their Title VII sex-based compensation
11 discrimination claim, a plaintiff need only show that sex “was a motivating factor for
12 any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42
13 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).
14 14. In the context of proving a Title VII violation, direct evidence is
15 “evidence which, if believed, proves the fact [of discriminatory animus] without
16 inference or presumption.” Vasquez v. Cty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634, 640 (9th Cir. 2003)
17 (citing Goodwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir. 1998).
18 15. Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination with
19 indirect evidence, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate a legitimate,
20 nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
21 Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
22 16. “In situations where the jurisdictional prerequisites of both the EPA and
23 title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 200e et seq., are
24 satisfied, any violation of the Equal Pay Act is also a violation of title VII.” 29 CFR §
25 1620.27
26 17. Because “Title VII contains a broader prohibition on discriminatory
27 wages than that mandated by the Equal Pay Act,” plaintiffs “do not need to show
28

15

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:2226

1 substantial equality to pursue a Title VII claim.” Lewis v. Smith, 255 F. Supp. 2d

2 1054, 1060 (D. Ariz. 2003).

3 18. Parties cannot assert affirmative defenses to prevent a court from

4 granting summary judgment on liability where they do not offer sufficient evidence to

5 support those affirmative defenses. EEOC v. BNSF Railway Cmpny., 902 F.3d 916,

6 921 (9th Cir. 2018).

7

8 Dated: February 20, 2020

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

9

By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler Jeffrey L. Kessler

10

David G. Feher Cardelle B. Spangler

11

Diana Hughes Leiden Jeanifer E. Parsigian

12

Lev Tsukerman

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
16
STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2227

1 Jeffrey L. Kessler (admitted pro hac vice) jkessler@winston.com
2 David G. Feher (admitted pro hac vice) dfeher@winston.com
3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue
4 New York, New York 10166 Telephone: (212) 294- 6700
5 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700

6 Cardelle B. Spangler (admitted pro hac vice) cspangler@winston.com
7 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive
8 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600
9 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700

10 Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606) dhleiden@winston.com

11 Lev Tsukerman (SBN: 319184)

ltsukerman@winston.com

12 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071
13 Tel: (213) 615-1700 Fax: (213) 615-1750

14

Jeanifer E. Parsigian (SBN: 289001)

15 jparsigian@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
16 101 California St., 35th Floor San Francisco, California 94111
17 Telephone: (415) 591-1000

Facsimile: (415) 591-1400

18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

21

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

22 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

23

Plaintiffs/Claimants,

24 v.

25

UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.,

Assigned to: Judge R. Gary Klausner DECLARATION OF DIANA HUGHES LEIDEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

26

Date: March 30, 2020 Defendant/Respondent. Time: 9:00 a.m.

27

Courtroom: 850

28
1 LEIDEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2228

1

I, Diana Hughes Leiden, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, as follows:

2

1. I am a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP, counsel for the Plaintiffs Alex

3 Morgan, et al. in this matter. I am over the age of eighteen years old and I have personal

4 knowledge of each and every fact stated in this declaration. If called to testify, I could

5 testify competently thereto. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for

6 Partial Summary Judgment.

7

2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Rule

8 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (“USSF”)

9 through Tom King on January 23, 2020.

10

3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the 2013-2016

11 Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the U.S. Women’s National Team

12 Players Association and USSF on March 19, 2013, produced by the U.S. Women’s

13 National Team Players Association (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 117, beginning with Bates

14 number WNTPA_00004575).

15

4. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the 2005-2012

16 Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between the U.S. Women’s National

17 Team Players Association and USSF produced by USSF (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 75,

18 beginning with Bates number USSF_Morgan_028424).

19

5. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the 2017-2021

20 Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between the U.S. Women’s National

21 Team Players Association and USSF on April 4, 2017 produced by USSF (Plaintiffs’

22 Exhibit 31, beginning with Bates number USSF_Morgan_000587).

23

6. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the 2011-2018

24 Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between the U.S. National Team Players

25 Association and USSF on November 20, 2011 produced by USSF (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

26 32, beginning with Bates number USSF_Morgan_000530).

27

7. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

28 deposition of John Langel on November 21, 2019.
1 LEIDEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2229

1

8. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a November 15, 2004

2 letter to the United States Olympics Committee from John Langel, produced by the U.S.

3 Women’s National Team Players Association (beginning with Bates number

4 WNTPA_00010895).

5

9. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

6 individual deposition of Tom King on January 23, 2020.

7

10. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of notes from

8 various collective bargaining negotiations between the U.S. Women’s National Team

9 Players Association and USSF produced by USSF (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 121, beginning

10 with Bates number USSF_Morgan_005638).

11

11. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Rule

12 30(b)(6) deposition of USSF through Sunil Gulati on December 17, 2019.

13

12. Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

14 deposition of Carlos Cordeiro on January 29, 2020.

15

13. Attached as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of an e-mail chain dated

16 December 21, 2017 and titled “Why I’m running for President of US Soccer” produced

17 by USSF (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 124, beginning with Bates number

18 USSF_Morgan_044331).

19

14. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a printout of an ESPN

20 article titled “Carlos Cordeiro, USSF presidential candidate, answers ESPN’s

21 questions” produced by USSF (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 127, beginning with Bates number

22 USSF_Morgan_044356).

23

15. Attached as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

24 deposition of Praptika (Pinky) Raina on January 21, 2020.

25

16. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of a chart detailing the

26 match history for the U.S. Senior Women’s National Soccer Team from 2014 through

27 2019 produced by USSF (Bates number USSF_Morgan_070835).

28
2 LEIDEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2230

1

17. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

2 deposition of Jill Ellis on January 15, 2020.

3

18. Attached as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

4 deposition of Alex Morgan on December 19, 2019.

5

19. Attached as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

6 deposition of Carli Lloyd on December 20, 2019.

7

20. Attached as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

8 individual deposition of Sunil Gulati on December 18, 2019 (Volume II).

9

21. Attached as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Rule

10 30(b)(6) deposition of USSF through Jay Berhalter.

11

22. Attached as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of a chart detailing the

12 match history for the U.S. Senior Men’s National Soccer Team from 2014 through

13 2019, produced by USSF (Bates number USSF_Morgan_070834).

14

23. Attached as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of USSF’s January 31,

15 2020 Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories.

16

24. Attached as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of USSF’s organization

17 chart, produced by USSF (Bates number USSF_Morgan_005792).

18

25. Attached as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from USSF’s

19 2020 Annual General Meeting Book of Reports (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 113).

20

26. Attached as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of USSF’s May 31, 2016

21 letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, produced by USSF (Bates

22 number USSF_Morgan_004237).

23

27. Attached as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of the March 30, 2004

24 U.S. Soccer/Soccer United Marketing (“SUM”) Licensing Agreement, produced by

25 USSF (beginning with Bates number USSF_Morgan_000875).

26

28. Attached as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of the October 19, 2007

27 U.S. Soccer/SUM Licensing Agent Agreement produced by USSF (beginning with

28 Bates number USSF_Morgan_000906).
3 LEIDEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2231

1

29. Attached as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of the January 1, 2015

2 USSF/SUM Master Rights Agreement produced by USSF (beginning with Bates

3 number USSF_Morgan_000933).

4

30. Attached as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

5 deposition of Megan Rapinoe on January 16, 2020.

6

31. Attached as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

7 deposition of Rich Nichols on December 4, 2019.

8

32. Attached as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from a

9 slidedeck titled “Business Review Meeting August 20, 2019” produced by USSF

10 (beginning with Bates number USSF_Morgan_022060).

11

33. Attached as Exhibit 32 is a true and correct copy of a summary chart

12 prepared by Plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 detailing net revenue

13 for the U.S. Senior Women’s National Team and the U.S. Senior Men’s National Team

14 for fiscal years 2015 through 2020 (through October 31, 2019). The figures listed in this

15 summary chart were taken from the following Bates numbered documents produced by

16 USSF: USSF_Morgan_041681, USSF_Morgan_041694, USSF_Morgan_041706,

17 USSF_Morgan_041728,

USSF_Morgan_041740,

USSF_Morgan_041747,

18 USSF_Morgan_063037, and USSF_Morgan_057259–USSF_Morgan_057263.

19

34. Attached as Exhibit 33 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

20 individual deposition of Sunil Gulati on December 17, 2019 (Volume I).

21

22

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

23 Executed on this 20th day of February, 2020 in Los Angeles, California.

24

/s/ Diana Hughes Leiden

25

Diana Hughes Leiden

26

27

28
4 LEIDEN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 44 Page ID #:2232
EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 44 Page ID #:2233
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

)

)

5

Plaintiffs,

)

)

6

vs.

) No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

)

7 UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

FEDERATION, INC.,

)

8

)

Defendant.

)

9

10

11

12

13

VIDEOTAPED RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF TOM KING

14

Chicago, Illinois

15

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

16

17

18

19

THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED CONFIDENTIAL

20

UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN THE

21

MORGAN CASE AND THE SOLO CASE

22

23

24 REPORTED BY: GREG S. WEILAND, CSR, RMR, CRR

25 JOB NO.:

173931

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 44 Page ID #:2234
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 10

1

will be the 30(b)(6) deposition of the witness.

2

The practice we've been following is to do a

3

separate deposition in effect back to back when

4

the witness is both the 30(b)(6) designee and

5

also has individual deposition as well.

6

So we will start with that.

7

(Witness sworn.)

8

TOM KING

9 after being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

10

EXAMINATION

11 BY MR. KESSLER:

12

Q. Good morning, Mr. King.

13

A. Good morning.

14

Q. We've just met. My name is Jeffrey

15 Kessler. I'm counsel for the plaintiffs in this

16 matter.

17

Mr. King, would you state your name and

18 address for the record, please.

19

A. Sure. My name is Tom King. I live at

20 4223 Falkner Drive, Naperville, Illinois 60564.

21

Q. Okay. Have you been deposed on prior

22 occasions?

23

A. One time before.

24

Q. What type of case?

25

MR. STOLZENBACH: If you know what type of

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 44 Page ID #:2235
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 34

1

Q. The men's agreement is for the period, on

2 its face, from January 1, 2011, through

3 December 31st, 2018; is that correct?

4

A. That is correct.

5

Q. Now, since that agreement has expired, has

6 the USSF continued to adhere to the terms of this

7 agreement with respect to the men's national team,

8 at least with respect to compensation --

9

MR. STOLZENBACH: I'm going to object to

10

for.

11 BY MR. KESSLER:

12

Q. -- terms?

13

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form. But you

14

can answer.

15 BY MR. KESSLER:

16

Q. Let me ask it differently.

17

What's your understanding of how the men's

18 team is being compensated since this agreement

19 expired?

20

A. My understanding is we've kept the same

21 payment schedule for all of the different categories

22 of games and tournaments and have continued to pay

23 based on the terms and conditions on the financial

24 requirements of the CBA.

25

Q. Okay. So if I wanted to know how much a

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 44 Page ID #:2236
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 35

1 member of the men's team was being paid in

2 connection with a particular competition in 2019

3 after this agreement expired, it would be the same

4 way they were compensated under this agreement prior

5 to 2019, correct?

6

A. That is correct.

7

MR. STOLZENBACH: I'm going to object to

8

form just because, Jeffrey, there's, you know,

9

a separate schedule for '11 to '14 in the CBA

10

and '15 to '18, so that may make your question

11

a little unclear.

12 BY MR. KESSLER:

13

Q. Okay. After 2018, they would be

14 compensated in 2019 going forward the same way they

15 are compensated for under this agreement in the year

16 2018; is that correct?

17

A. That is correct. There is one small

18 nuance here that would deviate from that in terms of

19 the verbiage. We pay a specific amount for Round 1

20 World Cup qualifiers. There are no Round 1

21 World Cup qualifiers for the men in this particular

22 cycle. So we have -- and it was replaced. Those

23 dates were replaced by a tournament called the

24 CONCACAF Nations League.

25

And if you finish in the top six teams on

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 44 Page ID #:2237
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 47

1 the money that it receives, correct?

2

A. Correct.

3

Q. Okay. Okay. Let's go back to the men's

4 CBA, which is Plaintiff Exhibit 32.

5

Now, the men's CBA, if you look at Page 9

6 of the -- well, let me see what this document is.

7 It's towards the back. It's Bates stamp number 572.

8

Do you know what this chart is on -- that

9 runs from Bates stamp number 572 through 574?

10

A. Yes.

11

Q. What is this?

12

A. This is our payment schedule for all the

13 various team outcomes for all the various

14 competitions that the men's team participates in.

15

Q. Okay. Would this chart in the men's

16 agreement that you just referred to be the

17 equivalent to what was Exhibit A to the women's CBA

18 we looked at, the chart that's on Page 53 of that

19 collective bargaining agreement?

20

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

21

THE WITNESS: Can you explain what you

22

mean by "equivalent"?

23 BY MR. KESSLER:

24

Q. In other words, does it serve the same

25 function in summarizing the compensation terms for

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 44 Page ID #:2238
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 48

1 the members of each of the respective teams?

2

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

3

THE WITNESS: I think that's fair to say

4

that would be the case, yeah.

5 BY MR. KESSLER:

6

Q. Okay. So if I wanted to compare for 2017

7 through 2019 the compensation paid to the women's

8 team to the compensation that would be paid to the

9 men's team during that period of time, would it be

10 correct that I would look at the column under the

11 men's chart for 2015 to '18 and compare that to the

12 terms of Exhibit A on the women's national team

13 agreement?

14

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

15

THE WITNESS: For years '17 through '19?

16 BY MR. KESSLER:

17

Q. Yes.

18

A. Yes, with just the understanding though

19 that the men is out of contract now and that we are

20 still paying against the schedule based on what we

21 would have paid in 2018.

22

Q. Right. Now, the men's agreement does not

23 provide for any terms regarding participation in the

24 Olympics, correct?

25

A. That is correct.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 44 Page ID #:2239
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 68

1

particular chart, but let him mark it first.

2

MR. STOLZENBACH: We will object to the

3

use of this exhibit because we don't think it

4

complies with Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of

5

Evidence.

6

MR. KESSLER: Okay. You can reserve

7

whatever objections you want, but we eventually

8

get to what's admissible and what's not

9

admissible.

10

(Plaintiff Exhibit 116 was

11

marked for identification.)

12

MR. KESSLER: And I would say prior --

13

this I will agree to -- prior to any

14

admissibility at trial, you get to check the

15

accuracy and make sure that you agree the

16

numbers are correct.

17

MR. STOLZENBACH: I don't think that's the

18

only problem with it, but we can have that

19

debate later.

20

MR. KESSLER: Yes.

21 BY MR. KESSLER:

22

Q. And I asked you to have the charts out so

23 you can refresh your recollection on some of these

24 numbers, okay.

25

So the first thing I want to ask you about

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 44 Page ID #:2240
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 69

1 is the friendly appearance fees. And on this chart,

2 I'm just comparing the players on the men's national

3 team versus the non-contract players on the women's

4 national team.

5

Do you see it says "non-contract players"?

6

A. Yes.

7

Q. I'll ask you later about the contract

8 players in a separate set of questions about this.

9

Am I correct that in 2017 and '18 the

10 friendly appearance fees for the women were 3,750 in

11 comparison to $5,000 for the members of the men's

12 national team?

13

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

14

THE WITNESS: Yes, for players that have

15

eight caps or more.

16

(Stenographer clarification.)

17

THE WITNESS: Eight caps or more for

18

3,750.

19 BY MR. KESSLER:

20

Q. Okay.

21

A. If you have one to seven caps, you get

22 3,250, and if you have eight or more, you get 3,750.

23

Q. Thank you. And "caps" means number of

24 appearances on the team?

25

A. Correct, the number of times you've been

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 44 Page ID #:2241
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 70

1 named to the roster.

2

Q. Than you. Now, for -- the men get 5,000

3 no matter how many caps they have, correct? It's

4 not differentiated?

5

A. That is correct.

6

Q. So a man who had one cap --

7

A. Can I just clarify one thing?

8

MR. STOLZENBACH: Just --

9

THE WITNESS: I just want to be

10

100 percent sure because you asked the question

11

about the number of times that you're on the

12

roster. For this particular amount, it's based

13

on caps. It's based on the number of times you

14

actually play for the national team.

15 BY MR. KESSLER:

16

Q. Yes.

17

A. You're not capped if you just make a

18 roster, all right.

19

Q. You have to play a game?

20

A. Correct. All right. So it's eight times

21 that you've been on the field, not the number of

22 times you've been on the roster.

23

Q. So a man who played no prior games would

24 get $5,000. And if a woman is a non-contracted

25 player on the team during '17-'18 and had fewer than

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 44 Page ID #:2242
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 71

1 eight appearances in games, that woman would only

2 get $3,250, correct?

3

A. That is correct.

4

Q. Okay. And in 2019 to '20, okay, a woman

5 with -- is it also eight or more caps?

6

A. Correct.

7

Q. Okay, would get $4,000 as a non-contracted

8 player, and a man would get $5,000 to the appearance

9 regardless as to whether the man had any caps or

10 not, correct?

11

A. Correct.

12

Q. And for less than eight appearances in

13 games, what would the non-contracted player woman

14 get in 2019-2020?

15

A. 3,500.

16

Q. 3,500, okay. So in that case, $1,500 less

17 than what a man would get for appearing in a

18 friendly, correct?

19

A. Correct.

20

Q. Okay. Now moving to Tier 1 friendlies,

21 and these are the women tie bonuses, and for women

22 tie bonuses, the same are paid to the women whether

23 they're contracted or non-contracted players,

24 correct?

25

A. That is correct.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 44 Page ID #:2243
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 72

1

Q. And the same amount is paid whether you

2 have caps or non-caps; is that correct?

3

A. Correct.

4

Q. Okay. And so for the Tier 1 friendlies, a

5 man would get $12,625 for a win, and a woman would

6 only get 8,500; is that correct?

7

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

8

THE WITNESS: Correct.

9 BY MR. KESSLER:

10

Q. And for a tie, a man would get $3,125 for

11 a tie, and a woman on the women's national team

12 would only get 1,750 for a tie, correct?

13

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

14

THE WITNESS: Correct.

15 BY MR. KESSLER:

16

Q. And Tier 1 friendlies are defined in the

17 agreement for the women and the men based on the

18 rankings set forth in this chart, correct?

19

A. Correct.

20

Q. Okay. For Tier 2 friendlies, this would

21 also apply to all women's national team players

22 whether they have a contract or not, correct?

23

A. Correct.

24

Q. For Tier 2 friendlies, a man who gets a

25 win would get 7,500, and a woman would get 5,250,

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 44 Page ID #:2244
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 73

1 correct --

2

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object.

3 BY MR. KESSLER:

4

Q. -- for the period of the 2017 women's

5 national team CBA?

6

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

7

THE WITNESS: Correct.

8 BY MR. KESSLER:

9

Q. And for a tie, the men and women would get

10 the same thing for Tier 2 friendlies, 1,250,

11 correct?

12

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

13

THE WITNESS: Correct.

14 BY MR. KESSLER:

15

Q. Now, for a Tier 3 friendly --

16

MR. STOLZENBACH: Tom, don't write on the

17

exhibit.

18

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

19

MR. KESSLER: Excuse me?

20

MR. STOLZENBACH: I told him -- he has

21

been writing on the exhibits --

22

MR. KESSLER: Don't write on the exhibits,

23

please.

24

MR. STOLZENBACH: -- as he checks things

25

off.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 44 Page ID #:2245
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 74

1

MR. KESSLER: You can check, but please

2

don't write on the exhibits.

3

If he did, we will replace it with one

4

afterwards that you agree is correct.

5 BY MR. KESSLER:

6

Q. For Tier 3 friendlies, for a win, a

7 Tier 3, the women actually would make a little bit

8 more than the men, 5,250 versus 4,375, correct?

9

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

10

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

11 BY MR. KESSLER:

12

Q. But for a tie, the women would get nothing

13 while the men would get 1,250, correct?

14

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

15

THE WITNESS: Correct.

16 BY MR. KESSLER:

17

Q. Okay. Now let's move down to World Cup

18 qualifiers next.

19

Is it correct that under the women's

20 agreement the women would get, for qualifying games,

21 $3,000 for a win and $500 for a tie; is that

22 correct?

23

A. Correct.

24

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 44 Page ID #:2246
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 75

1 BY MR. KESSLER:

2

Q. And the men for Round 1 of men's World Cup

3 qualifying would get $15,625 for a win, $7,500 for a

4 tie, and $5,000 for a loss; is that correct?

5

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

6

THE WITNESS: Correct.

7 BY MR. KESSLER:

8

Q. So that means, if I read this correctly,

9 that on the men's team, the players get more money,

10 $5,000, for losing a qualifying game in the first

11 round than the women get for winning a World Cup

12 qualifier, correct?

13

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

14

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

15 BY MR. KESSLER:

16

Q. Now, with respect to Round 2, the men

17 would get $18,125 for winning, $10,000 for tying,

18 and $5,000 for losing; is that correct?

19

A. Correct.

20

Q. And, again, the women never get more than

21 $3,000 for a World Cup qualifying game, correct?

22

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

23

THE WITNESS: Correct.

24 BY MR. KESSLER:

25

Q. Okay. Now looking at the qualifying

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 44 Page ID #:2247
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 76

1 bonus, is it correct in this period that the men's

2 team would get a total of $2 million distributed to

3 the players for qualifying for the World Cup on the

4 men's team?

5

A. Can you repeat the amount?

6

Q. $2 million.

7

A. That's not my understanding.

8

Q. Okay. What is your understanding?

9

A. 2.5 million.

10

Q. 2.5 million?

11

A. Uh-huh.

12

Q. Okay. We will correct that chart.

13

And with respect to the women, do we have

14 the total right that they get for qualifying a total

15 of $750,000?

16

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

17

THE WITNESS: Correct.

18 BY MR. KESSLER:

19

Q. Okay. Now, these World Cup qualifying

20 bonuses in your understanding would be distributed

21 to the individual players in each team, correct?

22

A. Correct.

23

Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the roster

24 bonus, is it correct that the men receive or would

25 receive a $68,750 bonus for being on the World Cup

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 44 Page ID #:2248
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 77

1 roster, but the women would only receive 37,500 for

2 being on the World Cup roster?

3

A. Correct.

4

Q. With respect to World Cup games, is it

5 correct that the men for first place would receive

6 $9,375,000 in total while the women would receive

7 $2,530,000 in total for winning the World Cup?

8

A. Correct.

9

Q. And is it correct that if the men finished

10 in second place, they would receive in total

11 6,250,000 while the women would receive for second

12 place 1,150,000?

13

A. Correct.

14

Q. So as I understand this is that the men

15 for finishing in second place would receive more

16 than twice the bonus that the women would receive

17 for winning the entire World Cup in first place,

18 correct?

19

A. Correct.

20

Q. Now, for third place, the men would

21 receive 1,250,000 in total, and the women's team

22 would receive $575,000 in total, correct?

23

A. Correct, yeah.

24

Q. Now, in the women's World Cup games, there

25 are no specific bonuses for semifinal, quarterfinal

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 44 Page ID #:2249
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 78

1 or second round, and is that because of the

2 different playing structure of the women's

3 tournament and the men's tournament?

4

A. Sorry, can I just go back one number?

5

Q. Yes.

6

A. The third place, I just want to verify,

7 the third place for the women in the World Cup, you

8 had asked the question --

9

Q. Yes. 575,000 total. Is that not correct?

10

A. Correct.

11

Q. It is correct?

12

A. Yes, it is correct. Thank you.

13

Q. Do you know why there are no semifinal

14 bonuses, quarterfinal bonuses or second round

15 bonuses for the women's national team? Is that

16 because it's a different structure of the games?

17

A. First of all, this is part of an overall

18 negotiation with all of the elements, and I recall

19 in those discussions that both parties agreed that

20 the bonuses would kick in for the later rounds.

21

Q. Okay. So let me ask you this: Is it

22 correct then that if the men's make the semifinal,

23 they get a $5,625,000 bonus in total, but the women,

24 if all they do is make the semifinal and lose in

25 that game they don't get any bonus?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 44 Page ID #:2250
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 79

1

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

2

THE WITNESS: If you lose the semifinal

3

game in the women's World Cup, you do not get

4

any bonuses, correct.

5 BY MR. KESSLER:

6

Q. Right. While the men would get a

7 $5,625,000 bonus for losing the semifinal game?

8

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

9

THE WITNESS: Correct.

10 BY MR. KESSLER:

11

Q. Okay. And with respect to the

12 quarterfinal, the men get a $5 million bonus for

13 making the quarterfinal; is that correct?

14

A. That is correct.

15

Q. And the women don't get any bonus in

16 making the quarterfinal, correct?

17

A. That is correct.

18

Q. And with respect to the second round

19 bonus, the men get $4,500,000 in a bonus, correct?

20

A. Can you repeat the amount?

21

Q. For making the second round, the men

22 get -- of the World Cup, the men get a $4,500,000

23 bonus in total?

24

A. Correct.

25

Q. And there's no equivalent bonus in the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 44 Page ID #:2251
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 80

1 women's game, correct?

2

A. That is correct.

3

Q. Okay. Moving -- and all of the World Cup

4 bonuses, to your knowledge, for both men and women

5 are distributed to the individual players, correct?

6

A. That is my understanding, yes.

7

Q. Okay. Now, by the way, these World Cup

8 bonus amounts -- strike that.

9

Next question, going down now, it says

10 there's a World Cup per-game payment.

11

Is it correct that for the men, all of the

12 players get a $6,875 payment just for playing in the

13 World Cup, correct, in a game, each game?

14

A. Correct.

15

Q. Okay. And for the women, the

16 non-contracted players get 4,500 for playing in each

17 game of the World Cup, correct?

18

A. Can you repeat the amount?

19

Q. $4,500 for the non-contract.

20

A. Correct, yes.

21

Q. And for the contracted players, they don't

22 get any specific per-game payment for playing in the

23 World Cup, correct?

24

A. That is correct.

25

Q. Okay. That's on the women's team, the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 44 Page ID #:2252
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 81

1 contracted players that's referring to, correct?

2

A. Yes.

3

Q. Okay. Now, looking at non-World Cup

4 tournaments, okay, with respect to the Copa América

5 tournament, the men would receive a $14,125 bonus

6 for winning the Copa América tournament -- no, for

7 winning a game, I guess in a Copa América

8 tournament; is that correct?

9

A. Correct.

10

Q. And they receive a 6,563 bonus for tying a

11 Copa América, correct?

12

A. Yes.

13

Q. And they receive $5,000 simply for playing

14 even if they lose a game in the Copa América

15 tournament, correct?

16

A. Correct.

17

Q. Now, the Copa América tournament is run

18 regionally.

19

Could you describe who's in the

20 Copa América tournaments?

21

A. Sure. Copa América is the official

22 confederation tournament of the Confederation of

23 CONMEBOL, which is South America, and it's held

24 every other year. There's an anomaly here in that

25 in 2016 -- it's held in the odd years. It was held

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 44 Page ID #:2253
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 82

1 here in the United States in 2016 as Copa Centenario

2 as a 100-year celebration. But it's a tournament

3 that -- because there's only ten teams in the

4 CONMEBOL, they always invite two.

5

So this provision was always with the mind

6 set that we could at some point be invited to

7 participate in Copa América down the road. It

8 didn't envision hosting Copa in 2016.

9

Q. Copa América is not a world event?

10

A. No.

11

Q. It doesn't invite teams from all over the

12 world?

13

A. It's just one of the six confederation

14 championships.

15

Q. Now, the Olympics is a world event,

16 correct?

17

A. Correct, correct.

18

Q. Now, for the Olympics, the women for a win

19 get $3,000 in an Olympics game in a qualifying game

20 and get $500 in a qualifier tie; is that correct?

21

A. Correct.

22

Q. And if you look at the next page -- wait a

23 minute. I'm sorry.

24

Now, so am I correct that, going back to

25 the same page, that a man playing in the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 44 Page ID #:2254
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 83

1 Copa América tournament for winning would get more

2 than four times what a woman would get for winning

3 in an Olympic qualifier event; is that correct?

4

A. You're comparing the 25,000 win bonus?

5

Q. No, the 14,125 per game win bonus to the

6 Olympic qualifier win.

7

A. Correct.

8

Q. Okay. Looking at the next page now, the

9 qualification bonus for the Olympics for the women's

10 national team is $35,000; is that correct?

11

A. I believe it's 25.

12

Q. Excuse me?

13

A. Is it 25 for the women to qualify?

14

MS. PARIGIAN: Yes, I believe that's

15

incorrect on the chart. It's 25,000.

16 BY MR. KESSLER:

17

Q. It should be $25,000?

18

A. Correct.

19

Q. Okay, $25,000.

20

A. I'm not going to mark on it mine.

21

Q. And what is the roster? Is that the same?

22

MS. PARIGIAN: Yes, the roster is also

23

25,000.

24 BY MR. KESSLER:

25

Q. And there's also a roster bonus of

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 44 Page ID #:2255
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 84

1 $25,000; is that correct?

2

A. Correct, for the Olympics for the women,

3 yes.

4

Q. And for winning the Olympics, the women

5 would get $100,000 for the gold, $55,000 for silver,

6 and $25,000 for bronze; is that correct?

7

A. Correct.

8

Q. For the SheBelieves Cup, there's a first

9 place bonus of $5,000; is that correct?

10

A. Correct.

11

Q. And for the Four Nations Tournament,

12 there's a first place bonus of $5,000; is that

13 correct?

14

A. Correct.

15

Q. Now, going back to the Copa América

16 tournament, the men would receive a second round

17 bonus of 12,500, correct?

18

A. 12,500, correct.

19

Q. Right?

20

A. Yes.

21

Q. And for the gold they would win 25,000,

22 silver 15,000, bronze 11,250, and fourth place

23 6,875, correct?

24

A. Correct.

25

Q. Okay. Now, what is the Confederation Cup?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 44 Page ID #:2256
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 85

1

A. The Confederation Cup, it has been

2 disbanded. This was a tournament that FIFA

3 traditionally had in the host nation of the

4 World Cup.

5

So in 2010, we qualified for the 2 -- for

6 the 2009 -- the World Cup was in South Africa in

7 2010. We qualified for the Confederations Cup for

8 2009 by winning the Gold Cup, our confederation

9 tournament, the previous year. The Confederation

10 Cup, which is a tournament hosted by FIFA, is for

11 the six confederation champions of each area.

12

So this was to be a dry run for the

13 World Cup host to host a smaller tournament, albeit

14 12 months prior to hosting the World Cup.

15

Q. Okay. And for the Confederation Cup, the

16 men received, when it was played, a per-game bonus

17 of 15,375 for winning, 6,875 for tying, and 5,000

18 for losing; is that correct?

19

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form just

20

because you said "when it was played," and I

21

don't know that this contract covered when the

22

U.S. men's national team played in it.

23 BY MR. KESSLER:

24

Q. Well, let me ask you, when was the

25 Confederation Cup last played?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 44 Page ID #:2257
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 86

1

A. The last Confederation Cup was 2013.

2

Q. '13?

3

A. And we didn't qualify.

4

Q. You did not qualify?

5

A. We played in the 2009 edition.

6

Q. Okay. Had the men qualified in 2013, it

7 would have applied, but I understand you're saying

8 it wasn't played during this later period of time?

9

A. Correct.

10

Q. Okay. So we can skip the Confederation

11 Cup on this for now.

12

With respect to the Gold Cup, what event

13 is that, if you can describe it?

14

A. The Gold Cup is our own confederation

15 tournament. So CONCACAF is the confederation we

16 play in, and that is every other year on the odd

17 years.

18

Q. And that is still played?

19

A. Correct.

20

Q. And that is not again a global event?

21 It's just for the confederation that USSF belongs

22 to?

23

A. Correct, North America, Central America

24 and the Caribbean.

25

Q. Right. And so with respect to that

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 44 Page ID #:2258
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 87

1 tournament, if the men got a win, they would get

2 $15,375 for a win; is that correct?

3

A. For a Gold Cup win?

4

Q. Yes, in a game.

5

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

6

THE WITNESS: It depends on the FIFA

7

ranking of the opponent.

8 BY MR. KESSLER:

9

Q. Okay. So what would -- what is the

10 variation?

11

A. Okay. So if we are playing teams that are

12 not in the top 25 --

13

Q. Right.

14

A. -- a win would yield between -- in the

15 second quad would yield $9,375.

16

Q. Okay.

17

A. A tie would yield 6,563.

18

Q. Right.

19

A. And a loss 5,000.

20

Q. Okay. And what about if you're playing in

21 the higher tier games?

22

A. And then if you were playing in -- if

23 you're playing ranked 11 through 25, a win would

24 yield 14,125.

25

Q. Right.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 44 Page ID #:2259
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 88

1

A. A tie would yield 6,563, and a loss would

2 yield 5,000.

3

Q. Okay.

4

A. And if you were playing a team in the top

5 ten, it would replicate the second tier.

6

Q. What do you mean "would replicate the

7 second tier"?

8

A. It would be 14,125 for a win, 6,563 for a

9 tie, and 5,000 for a loss.

10

Q. Okay.

11

A. So Tiers 1 and 2 are merged.

12

Q. And for finishing first place in the

13 Gold Cup, how much would the men receive?

14

A. 25,000 -- sorry, Gold Cup?

15

Q. Yes.

16

A. 11,250.

17

Q. And for second place?

18

A. 5,000.

19

Q. Thank you. You can put that chart away.

20

MR. STOLZENBACH: Do you want to just mark

21

mine, which is clean, as the actual exhibit,

22

and I'll take the one with notes?

23

MR. KESSLER: Sure. Thank you very much.

24

Let's re-mark that.

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 44 Page ID #:2260
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 89

1 BY MR. KESSLER:

2

Q. I now want to -- let's go to this next.

3

Okay. Let me show you next a copy of a

4 document that's previously been marked, which is the

5 MOU of the women's national team.

6

Do we have a previous --

7

MS. PARIGIAN: We're marking a new version

8

of this because the prior one that we used as

9

an exhibit that USSF had produced didn't have

10

the terms sheet at the end, so we're producing

11

or we're marking the version that was produced

12

by the PA that has the term sheet.

13

MR. KESSLER: Okay. So let's then put a

14

new exhibit number for this. This is now 11 --

15

MS. PARIGIAN: 7.

16

MR. KESSLER: -- 7.

17

MR. STOLZENBACH: Is it the same term

18

sheet we marked in Ms. Roux's deposition?

19

MS. PARIGIAN: I don't know offhand.

20

(Plaintiff Exhibit 117 was

21

marked for identification.)

22 BY MR. KESSLER:

23

Q. Do you recognize Exhibit 117?

24

A. I do.

25

Q. And what is this?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 44 Page ID #:2261
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 90

1

A. This is the memo of understanding between

2 the women's Players Association and U.S. Soccer.

3

Q. Okay. And this memorandum was entered

4 into on March 19, 2013; is that correct?

5

A. Correct.

6

Q. Okay. And it would cover the period from

7 March of 2013 through the end of 2016; is that

8 correct?

9

A. Correct.

10

Q. Okay. Now, this agreement in term was a

11 modification of a prior collective bargaining

12 agreement; is that correct?

13

A. Correct.

14

Q. Let me show you a copy of that next. And

15 this has been previously marked as Exhibit 7 -- is

16 that 5? Exhibit 75.

17

(Plaintiff Exhibit 75 was

18

identified.)

19 BY MR. KESSLER:

20

Q. And do you recognize Exhibit 75 as the CBA

21 which was entered into by the women's national team

22 and USSF in December of 2005?

23

A. Yes.

24

Q. And that CBA covered the period through

25 December 31st of 2012; is that correct?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 44 Page ID #:2262
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 91

1

A. Correct.

2

Q. And is it your understanding that to the

3 extent the MOU, which is Exhibit 117, did not change

4 any terms that are listed in Exhibit 75, the prior

5 CBA, is your understanding that the prior terms

6 continued in effect under the MOU?

7

A. I'm not sure.

8

Q. Okay.

9

MR. KESSLER: We could probably stipulate

10

to that. I believe that's your position.

11

MR. STOLZENBACH: Let me just read what

12

you said.

13

MR. KESSLER: Okay.

14

MR. STOLZENBACH: Yes, we'd agree to that.

15

MR. KESSLER: I think you actually

16

obtained a judicial ruling to that effect.

17

MR. STOLZENBACH: I think we did.

18 BY MR. KESSLER:

19

Q. Okay. All right. So the prior CBA terms

20 would stay in effect except to the extent modified

21 by the MOU; that's what your counsel just stipulated

22 to.

23

A. Okay.

24

Q. So let me start out by saying I want to go

25 back to the CBA and ask some questions about that

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 44 Page ID #:2263
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 110

1 on top of that, that's what makes the 17,625; is

2 that correct?

3

A. That is correct.

4

Q. Okay. And that --

5

A. Can I draw your attention to the column

6 though at the top here because it says 2/11 through

7 2/18, and that wouldn't be accurate because the

8 payment schedule between 2/11 and 2/14 was

9 different. So this is ticking over into the next

10 quad, okay.

11

So that column should read '15 through '18

12 for the CBA.

13

Q. So both columns should be '15 to '18 is

14 what you're saying?

15

A. Not both columns because the first

16 column --

17

Q. No, no, I understand. Let me get that

18 back out because I put that away.

19

You're saying that the column for the

20 women's national team is correct, but for the men's

21 national team it shouldn't say '11 to '18 in terms

22 of that, correct?

23

A. If you're trying to draw the comparison

24 between the women's MOU and the comparable time

25 period for the CBA, it really should read 2015 --

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 44 Page ID #:2264
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 111

1

Q. '15 to '18 --

2

A. -- to '18.

3

Q. -- in terms of what was here. Yeah, we

4 agree with you in that. This was simply indicating

5 it came from that CBA from '11 to '18. The footnote

6 makes that clear. But I understand your point. It

7 only applied for that period of time.

8

MR. STOLZENBACH: But even for the period

9

from '13 and '14, which is covered on the

10

left-hand column, that would be a different set

11

of numbers on the right-hand side.

12

MS. WAHLKE: Right.

13

MR. KESSLER: Right. I understand what

14

you're saying. It would be a different set of

15

numbers in terms of that. We will definitely

16

have a different chart at a future time with

17

respect to that.

18

Okay. Let's just use -- put the chart

19

aside and we're just going to use the two

20

agreements.

21

This is the men's agreement. Now let me

22

get the women's agreement. The MOU is what I'm

23

using, right? Do you have the MOU? Okay.

24 BY MR. KESSLER:

25

Q. Looking at the ...

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 44 Page ID #:2265
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 112

1

Okay. Looking at the MOU chart, for 2013

2 to 2016, the women would receive a win bonus of

3 1,350; is that correct?

4

A. Okay.

5

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

6

THE WITNESS: Are you looking at the chart

7

that's the last page of the --

8 BY MR. KESSLER:

9

Q. The MOU.

10

A. -- MOU?

11

Q. Yes.

12

A. Could you just point out where it is?

13

Q. So it says "Salaried Players," and then it

14 says "Win Bonus" on the bottom.

15

A. Yep.

16

Q. Right. Now, at this time, there was no

17 provision for nonsalaried players, right? There was

18 something for floaters, but all the women were under

19 contract at that time, correct --

20

A. Yes.

21

Q. -- under the MOU?

22

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

23 BY MR. KESSLER:

24

Q. And so for women on the national team

25 other than a floater, if you won a friendly, you

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 44 Page ID #:2266
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 113

1 received 1,350, correct?

2

A. That is correct.

3

Q. Okay. And comparing that to the men's

4 payments, that with respect to 2015 forward, which

5 is the period that we want to compare, okay, the men

6 would receive $9,375 for a win; is that correct?

7

A. Well, are you comparing it to the 1,350,

8 because if that's the case, it would just be the

9 difference between 5,000 and 9,375.

10

Q. I'm comparing it to the win bonus of

11 1,350, yes.

12

A. Okay. Then the win bonus for the men

13 would be 4,375.

14

Q. Because you're subtracting out the

15 appearance fee; is that correct?

16

A. Correct.

17

Q. Okay.

18

A. If you're trying to make a straight

19 comparison --

20

Q. That's fine.

21

A. -- just on win bonus --

22

Q. So the comparison would be 4,375; is that

23 right? Just repeat your number again.

24

A. 4,375.

25

Q. Okay. So the men would receive for a win

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 44 Page ID #:2267
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 114

1 bonus 4,375, and the women would receive 1,350,

2 correct?

3

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

4

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

5 BY MR. KESSLER:

6

Q. And with respect to a tie or a loss, the

7 women would not receive any bonus; is that correct?

8

A. That is correct.

9

Q. Okay. But if the men tied, what would

10 their tie bonus be minus the appearance fee?

11

A. The tie bonus for Tier 1?

12

Q. Yes.

13

A. Sorry, Tier 3, we're going backwards here,

14 Tier 3 for teams not in the FIFA top 25 and not

15 Mexico, the bonus for a men's player tie is $1,250.

16

Q. Okay. And the women would not receive

17 anything for a tie, correct, as a bonus?

18

A. Correct.

19

Q. Okay. With respect to the World Cup

20 qualifiers, for the women, they would receive a

21 $15,000 qualifying bonus and a 15,000 payment for

22 making the tournament roster; is that correct?

23

A. Correct.

24

Q. Okay. And with respect to the men, for

25 the overlapping period of '15 and '16, which is what

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 44 Page ID #:2268
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 115

1 I'm asking about, the men would receive a

2 qualification -- well, first of all, they would

3 receive a qualification bonus if they make the

4 World Cup of $2,500,000 in total; is that correct?

5

A. Correct.

6

Q. Okay. And that's in comparison to the

7 15,000 per person for the women for qualifying,

8 correct?

9

MR. STOLZENBACH: Are we talking about '15

10

and '16?

11

MR. KESSLER: '15 and '16.

12

MR. STOLZENBACH: When there was no men's

13

World Cup?

14 BY MR. KESSLER:

15

Q. You can make it '15 through '18 if you

16 want.

17

And from the period '15 through '18, if

18 there was a World Cup, the men would receive in

19 total a 2,500,000 qualifying bonus while if the

20 women had a World Cup during that period they would

21 individually receive a $15,000 qualifying bonus,

22 correct?

23

A. For the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia that

24 we didn't qualify for the men, had we qualified,

25 they would have received 2-1/2 million dollars.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 38 of 44 Page ID #:2269
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 116

1

For the 2015 women's World Cup that we did

2 qualify and participate and win, the players that

3 were on the qualifying roster got the 15,000 --

4

Q. Right.

5

A. -- and then an additional 15,000 for going

6 to Canada to play in the --

7

Q. For going and playing on the roster?

8

A. Correct.

9

Q. Right. And if the men had qualified for

10 the World Cup during this period, which, as you

11 pointed out, they didn't, they would have got a

12 World Cup roster bonus of 68,750 each, correct?

13

A. Correct.

14

Q. That's in comparison to what the women

15 received during that period of $15,000 each,

16 correct?

17

A. Correct.

18

Q. Okay. Now, looking at the women's deal,

19 they received the same qualifying bonus and

20 tournament bonus under the MOU for both the

21 World Cup and the Olympics, correct?

22

A. Correct.

23

Q. And they also received the same payments

24 for first place, second place, third and fourth

25 place under the World Cup and the Olympics on the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 39 of 44 Page ID #:2270
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 121

1

MR. KESSLER: Okay, sorry. It's 28461. I

2

think it's the very last page.

3

THE WITNESS: Okay.

4 BY MR. KESSLER:

5

Q. This provision would have remained in

6 effect through the term of the MOU.

7

Is that your understanding?

8

A. Sorry, again, which?

9

Q. This is Article --

10

A. VIII or IX?

11

Q. No, it's Article XIX -- not XIX, IX,

12 Article XI on Page 28461 entitled Additional Payment

13 if Compensation Ratios Change.

14

A. Yes.

15

Q. That provision would have remained in

16 effect through the term of the MOU, is that correct,

17 because it wasn't changed in the MOU?

18

A. And your question is does this survive the

19 MOU?

20

Q. No. Did this --

21

A. Make it into it?

22

Q. -- continue during the period of the MOU

23 after the 2005 CBA otherwise expired?

24

A. My understanding on that is based on what

25 counsel had said previously, that the MOU was the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 40 of 44 Page ID #:2271
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 122

1 carryover from this particular agreement.

2

Q. And based on that, this provision would

3 continue, correct?

4

A. Correct.

5

Q. Do you know if any payment was ever made

6 to the women's national team under this provision?

7

A. I don't.

8

Q. Okay. Do you know who was responsible for

9 preparing an analysis to determine if any payment

10 was due under this section at USSF?

11

A. Conclusively, I don't know the actual

12 person, but my guess is it would be finance and

13 legal together. They do the analysis and make the

14 payment if it was due.

15

Q. Do you know if finance or anyone else ever

16 sent a report to the union each year when this

17 provision was in effect showing what the calculation

18 was according to USSF and whether or not anything

19 was due? In other words, was there any kind of

20 written communication provided to show what the

21 calculation was, do you know that?

22

A. I don't recall seeing any document to that

23 effect, but if it was in the agreement, we would

24 have fulfilled it.

25

Q. Well, the agreement doesn't state that a

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 41 of 44 Page ID #:2272
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 123

1 report has to be made. It just -- this is the only

2 provision there is. So the provision just says if

3 the calculation requires, a payment will be made.

4

So my question really is in implementing

5 the CBA, was there a process by which the USSF made

6 this calculation each year and then sent some type

7 of written communication to the union to explain why

8 money either wasn't due or was due?

9

A. I never saw any documents to that effect,

10 but I can't imagine us not making the payments if

11 they were due.

12

MR. KESSLER: So I'd just like to say to

13

counsel again, this is a question I think would

14

be covered, if you can find out afterwards.

15

Our understanding is, and I want to confirm,

16

that there never were such communications. In

17

other words, we can't find in any of the union

18

files anything that says here's the

19

calculation, nothing is due, okay. If that --

20

first of all, if it exists, we certainly would

21

think it would have been produced. We haven't

22

seen it in your production, but we wanted to

23

confirm with this witness just that there

24

wasn't any such communication process.

25

I just ask you to take that under

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 42 of 44 Page ID #:2273
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 138

1 Morgan vs. USSF; Solo vs. USSF 2 No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR; 3:18-CV-05215 JD
3

4

I hereby certify that I have read the

5 foregoing transcript of my deposition, given on

6 January 23rd, 2020, at the place aforesaid,

7 consisting of pages 1 through 137, inclusive, and I

8 do again subscribe and make oath that the same is a

9 true, correct, and complete transcript of my

10 deposition so given as aforesaid, as it now appears.

11

Please check one:

12

__________ I made no corrections

13

__________ Number of errata sheets submitted

14

(signed) ______________________________________

15

TOM KING

16

ALSO PRESENT:________________________________
17

18

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO 19 before me this ____ day

of ____________________ 2020.
20

_____________________________ 21 Notary Public
22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 43 of 44 Page ID #:2274
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 139

1

CORRECTION PAGE

2

3 CASE NAME:

Morgan vs. USSF; Solo vs. USSF

4 DEPOSITION OF: Tom King

5 DATE TAKEN:

January 23rd, 2020

6

7 PAGE

LINE

CHANGE

8 ____

____

________________________________________

9 ____

____

________________________________________

10 ____

____

________________________________________

11 ____

____

________________________________________

12 ____

____

________________________________________

13 ____

____

________________________________________

14 ____

____

________________________________________

15 ____

____

________________________________________

16 ____

____

________________________________________

17 ____

____

________________________________________

18 ____

____

________________________________________

19 ____

____

________________________________________

20 ____

____

________________________________________

21 ____

____

________________________________________

22 ____

____

________________________________________

23 DATE:

________________________________________

24 SIGNATURE:

________________________________________

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 44 of 44 Page ID #:2275
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 140

1

The within and foregoing deposition of the

2 witness, TOM KING, was taken before GREG S. WEILAND,

3 CSR, RMR, CRR, at Suite 4700, 35 West Wacker Drive,

4 in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois,

5 commencing at 10:09 o'clock a.m., on the 23rd day of

6 January, 2020.

7

The said witness was first duly sworn and

8 was then examined upon oral interrogatories; the

9 questions and answers were taken down in shorthand

10 by the undersigned, acting as stenographer; and the

11 within and foregoing is a true, accurate and

12 complete record of all the questions asked of and

13 answers made by the aforementioned witness at the

14 time and place hereinabove referred to.

15

The signature of the witness was not

16 waived and the deposition was submitted to the

17 deponent as per copy of the attached letter.

18

The undersigned is not interested in the

19 within case, nor of kin or counsel to any of the

20 parties.

21

Witness my signature on this 27th day of

22 January, 2019.

23

______________________________ 24 GREG S. WEILAND, CSR, RMR, CRR

License No. 084-003472
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:2276
EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2277

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:2278

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:2279

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:2280

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:2281

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:2282

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:2283

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:2284

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:2285

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:2286
EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:2287

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 39 Page ID #:2288

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 39 Page ID #:2289

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 39 Page ID #:2290

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 39 Page ID #:2291

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 39 Page ID #:2292

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 39 Page ID #:2293

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 39 Page ID #:2294

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 39 Page ID #:2295

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 39 Page ID #:2296

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 39 Page ID #:2297

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 39 Page ID #:2298

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 39 Page ID #:2299

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 39 Page ID #:2300

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 39 Page ID #:2301

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 39 Page ID #:2302

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 39 Page ID #:2303

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 39 Page ID #:2304

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 39 Page ID #:2305

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 39 Page ID #:2306

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 39 Page ID #:2307

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 39 Page ID #:2308

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 39 Page ID #:2309

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 39 Page ID #:2310

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 39 Page ID #:2311

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 39 Page ID #:2312

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 39 Page ID #:2313

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 39 Page ID #:2314

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 39 Page ID #:2315

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 39 Page ID #:2316

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 39 Page ID #:2317

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 39 Page ID #:2318

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 39 Page ID #:2319

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 39 Page ID #:2320

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 39 Page ID #:2321

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 39 Page ID #:2322

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 38 of 39 Page ID #:2323

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 39 of 39 Page ID #:2324

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 57 Page ID #:2325
EXHIBIT 4

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 57 Page ID #:2326

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 57 Page ID #:2327

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 57 Page ID #:2328

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 57 Page ID #:2329

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 57 Page ID #:2330

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 57 Page ID #:2331

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 57 Page ID #:2332

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 57 Page ID #:2333

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 57 Page ID #:2334

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 57 Page ID #:2335

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 57 Page ID #:2336

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 57 Page ID #:2337

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 57 Page ID #:2338

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 57 Page ID #:2339

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 57 Page ID #:2340

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 57 Page ID #:2341

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 57 Page ID #:2342

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 57 Page ID #:2343

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 57 Page ID #:2344

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 57 Page ID #:2345

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 57 Page ID #:2346

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 57 Page ID #:2347

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 57 Page ID #:2348

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 57 Page ID #:2349

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 57 Page ID #:2350

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 57 Page ID #:2351

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 57 Page ID #:2352

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 57 Page ID #:2353

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 57 Page ID #:2354

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 57 Page ID #:2355

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 57 Page ID #:2356

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 57 Page ID #:2357

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 57 Page ID #:2358

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 57 Page ID #:2359

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 57 Page ID #:2360

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 57 Page ID #:2361

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 38 of 57 Page ID #:2362

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 39 of 57 Page ID #:2363

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 40 of 57 Page ID #:2364

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 41 of 57 Page ID #:2365

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 42 of 57 Page ID #:2366

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 43 of 57 Page ID #:2367

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 44 of 57 Page ID #:2368

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 45 of 57 Page ID #:2369

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 46 of 57 Page ID #:2370

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 47 of 57 Page ID #:2371

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 48 of 57 Page ID #:2372

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 49 of 57 Page ID #:2373

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 50 of 57 Page ID #:2374

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 51 of 57 Page ID #:2375

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 52 of 57 Page ID #:2376

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 53 of 57 Page ID #:2377

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 54 of 57 Page ID #:2378

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 55 of 57 Page ID #:2379

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 56 of 57 Page ID #:2380

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 57 of 57 Page ID #:2381

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 51 Page ID #:2382
EXHIBIT 5

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 51 Page ID #:2383

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 51 Page ID #:2384

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 51 Page ID #:2385

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 51 Page ID #:2386

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 51 Page ID #:2387

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 51 Page ID #:2388

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 51 Page ID #:2389

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 51 Page ID #:2390

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 51 Page ID #:2391

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 51 Page ID #:2392

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 51 Page ID #:2393

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 51 Page ID #:2394

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 51 Page ID #:2395

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 51 Page ID #:2396

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 51 Page ID #:2397

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 51 Page ID #:2398

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 51 Page ID #:2399

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 51 Page ID #:2400

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 51 Page ID #:2401

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 51 Page ID #:2402

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 51 Page ID #:2403

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 51 Page ID #:2404

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 51 Page ID #:2405

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 51 Page ID #:2406

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 51 Page ID #:2407

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 51 Page ID #:2408

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 51 Page ID #:2409

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 51 Page ID #:2410

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 51 Page ID #:2411

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 51 Page ID #:2412

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 51 Page ID #:2413

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 51 Page ID #:2414

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 51 Page ID #:2415

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 51 Page ID #:2416

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 51 Page ID #:2417

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 51 Page ID #:2418

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 38 of 51 Page ID #:2419

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 39 of 51 Page ID #:2420

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 40 of 51 Page ID #:2421

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 41 of 51 Page ID #:2422

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 42 of 51 Page ID #:2423

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 43 of 51 Page ID #:2424

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 44 of 51 Page ID #:2425

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 45 of 51 Page ID #:2426

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 46 of 51 Page ID #:2427

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 47 of 51 Page ID #:2428

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 48 of 51 Page ID #:2429

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 49 of 51 Page ID #:2430

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 50 of 51 Page ID #:2431

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-7 Filed 02/20/20 Page 51 of 51 Page ID #:2432

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:2433
EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2434

Page 6

1

de Bartolomeo from Tadler Law representing

2

Hope Solo.

3

MS. WAHLKE: Lydia Wahlke on behalf

4

of U.S. Soccer.

5

MR. STOLZENBACH: Brian Stolzenbach,

6

Seyfarth Shaw representing United States

7

Soccer Federation.

8

- - -

9

JOHN B. LANGEL, having been first

10

duly sworn, was examined and testified as

11

follows:

12

- - -

13 EXAMINATION

14 BY MR. STOLZENBACH:

15

Q. Good morning, Mr. Langel.

16

A. Good morning.

17

Q. Could you, I guess, give us your

18 name and address for the record?

19

A. Home address?

20

Q. Sure.

21

A. John B. Langel, 337 Chester

22 Avenue, Moorestown, New Jersey 08057.

23

Q. Mr. Langel, what do you do for a

24 living?

25

A. I'm retired.

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:2435

1

MR. FEHER: Okay. Just very quickly

Page 250

2 I'll try and get into the record -- what

3 number are we on? We're at -- 37 was the

4 last?

5

MS. DE BARTOLOMEO: 39 --

6

MR. FEHER: 39?

7

MS. DE BARTOLOMEO: -- was the last

8 one.

9

MR. SLAUGHTER: 40 is next.

10

MR. FEHER: Okay. Let me mark as

11 40, 41, and 42 just involving one topic,

12 and I'll ask very quick questions. I want

13 to authenticate it more than anything else.

14

40, 41, and 42. I'll let you mark

15 it and then I'll just describe what it is.

16

(Exhibit Langel-40, multipage

17 document with letter dated November 15,

18 2004 bearing Bates Numbers WNTPA_00010895

19 through WNTPA_00010903, is marked for

20 identification.)

21

(Exhibit Langel-41, multipage

22 document with letter dated November 16,

23 2004 bearing Bates Numbers WNTPA_00010904

24 through WNTPA_00010906, is marked for

25 identification.)

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:2436

Page 251

1

(Exhibit Langel-42, two-page letter

2

dated November 29, 2004 bearing Bates

3

Numbers WNTPA_00010909 through

4

WNTPA_00010910, is marked for

5

identification.)

6

THE WITNESS: Boy.

7 BY MR. FEHER:

8

Q. Do you recognize these documents?

9

A. Yes.

10

Q. Can you tell us what they are?

11

Well -- and, actually, let me get

12 into the record kind of what Bates numbers

13 they cover. It's various correspondence from

14 November -- starting in November -- on

15 November 15th, 2004. The first one is Bates

16 Number WNTPA10895 through 10903. The second

17 one is 10904 through 10906. The third one I

18 don't have anymore. If someone can read in --

19 sorry. It's 10909 through 10910.

20

Okay. No. That's fine.

21

A. I had -- I had two.

22

Q. Okay. Can you just tell us as to

23 what these documents are if you know?

24

A. This is the start of negotiations

25 in November of 2004, so I believe that the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:2437

1 notes will reflect we started meeting in --

Page 252

2 sometime in October of 2004. And there was a

3 message being given by U.S. Soccer to the

4 players. We were in the midst of the Victory

5 Tour and the players had just won Gold; and so

6 they had their ten-game Victory Tour and we

7 were in negotiations and they were telling us

8 certain things and I knew I wasn't going to

9 get anywhere with U.S. Soccer in negotiations

10 and I believed they weren't meeting their

11 obligations under the Amateur Sports Act, and

12 I wrote this letter to the USOC to ask them to

13 intervene.

14

Q. Okay. What was the result of this

15 correspondence at least in terms of any action

16 or, you know --

17

A. They --

18

Q. -- non-action or anything else

19 with regard to any USOC proceedings?

20

A. They intervened.

21

Q. And what did they do?

22

A. They wrote a letter to U.S. Soccer

23 telling them, "Please respond to Mr. Langel's

24 letter."

25

Q. Okay. And what happened after

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:2438

1 that?

Page 253

2

A. They responded.

3

Q. The Federation responded?

4

A. Responded to the General Counsel

5 of the USOC.

6

Q. Okay. But in terms of the merits

7 of the complaints in your initial letter, I --

8 can you just tell us as to, you know, where it

9 led to after the filing of this Complaint in

10 terms of the substance of those matters?

11

A. Different --

12

MR. STOLZENBACH: I'll object to

13

form.

14

MR. FEHER: Let me restate it.

15 BY MR. FEHER:

16

Q. In terms of any proceedings --

17

A. There --

18

Q. -- before the USOC, did anything

19 happen --

20

A. There were none.

21

Q. -- besides the filing of these

22 letters that you recall?

23

A. There were no proceedings in front

24 of the USOC. It led to what I would call more

25 legitimate negotiations.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:2439

Page 254

1

Q. Okay. And so let's just go to

2 Page 10898. On your November 15th, 2004

3 letter --

4

A. Yes.

5

Q. -- okay, you see toward the middle

6 there are one, two, three, four, five -- six

7 bullets. The third bullet down -- actually,

8 there's a lead-in to the bullet. I want to be

9 fair. It says, "Unfortunately, over the

10 years, there have been a number of other

11 telling illustrations of discrimination.

12 Examples are:" And then the third bullet is

13 "USSF's unwillingness to pay the women

14 anywhere near equal compensation for success

15 comparable to the men's (indeed USSF is

16 committed to paying the women less than the

17 men even though the women have been far more

18 successful on the playing field)."

19

And then the next bullet says,

20 "Unequal support with respect to items such as

21 equipment managers, trainers, massage

22 therapists, meals, hotel accommodations, and

23 transportation."

24

This letter, a copy of it was

25 provided to Dan Flynn at the Federation?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:2440

Page 255

1

You see -- if you look at

2 Page 10903 at the very end.

3

A. Yes.

4

MR. FEHER: Okay. So, subject to

5

any questions that Federation counsel may

6

have, I have no further questions.

7

MR. SLAUGHTER: Well, do you guys

8

have anything?

9

MR. STOLZENBACH: I would like to --

10

MR. FEHER: Or anyone else.

11

MR. SLAUGHTER: Yeah, let me do this

12

in order.

13

MR. STOLZENBACH: Okay.

14

MS. DE BARTOLOMEO: No, thank you

15

very much. On behalf of Hope Solo, we

16

don't have any questions at this time.

17

MR. SLAUGHTER: You got three

18

minutes.

19 EXAMINATION

20 BY MR. STOLZENBACH:

21

Q. Mr. Langel, can you turn to

22 Exhibit 39? It's one of the sets of notes.

23 It's the last one, the shortest.

24

A. Yes.

25

Q. And in particular, Page 10445.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:2441
TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-8 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:2442

1

* * *ERRATA SHEET* * *

Page 271

2 NAME OF CASE: Hope Solo vs. United States Soccer Federation
3 Alex Morgan, et al. vs. United States Soccer Federation

4 NAME OF WITNESS:

John B. Langel

5

Reason codes:

6

1. To clarify the record.

2. To conform to the facts.

7

3. To correct transcription errors.

8 Page From
9 Page
10 From

Line Line

Reason to
Reason to

11 Page From
12 Page
13 From

Line Line

Reason to
Reason to

14 Page From
15 Page
16 From

Line Line

Reason to
Reason to

17 Page From
18 Page
19 From

Line Line

Reason to
Reason to

20 Page From
21 Page
22 From

Line Line

Reason to
Reason to

23 Subscribed and sworn to before me
24 this _____ day of _________ , 2019.

25

________

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:2443
EXHIBIT 7

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2444

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:2445

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:2446

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:2447

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:2448

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:2449

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:2450

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:2451

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-9 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:2452

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:2453
EXHIBIT 8 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 37 Page ID #:2454
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

)

)

5

Plaintiffs,

)

)

6

vs.

) No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

)

7 UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

FEDERATION, INC.,

)

8

)

Defendant.

)

9

10

11

12

13

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TOM KING

14

Chicago, Illinois

15

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

16

17

18

19

THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED CONFIDENTIAL

20

UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN THE

21

MORGAN CASE AND THE SOLO CASE

22

23

24 REPORTED BY: GREG S. WEILAND, CSR, RMR, CRR

25 JOB NO.:

173931

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 37 Page ID #:2455
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 8

1

This deposition is being held at

2

Winston & Strawn LLP, 35 Wacker Drive, Chicago,

3

Illinois 60601, on January 23rd, 2020, at

4

approximately 2:48 p.m.

5

My name is Gabe Foster. I am the

6

videographer with TSG Reporting along with

7

Greg Weiland, the court reporter.

8

You may proceed.

9

MR. KESSLER: Is it all right to dispense

10

with appearances? We will stipulate the same

11

appearances as in the 30(b)(6) deposition.

12

MR. STOLZENBACH: Yes, and the same

13

understanding with respect to exhibits produced

14

that were only produced in the Morgan case so

15

far.

16

MR. MORRISON: Yes, that's fine. And also

17

Rich won't be making an appearance.

18

MR. KESSLER: And I guess just swear in

19

the witness again so it's for this deposition.

20

(Witness sworn.)

21

TOM KING

22 after being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

23

EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. KESSLER:

25

Q. So, Mr. King, we just completed your

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 37 Page ID #:2456
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 11

1

Q. Okay. And did you do that each year for

2 the men's national team and the women's national

3 team? Did you prepare a budget each year?

4

A. I had some level of responsibility

5 throughout those years. It ranged from merely

6 giving the chief financial officer the schedule for

7 the following year for both teams on the low end to

8 on the high end recommending various expenditures

9 for both the men and the women's team.

10

Q. So did there come a time when you moved

11 from just providing scheduling information to giving

12 your own recommendations on budgeting?

13

A. Yes.

14

Q. When? What period of time did that start?

15

A. Again, I can't give you an exact date.

16 I'm speculating, but I would say within the last

17 three years we started a new software program called

18 Power Plan where the individual department heads had

19 a little bit more involvement in providing the data

20 to go into those budgets.

21

Q. I think you said one of your

22 responsibilities for each of the teams was

23 scheduling; is that correct?

24

A. Correct.

25

Q. What do you mean by scheduling?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 37 Page ID #:2457
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 12

1

A. So if you look at the women's schedule and

2 you look at the men's schedule, any time we play an

3 opponent that isn't a predetermined match, either a

4 CONCACAF Gold Cup or a World Cup qualifier, or in

5 this case right now where our women's team are about

6 to embark on qualifying for the Olympics, those are

7 all fixed dates by FIFA and fixed tournaments that

8 we participate in.

9

Outside of that, there are FIFA dates

10 where we can play friendly matches, and there are

11 non-FIFA dates where we can also play friendly

12 matches against teams that are willing to come or

13 host during non-FIFA dates.

14

Part of my responsibility is to work with

15 the coaches to determine what type of opponents they

16 would like to play, and then I go out and interface

17 with the 210 FIFA counterparts that have my position

18 for the men's teams and then the 125 women's teams

19 to negotiate friendly match agreements.

20

So all the teams that are coming to play

21 in the SheBelieves tournament, Tournament of

22 Nations, individual standalone friendlies throughout

23 the year, I initiate the discussions and then

24 negotiate the contracts with those teams, get all

25 their logistical and operational parameters that

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 37 Page ID #:2458
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 13

1 they need, and then pass that over to events and

2 then work with our own individual teams to prepare

3 for their participation in those events.

4

Q. In your responsibilities, have you been

5 responsible for arranging with U.S. staff for the

6 hotel and travel accommodations of the men's team

7 and the women's national team?

8

A. I'm certainly involved in that, yes.

9

Q. Okay. Do people who report to you select

10 the hotels that the men's team and the women's

11 national team will play in?

12

A. I wouldn't say definitively themselves

13 select it. It's somewhat of a collaborative

14 approach. The team administrators, while they both

15 report to me, there's a men's national team

16 administrator and a women's national team

17 administrator, they report to me. However, on a

18 dotted line they're really working directly with the

19 head coaches to make sure that we deliver the

20 environment that that head coach needs, that that

21 head coach feels is important to prepare for any

22 given event.

23

So they'll confer with the head coach and

24 say what do you think about this hotel after we've

25 already had a discussion internally with myself to

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 37 Page ID #:2459
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 14

1 see whether that would make sense or not.

2

Q. Okay. Who was the head coach of the

3 women's national team for the last two World Cups?

4

A. For the last two World Cups it was

5 Jill Ellis.

6

Q. Okay. And are you familiar with her?

7

A. Yes.

8

Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Ellis was recently deposed

9 and was asked, you know, who determined the travel

10 arrangements and the hotel accommodations, and she

11 indicated that it was -- the people she identified

12 were people on your staff.

13

Would that be correct?

14

A. That would be correct.

15

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

16

Go ahead.

17

THE WITNESS: That would be correct, but

18

there would be some dialogue between Molly, the

19

team administrator, and Jill with regards to

20

the final selections of hotels. But it does

21

sit with us, yes.

22 BY MR. KESSLER:

23

Q. Who had the final authority to determine

24 which hotels the team would stay in?

25

A. Ultimate authority would be with the head

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 37 Page ID #:2460
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 15

1 coach in terms of if it was one that she just didn't

2 feel was the right environment, and, you know,

3 unless we had no other choice, then I would step in

4 and have a conversation with Jill.

5

But for the most part, you know, as team

6 administrators get to understand the priorities of

7 the coach, they get to understand the type of hotels

8 that the coach wants. So the deeper you get into

9 that relationship, the easier it is. But Jill could

10 veto a hotel if she wanted to.

11

Q. Did she ever veto any of the hotel

12 arrangements that you recall that were made?

13

A. I don't recall her vetoing a hotel

14 suggestion, no.

15

Q. Who prepared the budget for the women's

16 team and the men's team each year for how much they

17 would spend on hotels and travel?

18

A. So, again --

19

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form, just on

20

the period.

21 BY MR. KESSLER:

22

Q. Let's say from 19 -- from 2015 forward.

23

A. That would be myself after looking at

24 historicals and after understanding what the coaches

25 wanted in terms of the type of hotels that they

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 37 Page ID #:2461
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 16

1 would be staying in.

2

I would submit, after conferring with the

3 two national team administrators, I would submit the

4 budget request. It may not come back at that

5 figure. It may get chopped down with, you know,

6 following a whole budget-cutting process, but

7 ultimately the request would go from me to finance.

8

Q. So --

9

A. Can I just clarify one thing? Starting

10 when? I would say that's --

11

Q. 2015 forward.

12

A. Okay. So I would say in '15, '15 and '16,

13 I was giving just the schedule to finance, and they

14 were making the determinations based on

15 predetermined amounts that were already budgeted for

16 hotel rooms and meals and what have you. But the

17 last three years I was submitting my

18 recommendations.

19

Q. Okay. Who was the "they"? So in '15 and

20 '16, who was the "they" who put in the pre-budgeted

21 amounts?

22

A. Eric Gleason, the then chief financial

23 officer.

24

Q. Okay. Do you know how he decided what

25 amounts to put in for hotel and travel for the men's

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 37 Page ID #:2462
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 17

1 team and the women's national team?

2

A. There was a template that Jay Berhalter

3 had put together several years ago. And I don't

4 know as we went from -- yeah, I don't know the

5 actual date that Jay started this, perhaps it was

6 when he returned in 2013, and was inputting what he

7 felt the airfare and the hotels and meals. And Eric

8 and Jay would confer, and then I would end up

9 getting a report back saying here's your budget.

10

So we've evolved into more involvement in

11 the last three years.

12

Q. In the last three years you've been more

13 involved --

14

A. Yes.

15

Q. -- in doing that?

16

Now, when asked at her deposition and with

17 respect to the decisions about the location of the

18 games, the hotel, the travel we've been talking

19 about, did you have any knowledge of any kind of how

20 those decisions were made with respect to budgeting,

21 Jill's answer was, "No, not directly."

22

And my question is, is that in any way

23 inconsistent with your understanding? Was Jill

24 involved in the budgeting process, to your

25 knowledge?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 37 Page ID #:2463
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 18

1

A. Not so much as it relates to hotels,

2 meals, ground transportation, charter flights,

3 freight. I would talk to Jill throughout the

4 budgeting process, which would, you know, sort of

5 last from August until the end of October where

6 we're putting our budget requests together. I would

7 talk to Jill about, okay, here's the schedule, we

8 can set that aside; tell me what you need in terms

9 of new software program, scouting resources, do you

10 need an additional assistant coach that we don't

11 have budgeted, and we would tabulate what we felt

12 would be needed for the next fiscal year and make

13 that as part of our overall budget request.

14

Q. Who would decide if the men's and women's

15 team would get a charter flight or not as opposed to

16 commercial?

17

A. Ultimately the chief executive officer

18 would decide that.

19

Q. At USSF?

20

A. Correct.

21

Q. Okay. Who would decide if more money was

22 going to be budgeted for the men for hotels than for

23 the women for hotels even though the men were

24 playing in fewer games than the women?

25

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to the form and

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 37 Page ID #:2464
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 20

1 men's team, correct?

2

A. Yes.

3

Q. Now, was part of your job responsibilities

4 to participate in collective bargaining?

5

A. Yes.

6

Q. When did that start?

7

A. I would say it started in 1996 with the

8 CBA for the men, and it has been consistent ever

9 since, with some exceptions. There were some

10 sessions that I weren't -- that I wasn't involved

11 with on the men's side. I wasn't at every single

12 session on the women's side for the previous

13 agreement, and I was in just about every one but one

14 or two in the most recent CBA for the women.

15

(Plaintiff Exhibit 121 was

16

marked for identification.)

17 BY MR. KESSLER:

18

Q. Now, we've marked as Exhibit 121 a package

19 of CBA meeting notes starting with a meeting on

20 November 30th of 2015 that go through the most

21 recent collective bargaining negotiations with the

22 women's national team, and I believe these notes may

23 be yours.

24

So if you can take a look at it and see if

25 you recognize this.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 37 Page ID #:2465
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 21

1

What is this document?

2

A. So after the conclusion of every single

3 CBA meeting that I attended, I would write up my

4 recollection of who said what just so we had

5 documentation of the understanding. We could always

6 go back to this. If there was something that two,

7 three, four years into the agreement we don't recall

8 what was within the four corners, now we can go back

9 and say, well, this is what the spirit of this

10 discussion was.

11

So from my perspective, it just was

12 helpful moving forward that we would have a record

13 of who said what, what were the priorities, and how

14 we ended up getting to the final page with an

15 agreement that both sides were very happy with.

16

Q. So did someone ask you to prepare these

17 notes? Is this something you just decided to do on

18 your own?

19

A. Correct.

20

Q. And did you circulate them to people who

21 attended for USSF after? After the meeting, did you

22 then prepare the notes and send it to them so they

23 would have --

24

A. I did.

25

Q. -- it as well?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 37 Page ID #:2466
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 44

1 not include SUM/broadcast numbers, SUM slash

2 broadcast numbers. David Feher asked if we ever

3 break out SUM revenue by teams. Eric clarified that

4 marketing and TV revenues are not apportioned that

5 way."

6

Do you see that?

7

A. Correct.

8

Q. First, do you recall that that exchange

9 took place, that Mr. Feher asked if there was some

10 breakdown of the SUM revenues, and it was clarified

11 by USSF that marketing and TV revenues are not

12 broken out that way?

13

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

14

THE WITNESS: The discussion did take

15

place that marketing revenues aren't broken out

16

that way.

17 BY MR. KESSLER:

18

Q. And who is Eric?

19

A. Eric Gleason was our former chief

20 financial officer.

21

Q. And he was doing this presentation at this

22 meeting?

23

A. Correct.

24

Q. Okay. Now, is it correct, to your

25 knowledge, that no breakdown of SUM revenues between

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 37 Page ID #:2467
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 45

1 the men's national team and the women's national

2 team was ever given in bargaining over to the union

3 to say, you know, here's how we break down the

4 revenues between SUM between the two teams; is that

5 correct?

6

A. Yes, because it can't be done. The only

7 distinction is the money from Univision, which is a

8

that's attributed solely to the

9 men. Outside of that, any revenue from SUM can't be

10 apportioned between the men, the women, our youth

11 program, our development academy, our coaching

12 schools, our referee program. You know, it's not

13 done that way.

14

Q. You're talking about the Univision

15 agreement,

16

A. Correct.

17

Q. Isn't it correct that under that Univision

18 agreement Univision also had the right to broadcast

19 women's national team games?

20

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

21

THE WITNESS: I don't know the nuances of

22

the Univision agreement. All I know is what

23

was discussed in the meeting, that the only

24

thing that you could apportion with SUM was the

25

Univision piece.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 37 Page ID #:2468
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 46

1 BY MR. KESSLER:

2

Q. Well, I'll just ask you this question,

3 okay.

4

So the payment that's paid to the USSF for

5 licensing fees, is there any breakdown in that

6 agreement written between the value of the men's

7 national team's games and the women's national team

8 games, rights that Univision has, do you know?

9

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to the form.

10

THE WITNESS: I have not seen that

11

agreement, so I wouldn't know.

12 BY MR. KESSLER:

13

Q. You do know that Univision has the right

14 to broadcast women's national team games under that

15 agreement?

16

A. I do know that.

17

Q. You do know that?

18

A. I do know that.

19

Q. Yes, okay. Now, let me go next to the

20 May 16th bargaining session, which is Page 14. And

21 it stated here that, "The meeting began" -- it's the

22 second paragraph -- "at 10:15 a.m. with Lisa

23 explaining that the Federation had presented at the

24 last meeting our Pay-to-Play model."

25

Do you see that?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 37 Page ID #:2469
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 47

1

A. Yes.

2

MR. STOLZENBACH: I'm sorry, Jeffrey, what

3

page are you on? I've got the wrong page.

4

MR. KESSLER: 14.

5

MR. STOLZENBACH: Oh, 14.

6

MR. KESSLER: I'm sorry, 14 under the

7

May 16th meeting. Sorry.

8 BY MR. KESSLER:

9

Q. And do you recall that at this meeting the

10 Federation presented what they called a pay-to-play

11 proposal for compensation to the women's national

12 team?

13

A. Yes.

14

(Plaintiff Exhibit 77 was

15

identified.)

16 BY MR. KESSLER:

17

Q. Okay. So I'm going to show you -- this

18 has been marked already?

19

MS. PARIGIAN: Yes.

20 BY MR. KESSLER:

21

Q. Yes, Exhibit 77.

22

And you'll see this is a financial

23 proposal by the USSF that was sent out on May 13,

24 2016, so it was just prior to the meeting that we're

25 talking about.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 37 Page ID #:2470
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 48

1

And I'll ask you to look at it, if you

2 recognize this proposal, which is on the back page

3 of this exhibit -- it's Bates stamp number 11856 --

4 as the pay-to-play proposal that was offered to the

5 women at this -- by the USSF at this time.

6

A. Without checking my own records, I don't

7 know conclusively whether this is the one, but I

8 have no reason to believe that it isn't.

9

Q. If you -- do you recall that the

10 pay-to-play proposal of the USSF at this time

11 offered smaller bonuses for friendlies than were

12 provided to the men's national team under their

13 agreement?

14

A. Yes.

15

Q. Okay. And do you also recall that the

16 pay-to-play proposal of the USSF offered to the

17 women offered smaller World Cup bonuses than were

18 paid to the men's team under their collective

19 bargaining agreements?

20

A. Yes.

21

Q. Is it correct that to your knowledge in

22 bargaining the USSF never offered a pay-to-play

23 proposal or any proposal to the women's national

24 team in which they would receive the same World Cup

25 bonuses as the men's team?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 37 Page ID #:2471
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 49

1

A. That is correct.

2

Q. Is it also correct that the USSF never

3 offered to the women's national team either in a

4 pay-to-play proposal or any other proposal the same

5 amount of friendly bonuses as were paid to the men's

6 national team?

7

A. That is correct.

8

Q. Is it also correct that the USSF never

9 offered for the SheBelieves tournament a level of

10 bonuses comparable to what the men's national team

11 were going to be paid for the Gold Cup or

12 Copa América?

13

A. That is correct. But it's not a good

14 comparison, but you're correct.

15

Q. Right. And is it also correct that the

16 USSF never offered to the women's national team --

17 withdrawn. I covered my subjects on that. Okay.

18

Move on back to your notes. Going back to

19 your notes, take a look next to your notes for the

20 June 27, 2016 meeting, which is Page 17 of your

21 notes. If you look at the bottom of the first page,

22 there's a statement between -- by Mr. Feher here in

23 which you have him saying, "We have asked for equal

24 treatment with the men, but the bonuses do not equal

25 the men. Are you willing to give an assurance on

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 37 Page ID #:2472
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 50

1 number of games?"

2

So let me break out those two points.

3

First, do you recall Mr. Feher making a

4 statement like we have asked for equal treatment

5 with the men but the bonuses do not equal the men's?

6

A. Yes.

7

Q. And that was referring to the pay-for-play

8 proposal that we previously were discussing at the

9 prior meeting, correct?

10

A. Correct.

11

Q. Correct. And do you also recall that the

12 union had asked whether there would be any

13 willingness of the USSF to provide under a

14 pay-for-play model some minimum number of games that

15 would be played each year?

16

A. That was a request by the --

17

Q. That was a request?

18

A. Yes.

19

Q. Yes, okay. Now, you then have under

20 Mr. Sauer some statements.

21

Now, this is not in italics, am I correct,

22 for Mr. Sauer?

23

A. That is correct.

24

Q. So this would not be a verbatim in your

25 view. This would be the essence of what you

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 37 Page ID #:2473
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 51

1 recalled him saying, correct?

2

A. That is correct, yes.

3

Q. And what you recalled him saying in

4 essence here is "Fundamental difference between

5 equal and fair. What we have proposed is fair

6 keeping in mind market realities."

7

Do you recall him saying something to that

8 effect like that?

9

A. I do, yes.

10

Q. Okay. And was Mr. Sauer authorized as

11 outside counsel to speak on behalf of USSF in these

12 negotiations?

13

A. I believe so, yes.

14

Q. Yes. Was there anyone designated -- so at

15 this meeting, there was Lisa Levine, Mr. Sauer, you,

16 Mr. Gleason and Donna Shalala, who was a board

17 member.

18

Was anyone like the lead negotiator, or

19 did you all present yourselves equally to the union?

20 I'm not really asking your internal issues to not go

21 into what you don't want me to ask.

22

But was it presented to the union that

23 there was any lead negotiator, or was everyone sort

24 of there equally representing the USSF?

25

A. There wasn't a lead.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 37 Page ID #:2474
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 52

1

Q. Okay. As opposed to --

2

A. It was a team.

3

Q. On the union side, the executive director

4 would be the lead negotiator?

5

A. It was very clear it was Rich Nichols on

6 the other side, yes.

7

Q. Now, there has been testimony by both

8 Mr. Nichols and by Megan Rapinoe who attended this

9 session that what they recall Mr. Sauer saying here

10 was a statement that because of market realities

11 women did not deserve equal treatment with the men

12 or words to that effect.

13

Do you recall Mr. Sauer saying something

14 with words to that effect, that the women did not

15 deserve the same treatment or equal treatment with

16 the men because of the market realities?

17

A. No.

18

MR. STOLZENBACH: I object to the question

19

because I don't believe anybody has testified

20

to that, but he gave his answer.

21

MR. KESSLER: Well, I'll read exactly what

22

they said so that there's no -- I don't want to

23

mischaracterize in any way, shape or form

24

exactly what they said.

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 37 Page ID #:2475
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 53

1 BY MR. KESSLER:

2

Q. So first, this is first Mr. Nichols, and

3 what he testified to, and I'm not going to show him.

4 I'm just going to read it to him. I just want to

5 see if this refreshes your recollection in any way.

6

He says the following --

7

MR. STOLZENBACH: Which line are you on?

8 BY MR. KESSLER:

9

Q. I'm looking at Page 128, Line 19, okay.

10

The question was on 14:

11

"What did the Federation representative --

12

let me ask it this way. Mr. Sauer, when he

13

referenced marketing, marketing realities,

14

explained that revenue, attendance and TV have

15

to be taken into account, didn't he?"

16

Mr. Nichols said: "No. What I recall

17

Mr. Sauer saying twice was that market

18

realities was such that the women do not

19

deserve to be paid equal pay."

20

So that's what Mr. Nichols said.

21

And then what Ms. Rapinoe said at her

22 deposition, the following. This was the question.

23 He's asking about this quote.

24

"Is that an actual quote that Mr. Sauer

25

said?" This is Page 111, Line 6, "Market

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 37 Page ID #:2476
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 54

1

realities are such that the women do not

2

deserve to be paid equally to the men?" That's

3

the question to -- being asked to Ms. Rapinoe.

4

And the answer is, "Meaning like did I

5

hear him say that, or is it worthy of being in

6

a quote?

7

QUESTION: Did you hear him say those

8

exact words? And in particular, did you hear

9

him say that women do not deserve to be paid

10

equally?

11

ANSWER: Yeah, I think that's correct."

12

And then they asked: "Is it possible that

13

he said only that market realities were a basis

14

for different payments to the women as opposed

15

to using the word 'deserve'?"

16

And then she says: "I suppose it's

17

possible, but I also answered 'yes' to the

18

question before, so I think he said that."

19

So what I'm just presenting to you is both

20 Ms. Rapinoe and Mr. Nichols remember Mr. Sauer using

21 this phrase, that because of market realities women

22 did not deserve equal pay and to be paid equally,

23 and I'm just asking you now, thinking back, having

24 heard that, is it possible Mr. Sauer said that in

25 your recollection?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 37 Page ID #:2477
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 55

1

MR. STOLZENBACH: I'll still object on the

2

basis of form of the question.

3

THE WITNESS: I can't imagine Russ or

4

anybody on our side of the table would ever use

5

the word "deserve" in front of our players.

6

That's offensive. And he may have just

7

"justified," but he would never have used

8

"deserved" in my opinion.

9 BY MR. KESSLER:

10

Q. Okay. Do you think Mr. Nichols and

11 Ms. Rapinoe are both lying about this?

12

A. No.

13

MR. STOLZENBACH: I object to the

14

question, the form of the question.

15

THE WITNESS: I'm not going to answer

16

that. All I'm going to answer is the question

17

you asked me. I can't imagine Russ Sauer using

18

the word "deserve" in front of our players.

19 BY MR. KESSLER:

20

Q. Putting aside what you can imagine, do you

21 have a specific recollection as you're sitting here

22 now of the exact words he used at this meeting?

23

A. Unless they're in italics, I'm sorry, I

24 don't. I'm just giving you my opinion.

25

Q. Okay. So from your own memory, you don't

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 37 Page ID #:2478
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 56

1 remember the exact words he used?

2

A. I would have fallen off my chair if he

3 used the word "deserve."

4

Q. But you don't remember the exact words he

5 used as you're sitting here now?

6

A. I don't remember the exact words. This

7 captures the spirit of it.

8

Q. Okay. Okay. Let me show you next, look

9 at Page 18 of your notes. There's a statement four

10 from the top about Mr. Nichols' comments, and he

11 says the following:

12

"Information is power. Transparency leads

13

to trust. There is no transparency and a

14

dearth of information. Until we know

15

sponsorship revenue, we will continue to have

16

the view of not knowing why you are taking the

17

position you are taking. I'm done talking to

18

ourselves until we know that it's equal pay,

19

period."

20

Do you see that?

21

A. Uh-huh.

22

Q. And do you recall Mr. Nichols making

23 statements to that effect at the meeting?

24

A. Yes.

25

Q. Okay. Let's look next at the meeting of

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 37 Page ID #:2479
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 57

1 October 26, 2016, the next one that took place.

2

This was another meeting you attended and

3 prepared notes for, correct?

4

A. I'm sorry, what page?

5

Q. Page 20.

6

A. Okay.

7

Q. And this is October 26, 2016?

8

A. Yep.

9

Q. And now, by the way, at this point, do you

10 recall that a complaint was filed to the EEOC in

11 April of 2016 complaining that the USSF was not

12 complying with the law and not providing equal pay?

13

A. I'm aware of the complaint. I can't

14 conclusively say it was April, but if you say it is,

15 yeah.

16

Q. At the time it was filed, did you get a

17 copy of it? Did someone send it to you at the USSF

18 to --

19

A. I did get a copy of it, yeah.

20

Q. Okay. And you recall the complaint was

21 that -- by the five players who filed it that it was

22 a violation of law, the Equal Pay Act and Title VII,

23 to not provide equal pay to the women? Do you

24 recall that? That was the nature of the complaint,

25 correct?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 37 Page ID #:2480
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 58

1

A. Yes.

2

Q. Okay. After that complaint was filed, do

3 you know if the USSF undertook any compliance

4 program to make sure that it was in compliance with

5 the Equal Pay Act or Title VII with respect to the

6 women's national team? I'm not asking you for legal

7 advice. I'm asking for a compliance program that

8 you know of.

9

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form, but you

10

can answer.

11

THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of one taking

12

place. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

13 BY MR. KESSLER:

14

Q. Does USSF have other legal compliance

15 programs you're aware of for other laws, like

16 antitrust compliance or privacy compliance, or are

17 there compliance policies that you're given as an

18 employee at --

19

A. On the two that you've referenced, I'm not

20 aware of that. We do -- if SafeSport would fall

21 under this topic, I'm not sure.

22

Q. Sure. What is SafeSport?

23

A. SafeSport?

24

Q. Yeah.

25

A. It's a program that we must have all of

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 37 Page ID #:2481
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 59

1 our employees that are in contact with minors. So,

2 for instance, our men's national team are in camp

3 right now. We have a 17-1/2-year-old player

4 training with the team. So we had to make

5 absolutely sure that all the trainers, doctors,

6 massage therapists, et cetera, et cetera, had all

7 gone through the SafeSport modules, and it's about

8 three separate modules. It's just sensitivity

9 training.

10

I'm not sure if that falls under the type

11 of thing that you're asking for, but that's the only

12 one I'm aware of.

13

Q. So -- okay. Do you recall the subject of

14 equal treatment with the men being raised during the

15 negotiations for the MOU when Mr. Langel was the

16 executive director of the union?

17

A. I can't say conclusively that that concept

18 wasn't raised by the women's side, but I don't

19 specifically remember any comments that suggested

20 that that was the issue that they wanted to discuss.

21 My recollection was it was all about getting the

22 women the best possible deal for the next cycle.

23

Q. Okay. You don't recall during those

24 negotiations Mr. Langel saying things like we want

25 the same travel as the men or we want the same per

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 37 Page ID #:2482
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 60

1 diems as the men or we want anything the same as the

2 men? You don't recall him raising that at any of

3 the bargaining sessions specifically?

4

A. My recollection is we want -- we want

5 better, better, better, but I don't -- my

6 recollection isn't --

7

Q. You don't remember that --

8

A. -- they want equal-equal-equal.

9

Q. You don't remember that specific?

10

A. No.

11

Q. But you remember that obviously here in

12 2016 as that being a theme of the union, they

13 wanted --

14

A. For sure.

15

Q. -- quality?

16

A. Yes, yes.

17

Bless you.

18

Q. Okay. Now take a look at your notes of

19 October 26, and after Ms. Levine's welcome and she

20 turns it over to Mr. Nichols, you have a statement

21 of Mr. Nichols saying, "It has been a few months

22 since we've discussed. Are you ready to agree to

23 equal pay?"

24

Do you see that?

25

A. Yes.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 37 Page ID #:2483
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 61

1

Q. And do you recall him making that type of

2 statement at this meeting?

3

A. Yes.

4

Q. Okay. And you then have Ms. Levine saying

5 in this second sentence, "We understand you want

6 equal pay."

7

Do you recall her making a statement like

8 that?

9

A. Yes.

10

Q. In other words, there was no ambiguity

11 between the desire of the union at this point to get

12 equal pay, correct?

13

A. Correct.

14

MR. STOLZENBACH: Objection to form.

15 BY MR. KESSLER:

16

Q. And then it says, "There are many factors

17 which are important to us" -- this is Ms. Levine

18 stating this -- "on an organizational level which

19 factor into compensation, including game revenue,

20 ratings, attendance, and competitive level of play."

21

Do you see that?

22

A. Yes.

23

Q. Did -- at these negotiations, putting

24 aside game revenue for the moment and ratings which

25 were mentioned, what was the USSF's position

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 37 Page ID #:2484
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 67

1 BY MR. KESSLER:

2

Q. So it was either the highest or very close

3 to one other, correct?

4

A. Yes.

5

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form and

6

foundation.

7 BY MR. KESSLER:

8

Q. Okay. Take a look at Page 23 of the

9 notes, and if you look at Mr. Feher's statement

10 three from the bottom, it says, "If the total pot

11 equals the men's total pot, we can figure out how to

12 distribute this. Make a proposal that is at least

13 as good as the men, and we can then have a

14 productive discussion."

15

Do you see that?

16

A. Yes.

17

Q. Do you recall Mr. Feher made some comment

18 like that on behalf of the union?

19

A. Yes.

20

Q. Okay. The next notes I'd like to refer

21 you to is the December 19, 2016 meeting.

22

And do you recall this was the first --

23

MR. STOLZENBACH: What page are you on?

24

MR. KESSLER: This is on Page 26.

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 37 Page ID #:2485
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 83

1

A. That men's jersey were --

2

Q. Men's national team jerseys from Nike were

3 available at this time in 2017 in men's and women's

4 sizes, but women's jerseys were only available in

5 women's sizes. Wasn't that correct at this time?

6

A. I don't know.

7

Q. You don't know.

8

A. No.

9

Q. Okay. Take a look at Page 52 of these

10 minutes, which is the -- they start on 44, which is

11 the February 5th, 2017 meeting, I believe. And if

12 you look at Page 52, you will see there's a

13 statement by a Kathy Carter.

14

Do you recall Ms. Carter making a

15 presentation at this meeting?

16

A. I do.

17

Q. And at the time was she president of

18 Soccer United Marketing?

19

A. I believe that was her title. I'm not a

20 hundred percent sure.

21

Q. But she was the chief executive officer of

22 Soccer United Marketing; is that correct?

23

A. My understanding is she headed up the

24 marketing effort for Soccer United Marketing, yeah,

25 but specifically her title I don't know.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 37 Page ID #:2486
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 84

1

Q. You'll notice that at the start of her

2 presentation she states, "There is no distinction

3 between teams that represent the crest."

4

Do you see that?

5

A. Yes.

6

Q. And, in fact, later on, she notes, "You

7 cannot differentiate between the crest the women

8 play for and the crest the men play for."

9

Do you see that?

10

A. That's in the same --

11

Q. That's in the -- it's in the second Carter

12 paragraph after the review of data.

13

A. Yes.

14

Q. Okay. And, in fact, is this -- is this in

15 italics, "You cannot differentiate between the crest

16 that women play for and the crest that men play

17 for"?

18

A. That's my recollection of this.

19

Q. So that's the exact words?

20

A. Her verbatim comment, yeah.

21

Q. Right. And is it correct that what she

22 was explaining is that SUM would not seek

23 sponsorship deals just for the men's team or just

24 for the women's team?

25

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 37 Page ID #:2487
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 107

1 Morgan vs. USSF; Solo vs. USSF 2 No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR; 3:18-CV-05215 JD
3

4

I hereby certify that I have read the

5 foregoing transcript of my deposition, given on

6 January 23rd, 2020, at the place aforesaid,

7 consisting of pages 1 through 106, inclusive, and I

8 do again subscribe and make oath that the same is a

9 true, correct, and complete transcript of my

10 deposition so given as aforesaid, as it now appears.

11

Please check one:

12

__________ I made no corrections

13

__________ Number of errata sheets submitted

14

(signed) ______________________________________

15

TOM KING

16

ALSO PRESENT:________________________________
17

18

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO 19 before me this ____ day

of ____________________ 2020.
20

_____________________________ 21 Notary Public
22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 37 Page ID #:2488
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 108

1

CORRECTION PAGE

2

3 CASE NAME:

Morgan vs. USSF; Solo vs. USSF

4 DEPOSITION OF: Tom King

5 DATE TAKEN:

January 23rd, 2020

6

7 PAGE

LINE

CHANGE

8 ____

____

________________________________________

9 ____

____

________________________________________

10 ____

____

________________________________________

11 ____

____

________________________________________

12 ____

____

________________________________________

13 ____

____

________________________________________

14 ____

____

________________________________________

15 ____

____

________________________________________

16 ____

____

________________________________________

17 ____

____

________________________________________

18 ____

____

________________________________________

19 ____

____

________________________________________

20 ____

____

________________________________________

21 ____

____

________________________________________

22 ____

____

________________________________________

23 DATE:

________________________________________

24 SIGNATURE:

________________________________________

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-10 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 37 Page ID #:2489
CONFIDENTIAL

Page 109

1

The within and foregoing deposition of the

2 witness, TOM KING, was taken before GREG S. WEILAND,

3 CSR, RMR, CRR, at Suite 4700, 35 West Wacker Drive,

4 in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois,

5 commencing at 2:47 o'clock p.m., on the 23rd day of

6 January, 2020.

7

The said witness was first duly sworn and

8 was then examined upon oral interrogatories; the

9 questions and answers were taken down in shorthand

10 by the undersigned, acting as stenographer; and the

11 within and foregoing is a true, accurate and

12 complete record of all the questions asked of and

13 answers made by the aforementioned witness at the

14 time and place hereinabove referred to.

15

The signature of the witness was not

16 waived and the deposition was submitted to the

17 deponent as per copy of the attached letter.

18

The undersigned is not interested in the

19 within case, nor of kin or counsel to any of the

20 parties.

21

Witness my signature on this 27th day of

22 January, 2020.

23

______________________________ 24 GREG S. WEILAND, CSR, RMR, CRR

License No. 084-003472
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:2490
EXHIBIT 9

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:2491

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:2492

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:2493

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:2494

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:2495

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-11 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:2496

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-12 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:2497
EXHIBIT 10

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D30o(cbu)m(6e)n,t 1C7o0n-f1i2denFtilieadl 02/20/20 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2498

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

)

)

5

Plaintiffs, )

)

6

vs.

) 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

)

7 UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

FEDERATION, INC.,

)

8

)

Defendant. )

9 -----------------------------)

(Caption continued on the next page.)

10

11

* * *CONFIDENTIAL* * *

12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SUNIL GULATI 30(b)(6)

13

New York, New York

14

December 17, 2019

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Reported by:

24 KATHY S. KLEPFER, RMR, RPR, CRR, CLR

25 JOB NO. 173645

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D30o(cbu)m(6e)n,t 1C7o0n-f1i2denFtilieadl 02/20/20 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:2499

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 8

2 SUNIL GULATI, called as a

3

witness, having been duly sworn by a Notary

4

Public, was examined and testified as

5

follows:

6 EXAMINATION BY

7 MR. KESSLER:

8

Q. Good morning, Mr. Gulati.

9

A. Good morning.

10

Q. Would you please state your name and

11 address for the record, please.

12

A. Sunil Gulati, 423 West 120th Street,

13 Apartment 55, New York, New York.

14

Q. Now, Mr. Gulati, I know you have been

15 deposed in the past, since I have been one of

16 the people who have deposed you, so can I assume

17 you are generally familiar with deposition

18 procedures?

19

A. Yes.

20

Q. Just to remind you of a few points:

21 If at any time my questions are unclear, please

22 ask me to rephrase them, and I will so we get a

23 clear record.

24

Is that acceptable to you?

25

A. Yes.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D30o(cbu)m(6e)n,t 1C7o0n-f1i2denFtilieadl 02/20/20 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:2500

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 54

2

Q. Do you recall that you attended this

3 meeting?

4

A. Since I don't remember the substance,

5 I don't recall generally, but I'm sure reading

6 this would refresh my memory. And Mr. King said

7 I was there, then I'm sure I was there.

8

Q. Mr. King would also be the author of

9 these notes, to your knowledge?

10

A. I'm sure, yes.

11

Q. Was it his practice to regularly

12 prepare these notes after meetings and circulate

13 them after bargaining sessions?

14

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection.

15

Foundation.

16

A. Apparently so, but I don't remember

17 getting these subsequent to meetings.

18

Q. Okay. So take a look at this, and

19 first of all, if you look on the first page at

20 Levine's statements --

21

That would be Lisa Levine, who is the

22 general counsel of the -- of the USSF at the

23 time?

24

A. Yes.

25

Q. Was she one of the negotiators for

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D30o(cbu)m(6e)n,t 1C7o0n-f1i2denFtilieadl 02/20/20 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:2501

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 55

2 USSF at that time?

3

A. She was one of the people involved,

4 yes.

5

Q. She states in the -- in her second

6 statement in the second sentence, "We understand

7 you want equal pay."

8

Do you see that?

9

A. Yes.

10

Q. Do you recall that USSF understood

11 that -- that the -- one of the bargaining

12 demands for the union in October of 2016 was for

13 equal pay with the Men's Team?

14

A. That's what it says here. I don't

15 recall that discussion, but that's what it says

16 here.

17

Q. You don't have any different

18 recollection as you're sitting here?

19

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection. Form.

20

A. I don't have any recollection.

21

Q. Okay. Take a look at the next page,

22 where there's a statement that's attributed --

23 well, stay on the first page first. I'm sorry.

24 Because I want to ask you about this discussion

25 on revenues.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D30o(cbu)m(6e)n,t 1C7o0n-f1i2denFtilieadl 02/20/20 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:2502

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 56

2

Mr. Nichols says at the bottom of the

3 page, "We have been clear about these issues,

4 and also want T.V. sponsorship included in

5 revenue discussion."

6

Do you see that?

7

A. I do, and that sentence actually makes

8 it completely unclear since the men don't have

9 those things in their agreement. But, above,

10 Ms. Levine says, "We understand you want equal

11 pay." Mr. Nichols says, "We've been clear about

12 this, but also want..."

13

So I'm not quite sure what that means,

14 frankly.

15

Q. Well, Ms. Levine goes on to say,

16 "There are many factors which are important to

17 us on an organizational level which factor into

18 compensation, including game revenue, ratings,

19 attendance and competitive level of play. What

20 are your views on these?"

21

In response to that, he mentioned T.V.

22 sponsorship as being things, right? He's

23 responding to Ms. Levine's comments.

24

A. But there's an "and" in between, isn't

25 there? "We have been clear about these issues,

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D30o(cbu)m(6e)n,t 1C7o0n-f1i2denFtilieadl 02/20/20 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:2503

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 57

2 and also want T.V. sponsorship included in

3 revenue discussion."

4

Q. So you don't know what he meant there?

5

A. I don't think either of us knows what

6 he meant there.

7

Q. Ms. Levine then states -- do you

8 recall this -- "We don't attribute those

9 revenues to specific teams; all falls under the

10 crest."

11

Do you see that?

12

A. I do.

13

Q. What does that refer to with respect

14 to the revenues?

15

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection. Form.

16

A. That -- that our principal agreements,

17 principal commercial agreements include many

18 things, not either of the teams specifically,

19 but all of our teams, all of our intellectual

20 property, and a number of other assets.

21

Q. Okay. And it's correct, is it not,

22 that you do not receive reports from Soccer

23 United Marketing which attribute different

24 revenues to the Men's National Team and the

25 Women's National Team or any other items that

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D30o(cbu)m(6e)n,t 1C7o0n-f1i2denFtilieadl 02/20/20 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:2504

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 58

2 are licensed as part of the intellectual

3 property of the Soccer Federation?

4

A. We don't receive those reports.

5 They're not sold that way, that's correct.

6

Q. Right. And in fact, it's correct,

7 isn't it, that it's USSF's position that it's

8 not really possible to allocate those general

9 revenues from sponsorship and broadcasting that

10 are sold by SUM to specific teams?

11

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection to form.

12

A. It's USSF's position that we haven't

13 done that.

14

Could one have an analysis that tried

15 to do that? Sure.

16

Q. But, historically, you did not do

17 that, correct?

18

A. We have not done that in -- I don't

19 know if it's in this meeting or the other

20 meeting I attended with similar group. We

21 actually -- or in between. We offered to do

22 just that and have an outside group do that, to

23 try to settle the issue of an estimation. We

24 offered that to Mr. Nichols.

25

Q. But it was never done?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D30o(cbu)m(6e)n,t 1C7o0n-f1i2denFtilieadl 02/20/20 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:2505

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 59

2

A. He rejected the offer.

3

Q. Okay. And so it's correct, isn't it,

4 that you're not relying on any information on a

5 revenue allocation for sponsorship and

6 broadcast -- strike that.

7

You have not historically relied on

8 any allocation of revenue for sponsorship or

9 broadcasting as a basis for distinguishing

10 between the compensation rate offered to the

11 Women's Team and the Men's Team?

12

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection. Form.

13

A. No, I don't agree with that statement.

14

Q. Okay. What data have you ever used in

15 your negotiations with the Women's Team or the

16 Men's Team for allocating sponsorship and T.V.

17 revenues to justify a different treatment with

18 respect to compensation?

19

A. Well, we have -- have had throughout

20 this period television ratings, which is the

21 predominant metric we would use in looking at

22 the -- the relative values of some of our

23 assets.

24

We have had SUM data from Nike on

25 sales of jerseys, but not -- we haven't sat down

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:2506

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 60

2 and said 21 percent of media contracts are

3 worth -- are attributable to the youth National

4 Teams and 51 percent to the National Teams, but

5 we've had those ratings and, therefore, know

6 what the general viewership is of our teams,

7 sure.

8

Q. Okay. With respect to revenue

9 figures, is it correct that, in its entire

10 history, the USSF has never generated a single

11 report from SUM that would allocate revenues

12 from either the broadcasting agreements or from

13 the sponsorship agreements between the Men's

14 Team and the Women's Team?

15

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection. Form.

16

A. We wouldn't -- we wouldn't get

17 anything from SUM that would allow us to do

18 that. It's not sold that way, but we know what,

19 as I've said, SUM metrics that could be used for

20 that analysis if we had to at precise numbers.

21

We didn't do that, but we could get

22 some estimates.

23

Q. In other words, what you're saying is

24 you might do some analysis theoretically, but

25 you've never done such an analysis; is that

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:2507

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 150

2

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:31

3 p.m. We're off the record.

4

(Luncheon recess.)

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:2508

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 151

2

AFTERNOON SESSION

3

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:21

4

p.m. We're now on the record.

5 SUNIL GULATI, resumed and

6

testified further as follows:

7 EXAMINATION BY (Cont'd.)

8 MR. KESSLER:

9

Q. I now want to return, Mr. Gulati, to

10 the technical criteria justification that you

11 said could be -- not could be -- was one of the

12 bases for paying a different rate of

13 compensation to the Women's Team than the Men's

14 Team. And you can throw in "allege" if that

15 makes you more comfortable in terms of that.

16

What is the technical criteria that

17 would constitute such a justification?

18

A. Well, the technical criteria, we're

19 talking only about compensation now or all the

20 other issues that are part of this?

21

Q. Let's start first with -- with

22 compensation, because I think that's actually

23 the subject we identified you for, but --

24 because that was your affirmative defense which

25 related to compensation, so but -- so maybe I'll

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:2509

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 152

2 say for your individual deposition --

3

A. Sure.

4

Q. -- how it would apply to other issues?

5

A. So, like I said earlier, it was

6 technical criteria/competition, playing related

7 issues, and so that would include what events

8 teams are playing in, where they are not

9 directly tied to additional revenue. Some of

10 them are tied to additional revenue, but events.

11

The fact that we've got, on the Men's

12 side, different levels of competition, different

13 formats of qualifying, all of those, all of

14 those, all of those things.

15

Q. So how did the different levels of

16 competition provide a basis for paying the women

17 less, as we allege?

18

A. Well, a lot of -- a lot of -- a lot of

19 the difference in compensation that are alleged

20 are regarding bonus payments, for example, and

21 that has directly to do with the level of

22 competition one is participating in.

23

Q. Okay. So what are the differences in

24 level of competition between the men's and women

25 that you are linking to the differences in the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:2510

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 153

2 bonus structure?

3

A. Well, I mean, the most obvious is, as

4 a starting point, the men and women are in

5 separate competitions under FIFA rules. So

6 there is no direct comparison between -- between

7 the two teams.

8

There can't be because they're not --

9 they're prohibited from playing in each other's

10 competitions by FIFA and FIFA rules, but on the

11 men's side, size of the World Cup, the process

12 of qualifying, the gold cup, all of those

13 things, or where the games are played for that

14 matter.

15

On the men's side, the biggest event,

16 the process of qualifying for the World Cup, is

17 a series of home and away games. So you're

18 playing some games in the U.S., some games in

19 Central America, some games in the Caribbean.

20

On the women's side, traditionally,

21 with the exception of one event, which is

22 pre-2010, all of our qualifying games have been

23 in the United States. So that would be one --

24 one difference, for example.

25

Q. Is it USSF's position that the Women's

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:2511

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 154

2 game is a lower quality of play than the Men's

3 game and that that justifies the difference in

4 compensation?

5

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection. Form.

6

A. I don't know what you mean by "lower

7 quality."

8

Q. The quality of the competition. Are

9 you saying the quality of the competition is

10 lower for the women than for the men?

11

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Same objection.

12

A. Relative quality, absolute quality,

13 you know, as I read in preparing for this, as I

14 read some of the depositions, there is an

15 absolute difference, which not everyone seemed

16 to agree to, but do I think that it's less

17 attractive or less entertaining? I'm not saying

18 that. Or relative quality, I'm not saying that.

19 But I'm also not saying, in terms of absolute

20 level of -- whether it's speed or strength,

21 they're the same. I think most people would

22 accept that too.

23

Q. Okay. So I just want to pause this

24 through.

25

You're not saying that there's a

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:2512

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 155

2 relative quality difference or that it's a less

3 attractive form of competition, right?

4

A. I'm not saying it's less or more. I'm

5 not -- I'm not making that distinction.

6

Q. That's not a basis for the difference

7 in pay, those two issues?

8

A. I think that's right, yes.

9

Q. But you're saying that there's an

10 absolute difference in -- in what you're calling

11 the absolute idea -- well, let me --

12

You're referring to an absolute

13 difference in quality based on the speed and

14 strength of the men versus the speed and

15 strength of the women?

16

A. Not just those things, but I'm

17 basically saying FIFA and the NCCA and virtually

18 every other organization have separated based on

19 genetics, biology, and so on, the two in two

20 separate categories.

21

So they're not playing in the same

22 exact competition. I think we can all agree on

23 that, and so that's what I'm really talking

24 about. The women aren't playing in the Men's

25 World Cup and vice-versa. That's point one.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:2513

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 156

2

Point two is that the path to -- to

3 getting to the World Cup or getting to

4 tournaments, et cetera, is different, and the

5 third part of that would be that the number of

6 countries that compete at a high level on the

7 men's side is different today than it was 50

8 years ago, and on the women's side, it's

9 improved dramatically, but it's different today

10 than it was five years ago or ten years ago,

11 substantially different.

12

Q. So you're saying that the mere fact

13 that FIFA, as you said, distinguishes based on

14 biology or genetics, and men play on a Men's

15 Team and women play on a Women's Team, that that

16 means the women are never doing equal work to

17 the men. Is that your position --

18

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection.

19

Q. -- at USSF?

20

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection to form.

21

A. It's not my words, and I didn't say

22 anything to that effect. So if there's a

23 question there...

24

Q. You said the mere fact that they're on

25 a different team and that FIFA distinguishes

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:2514

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 157

2 between biology is a basis for paying the women

3 less, right?

4

A. No, that's not what I said.

5

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection.

6

Q. Okay. Fine.

7

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Wait, please.

8

You mischaracterizes. Wait, please.

9

You're mischaracterizing his

10

testimony.

11

Please let me get my objections stated

12

on the record.

13

MR. KESSLER: Are you finished?

14

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, I am.

15 BY MR. KESSLER:

16

Q. Okay. Then I'll go the reverse.

17

You are not claiming the mere fact

18 that they can't play on the Men's Team, you

19 know, and that FIFA makes a distinction based on

20 biology.

21

You're not claiming that's a

22 justification for a difference in pay, correct?

23

A. No, let's -- let's go back here.

24

The question at the start of this was,

25 what are the competition and technical issues

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:2515

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 158

2 that are part of our analysis? And what I

3 separated those into three or four different

4 things.

5

We have no way to directly compare in

6 terms of a game between the two teams, for

7 example, or in the same competitions. The path

8 to qualifying is different. The number of

9 competitive teams is different because of

10 investments, because of time period, however you

11 want to call it.

12

So those are all differences in the

13 way that the sport is handled right now at FIFA

14 and the international level and, therefore,

15 across all its members.

16

Q. I'm going to ask you about the other

17 parts of your answer so you don't have to feel

18 the need to put them in. I'm just asking you

19 now very specific, and I just want to know which

20 it is.

21

Is it the position of USSF that the

22 mere fact that they -- women are not allowed to

23 play on the Men's Team and that FIFA, as you

24 stated, distinguishes based on biology, so you

25 can't be in the same competition, is that a --

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:2516

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 159

2 is that in itself one of the justifications USSF

3 is offering for the difference in compensation

4 between the two?

5

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection as to form.

6

A. No, it's not -- I don't think that's

7 what I've said and, you know, I'm not going to

8 answer that question with a "yes."

9

Q. No, you have to answer that question,

10 right?

11

A. I just said I'm not going to answer

12 that question with a "yes," Mr. Kessler, if you

13 wait till I finish the sentence.

14

Q. Okay.

15

A. What I've said is those are

16 differences, and so we have no way, in terms of

17 the competitive side or the technical side, of

18 saying this is exactly the same as this like you

19 might in some other areas. That's what I'm

20 saying.

21

Q. Okay. So you're not saying that, in

22 and of itself, the fact that they're not on the

23 Men's Team is a reason to give a discrimination

24 in pay? That's all I'm asking. By itself,

25 you're not saying that's a reason?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:2517

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 160

2

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection as to form.

3

A. In and of itself, the fact that there

4 are separate teams and separate competitions, in

5 and of itself, nothing else different, no, that

6 wouldn't be -- that wouldn't be a rationale.

7

Q. Let's move on to the second thing.

8

A. So you got a "yes" on that --

9

Q. Thank you.

10

A. -- to be clear.

11

Q. The second point you mentioned is that

12 there are different roads to qualifying for

13 events.

14

Are you saying that the women

15 deserve -- well, strike that -- that the women

16 should have a lesser rate of compensation than

17 the Men's Team because the Men's Team have to

18 win more games to get to the World Cup; is that

19 what you're saying?

20

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection. Form.

21

A. No, what I'm saying is now we're -- as

22 I distinguished at the beginning of this, we're

23 really talking about the bonus parts of

24 compensation.

25

Q. Yes.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:2518

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 161

2

A. And the bonuses -- let's take an

3 example. If Los Angeles Lakers are playing in a

4 game -- we'll use an individual example, which I

5 prefer you not try to change around in the next

6 question, but we can get to that, I guess.

7

LeBron James doesn't get a bonus for

8 getting 15 points and for the Lakers finishing

9 out the playoffs. The expectations for him are

10 different based on who they're playing against,

11 what -- who he is, what the level is.

12

Bonus, if we're going to look at it as

13 something either as part of guaranteed pay,

14 which it's not a bonus, I mean, like it is in

15 measuring compensation and salary cap numbers,

16 achievable bonuses and so on, so that matters

17 depending on the level of competition.

18

Q. So are you saying that because you

19 view the competition that the women face as not

20 being as strong as the competition the men face,

21 that that is a justification for giving the

22 women a lower bonus amount for their

23 achievements?

24

A. I'm saying that the level of

25 achievement depends on certain conditions, one

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR D3o0c(ubm)(e6n)t,1C7o0n-1fi2deFnitleidal02/20/20 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:2519

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 162

2 of which is the level of the opponent; two is

3 where is the game played; three is how many of

4 those opponents you have to play against to get

5 to a certain level; four, which is really a

6 combination of two of those, is how many other

7 teams in the world are playing at any level that

8 could give you a competitive match. All of

9 those things are part of it.

10

Q. Okay.

11

A. A bonus, if it's above expectation or

12 for a certain level of performance, when we're

13 talking about a competitive situation, has to,

14 by definition, take into account the nature of

15 the competition.

16

Q. Okay. So are you saying if -- so,

17 first of all, you agree that the Women's Team is

18 the best team in the world right now, right?

19

A. They're world champions.

20

Q. Okay. And they were the last world

21 champions as well?

22

A. That's correct.

23

Q. And are you saying if the Women's Team

24 was not so dominant over their competitors, that

25 then they would be entitled to a higher bonus

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-12 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:2520

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-12 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:2521

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:2522
EXHIBIT 11 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCOKN-FAIGDERNTIDAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1NT70T-1O3PRFOTileECdT0I2V/E20O/R2D0ERPage 2 of 33 Page ID #:2523

Page 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

----------------------------------------------------X

3 ALEX MORGAN, MEGAN RAPINOE, BECKY SAUERBRUNN,

CARLI LLOYD, MORGAN BRIAN, JANE CAMPBELL, DANIELLE

4 COLAPRICO, ABBY DAHLKEMPER, TIERNA DAVIDSON, CRYSTAL

DUNN, JULIE ERTZ, ADRIANNA FRANCH, ASHLYN HARRIS, TOBIN

5 HEATH, LINDSEY HORAN, ROSE LAVELLE, ALLIE LONG, MERRITT

MATHIAS, JESSICA McDONALD, SAMANTHA MEWIS, ALYSSA

6 NAEHER, ELLEY O’HARA, CHRISTEN PRESS, MALLORY PUGH,

CASEY SHORT, EMILY SONNETT, ANDI SULLIVAN and McCALL

7 ZERBONI,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10 UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.,

11

Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------X

12

13

14

CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

15

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CARLOS CORDEIRO

16

Miami, Florida

17

January 29, 2020

18

19

20

21 REPORTED BY: BOBBIE ZELTMAN Professional Realtime Court Reporter
22

23

24 Job Number: 174949

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCOKN-FAIGDERNTIDAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1NT70T-1O3PRFOTileECdT0I2V/E20O/R2D0ERPage 3 of 33 Page ID #:2524

Page 7

1

MR. FINKEL: Noah Finkel of

2

Seyfarth Shaw on behalf of the United

3

States Soccer Federation.

4

MR. HARRISON: Todd Harrison,

5

McDermott Will & Emery for Carlos

6

Cordeiro.

7

MS. WAHLKE: Lydia Wahlke for

8

United States Soccer Federation.

9

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the

10

court reporter please swear in the

11

witness.

12

THE REPORTER: Raise your right

13

hand, please.

14

Do you solemnly swear that the

15

testimony you're about to give will be

16

the truth, the whole truth and nothing

17

but the truth, so help you God?

18

THE WITNESS: Yes.

19

THE REPORTER: Very good.

20

CARLOS CORDEIRO,

21

having been first duly sworn by

22

Barbara R. Zeltman, Notary Public, was

23

examined and testified as follows:

24

EXAMINATION BY

25 BY MR. KESSLER:

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCOKN-FAIGDERNTIDAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1NT70T-1O3PRFOTileECdT0I2V/E20O/R2D0ERPage 4 of 33 Page ID #:2525

1 respected and valued as much as our men's

Page 52

2 teams."

3

I'm going to stop there for a

4 moment.

5

Did you make that statement?

6

A

Yes.

7

Q

Did you believe it at the time?

8

A

Yes.

9

Q

Do you believe it today?

10

A

Yes.

11

Q

Okay.

12

Then it states, "But our female

13 players have not been treated equally."

14

Do you see that?

15

A

Yes.

16

Q

Did you believe it at the time when

17 you made that statement?

18

A

Yes.

19

Q

Okay. And is it correct that that

20 statement would still apply today?

21

A

Well, let me explain.

22

Q

First, you can give me a yes or no?

23

A

I'm not going to give you a yes or

24 no because it's not a yes or no question.

25

A lot has changed in the last two

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCOKN-FAIGDERNTIDAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1NT70T-1O3PRFOTileECdT0I2V/E20O/R2D0ERPage 5 of 33 Page ID #:2526

1 years.

Page 53

2

Q

So that's not my question.

3

A

Well, you just asked me, do I still

4 believe it. It's not a yes or no question.

5

Q

So let me ask you the following

6 question. It's very specific.

7

You wrote in December 20 of 2017

8 that, "Our female players have not been

9 treated equally," and you said you believed

10 it to be a true statement then.

11

My question is: Are the things --

12 well, let me ask you first this way: What

13 were you referring to in December of 2017 as

14 being ways that the female players have not

15 been treated equally? Start with that.

16

A

That's a fair question.

17

So if I could explain what I meant,

18 if that's what you are asking me --

19

Q

I'm asking you what you were

20 referring to, yes.

21

A

I ran for president at the end of

22 2017 because I felt that there were a number

23 of things we could be doing better; that

24 given the mission we had to grow the sport

25 at all levels, to continue to win, to

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCOKN-FAIGDERNTIDAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1NT70T-1O3PRFOTileECdT0I2V/E20O/R2D0ERPage 6 of 33 Page ID #:2527

1 continually grow the game, to make it a

Page 54

2 preeminent sport, I made these comments here

3 about at the highest levels, it was too

4 insular, failed to listen and so on. And I

5 felt that then, and that's one of the

6 reasons why I ran for president.

7

Specific to the point about female

8 players had not been treated equally, I felt

9 then and I still feel to a degree, that the

10 lack of opportunity for our female players

11 was really what was at the root of some of

12 their issues.

13

The fact that our women play once

14 every four years in a tournament and our men

15 might play four or five times in a four-year

16 cycle, that tells you about lack of

17 opportunity.

18

The fact that the Women's World Cup

19 generates a fraction of revenue and a

20 fraction of what the men get paid is a

21 reflection, frankly, of lack of opportunity.

22

So I felt then that the players

23 needed more opportunity and we needed to do

24 more to give them more opportunity.

25

And by generating more opportunity

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCOKN-FAIGDERNTIDAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1NT70T-1O3PRFOTileECdT0I2V/E20O/R2D0ERPage 7 of 33 Page ID #:2528

1 by growing the game globally, which is at

Page 55

2 the heart of the problem, it's not just in

3 the United States, the women's soccer

4 outside of the United States doesn't have

5 the same degree of respect, and for that

6 reason, there just isn't enough opportunity.

7

And that's what I felt then.

8

I think we've made a fair amount of

9 effort over the last two years to close the

10 gap. There's still a lot more work to be

11 done.

12

So to answer your specific question

13 as yes, I felt that then for the reasons I

14 just stated and I continue to feel that's an

15 issue, but I think we've worked hard to

16 close the gap.

17

Q

Isn't it correct that part of what

18 you were referring to when you said "women

19 have not been treated equally," is that they

20 did not receive equal pay?

21

A

And that's not what I said.

22

Q

You can say no. I'm just asking

23 you, is that what you were referring to? Is

24 that true or false?

25

A

That's not what I said. You can

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:2529

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCOKN-FAIGDERNTIDAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1NT70T-1O3PRFOTileECdT0I2V/E20O/R2D0ERPage 9 of 33 Page ID #:2530

1 correct that in 11 years on the board, you

Page 76

2 never raised the fact that female players

3 have not been treated equally?

4

A

No.

5

Q

You did raise that on the board?

6

A

I did, as did several others over

7 many years were talking about raising the

8 level of the game of our women.

9

We created tournaments to

10 provide -- to fill open gaps, such as She

11 Believes and Four Nations.

12

We had with CONCACAF about creating

13 a Women's Gold Cup, so there were lots of

14 conversations that I and others. I was at

15 that point in time, I was on the

16 stakeholders committee, FIFA stakeholders

17 committee, and it was at that committee

18 that basically talks about competitions.

19

So the answer to the question is I

20 spent specifically a lot of my own time

21 thinking about ways in which to raise the

22 profile of the women's game not just in the

23 US but globally.

24

Q

Approximately at how many board

25 meetings did you raise the idea that female

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 10 of 33 Page ID #:2531

·1· ·players have not been treated equally?

Page 77

·2· · · A· · ·I don't remember specifically over

·3· ·11 years.

·4· · · Q· · ·Was it more than one time?

·5· · · A· · ·Oh, yes, yeah.

·6· · · Q· · ·Was it as many as five times?

·7· · · A· · ·I don't remember specifically.

·8· · · Q· · ·Who were the other board members?

·9· · · A· · ·These are never one-off

10· ·conversations.· These are cumulative

11· ·conversations over years.

12· · · Q· · ·Who were other board members you

13· ·could identify who expressed the view at one

14· ·or more board meetings that female players

15· ·had not been treated equally?

16· · · A· · ·Again, when I talk about not being

17· ·treated equally, I'm talking about lack of

18· ·opportunity, lack of competition.· I think

19· ·most of the board would have been concerned

20· ·about that.

21· · · Q· · ·So you heard most of the board

22· ·members express that at one or more --

23· · · A· · ·And would have been supportive of

24· ·growing the game for our women.· The fact we

25· ·support the National Women's Soccer League.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580
YVer1f

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 11 of 33 Page ID #:2532

1

Q

And the fact that women did not

Page 79

2 have equal opportunity, I'll use your word,

3 was discussed by various board members

4 during board meetings, correct?

5

A

Board meetings, board dinners,

6 board breakfasts. When we got together,

7 that would have been a common theme over

8 years, not a particular meeting or

9 particular year.

10

MR. KESSLER: So Counsel, I'm

11

going to make a request now, we had

12

previously requested the board

13

meeting transcripts, and it has been

14

expressed to us that that was either

15

privileged discussions with counsel

16

or privileged Collective Bargaining

17

Agreement negotiations.

18

This witness has now identified

19

discussions that do not appear to fall

20

into either one of those categories, so I

21

would request that those minutes be

22

reviewed and that all board minutes which

23

has been a subject of ours for some time

24

in which any discussion of the fact that

25

female players were not treated equally

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 12 of 33 Page ID #:2533

1

Is that fair?

Page 85

2

A

Yes, I would have.

3

Q

And you agreed with everything that

4 was in it at the time you distributed,

5 correct?

6

A

Yes, absolutely.

7

Q

If you look at the last page of

8 this document on the top right-hand

9 corner -- this is 42188 on the Bates

10 stamp -- on the right side, the first bolded

11 headline says, "Increase resources and

12 investment in the women's program."

13

Do you see that?

14

A

Yes.

15

Q

One of the things you wrote was

16 "including working towards equal pay."

17

Is that correct?

18

A

Yes.

19

Q

Okay. And you believed that at the

20 time you wrote it, correct?

21

A

Yes.

22

Q

And then you wrote, "so that our

23 women have the best technical and training

24 support, are no longer forced to play on

25 artificial turf and have greater

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 13 of 33 Page ID #:2534

1

in a strong financial position today?

Page 93

2

A

We are in a stable financial

3

position.

4

Q

Stable from what it was in 2016?

5

A

Yes.

6

MR. KESSLER: Let's next mark

7

Tab 6., a report on questions and

8

answers that you provided to an ESPN

9

reporter that was during your -- let

10

me see if I can find a date on

11

this -- on March 21, 2018. No,

12

that's not it.

13

I'm sorry January 12, 2018. This

14

is during your candidacy.

15

THE WITNESS: Okay.

16

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 127,

17

ESPN's questions, Carlos Cordeiro

18

USSF presidential candidate,

19

answers ESPN's questions, was

20

marked for Identification.)

21 BY MR. KESSLER:

22

Q

First of all, I'll show you the

23

date, Mr. Cordeiro. I found this just above

24

your picture, you'll see it's January 12,

25

2018. That's when you were running for

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 14 of 33 Page ID #:2535

1 president, correct?

Page 94

2

A

Yes.

3

Q

Do you recall providing answers to

4 this reporter from ESPN called Jeff

5 Carlisle?

6

A

I was doing a lot of interviews at

7 the time.

8

I know Jeff Carlisle. I don't

9 recall specifically the interview. I was

10 doing multiple interviews a day and I would

11 have to read the whole thing to --

12

Q

Let me first ask before you read

13 the whole thing, I'm only going to ask you

14 about the last page, but do you recall

15 first -- my general question is that

16 Jeff Carlisle is someone who over time has

17 interviewed you from ESPN.

18

You are familiar with him?

19

A

Since, but not before. I was not a

20 hugely public figure before and I didn't

21 deal a lot with the media.

22

Q

Have you generally found

23 Mr. Carlisle to be a reliable reporter in

24 the articles that you've done?

25

A

Yeah.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 15 of 33 Page ID #:2536

1

Q

Now let me direct your attention to

Page 95

2 the next to last page where he asks you

3 questions about equal pay.

4

You'll see it's at the very bottom

5 of this page.

6

A

Yes.

7

Q

And I'll read to you as follows, it

8 says, "How would you ensure that the men's

9 and women's national team get equal pay?"

10

You see that was the question he

11 wrote?

12

And this is what he said was your

13 response. He said the following, "I

14 provided an in-depth answer to this question

15 in my responses to the Athletes' Council.

16 In short, I am a strong supporter of greater

17 equality, diversity and inclusion throughout

18 US Soccer and we clearly need to work toward

19 equal pay for the national teams."

20

Let me just stop there.

21

Do you recall making that statement

22 during your candidacy to the Athletes'

23 Counsil.

24

A

Like I said, I don't specifically

25 Mr. Kessler because I was talking to

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 16 of 33 Page ID #:2537

1 multiple people on any given day and running

Page 96

2 around the country, but I don't specifically

3 recall this interview. I'm not saying I

4 didn't say it. I'm saying I just don't

5 recall.

6

Q

Do you recall that the Athletes'

7 Counsil had you fill out a questionnaire?

8

A

Yes.

9

Q

And that would be your written

10 response, correct?

11

A

That's probably what he was

12 referring to, yes.

13

Q

Right. But is it correct as you

14 are sitting here that your written response

15 to the Athletes' Counsil, you wrote that "We

16 clearly need to work towards equal pay for

17 the national teams," correct?

18

A

I'd have to see it, but if you say

19 so, yes.

20

Q

As you are sitting here now, you

21 have no basis to deny you said that, you

22 just don't recall exactly?

23

A

I don't recall because I don't have

24 it in front of me.

25

Q

We'll get to that. We'll get to

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 17 of 33 Page ID #:2538

1 that.

Page 97

2

He then goes on to list as a quote

3 from you, "I believe that where existing

4 agreements are unfair, adjustments should be

5 made immediately."

6

Do you see that?

7

A

Yes.

8

Q

Do you recall making a statement

9 like that?

10

A

Not to him, but to others, yes,

11 yes.

12

Q

And what you meant by that, by

13 "existing agreements", that included

14 existing collective bargaining agreements,

15 correct?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

So what you were stating during

18 your campaign is that if an existing

19 collective bargaining agreement was unfair,

20 the adjustment should be made immediately,

21 not waiting for the agreement to expire.

22

Is that fair?

23

A

Yes.

24

Q

He then has you saying, "To ensure

25 equal pay going forward, we need to be open

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 18 of 33 Page ID #:2539

1 to new paradigms while negotiating the

Page 98

2 specific needs and desires of the women's

3 national team and men's national team.

4 There are many ways to achieve this. The

5 key is establishing the right process. We

6 also need to address bonus compensation."

7

Do you remember making statements

8 like that?

9

A

Yes.

10

Q

Now, bonus compensation, did that

11 include bonuses for friendlies?

12

A

I was thinking more of FIFA

13 World Cup, but it could, yes.

14

Q

So it could include both bonuses

15 for FIFA and FIFA World Cup and for

16 friendlies, correct?

17

A

Yes.

18

Q

It then says, "Beyond player

19 salaries, my platform calls for equal

20 resources for our women's program from the

21 coaching staff to the training facilities to

22 the travel accommodations. We don't need to

23 wait for CBA negotiations to make these

24 changes. We can start now. It's the right

25 thing to do."

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 33 Page ID #:2540

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 20 of 33 Page ID #:2541

1

A

Yes.

Page 160

2

Q

Okay.

3

And one of the things you wrote in

4 your letter in the fourth paragraph,

5 "Finally, as I say in my letter, we're

6 sharing this information in the spirit of

7 partnership and transparency. As I said in

8 my remarks in New York, we're committed to

9 doing right by you, and I meant it, I still

10 do and always will."

11

Did you write that to the women

12 players?

13

A

Yes.

14

Q

And did you mean it at the time

15 that you sent this letter?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

Okay. You mean it still today?

18

A

Yes.

19

Q

Okay. Let's look at the letter.

20

The letter was something that you

21 distributed widely; is that correct?

22

A

Yes.

23

Q

Who did you send this open letter

24 to on July 29, 2019?

25

A

Friends, colleagues and supporters

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 21 of 33 Page ID #:2542

1 of US Soccer.

Page 161

2

Q

Okay. Did you send it to sponsors?

3

A

I didn't -- I didn't see the full

4 list, but basically, it would have been our

5 membership, our staff, patrons, possibly

6 sponsors, yeah, a wide group.

7

Q

And I think you mentioned you

8 thought this letter was distributed to

9 members of Congress at some point by the

10 lobbyists who were hired?

11

A

I don't know the letter, but maybe

12 the appendix was.

13

Q

Okay. Looking at your letter --

14 and this is a copy of the letter; is that

15 correct? Just to establish it. You can

16 take a look at it.

17

A

Yes, it was a three-page letter --

18 two-page letter, sorry, yes.

19

Q

And this is it; yes?

20

A

Yes.

21

Q

I'm sorry. I just have to make a

22 record on that type of a question.

23

Okay. And then attached to the

24 letter in the back is what on Pages 1

25 through 3?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 22 of 33 Page ID #:2543

1

A

What is it?

Page 162

2

Q

If you look over the pages, there's

3 a three-page attachment, what is that?

4

A

It's an attachment.

5

Q

What is this attachment supposed to

6 contain?

7

A

Supporting information to the

8 letter.

9

Q

Okay.

10

A

Because I made statements in the

11 letter and this was the backup.

12

Q

Okay.

13

Looking at your letter now, in the

14 third paragraph, you state, "I wrote in my

15 open letter in March, after the lawsuit was

16 filed, that US Soccer believes that all

17 female athletes deserve fair and equitable

18 pay and we strive to meet this core value at

19 all times."

20

Is that something that you wrote

21 officially on behalf of US Soccer in July of

22 2019?

23

A

Yes.

24

Q

And is that the position of

25 US Soccer today?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 23 of 33 Page ID #:2544

1

A

I believe so.

Page 163

2

Q

Looking at the next sentence, it

3 says, "Moreover, it should be a basic

4 principle everywhere in our country, equal

5 work deserves equal pay."

6

Is that something you wrote

7 officially as president of US Soccer, as

8 being a position of US Soccer?

9

A

Yes.

10

Q

Is that something that US Soccer

11 still believes in and supports today?

12

A

Yes.

13

Q

Okay.

14

Do you agree that the women's

15 national team plays under the same rules of

16 the game on the same size field as the men's

17 national team?

18

A

Yes.

19

Q

Okay. Do you agree that the

20 women's national team works just as hard as

21 the men's national team players in preparing

22 and training for games?

23

A

Yes.

24

Q

Do you agree that the women's

25 national team has been the most successful

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 24 of 33 Page ID #:2545

Page 164

1

women's national team in the world for the

2

past five or six years, at least?

3

A

Yes.

4

Q

Do you agree that the men's

5

national team has not been the most

6

successful men's national team in the world,

7

ever?

8

A

Regrettably, yes.

9

Q

Okay. And do you agree that what

10

the women do on their team is substantially

11

equal as the work that the men do on their

12

team?

13

MR. FINKEL: Object to the

14

form.

15

A

What do you mean by

16

"substantially"?

17 BY MR. KESSLER:

18

Q

Well, I could use -- you could use

19

your own definition.

20

Do you believe that the work of the

21

women, however you would use

22

"substantially," is substantially equal to

23

the work that the men do?

24

I'm not talking about anything

25

else, just the work.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 25 of 33 Page ID #:2546

Page 172

1

game, the women and the men worldwide are

2

all, quote/unquote, "skilled players." I

3

mean, what would you want me to do.

4

Q

You wouldn't say that the women are

5

less skilled than the men, would you give me

6

that?

7

A

I didn't say that.

8

Q

Okay. So would you agree they are

9

less skilled?

10

A

What do you mean by "skilled"?

11

MR. FINKEL: What do you mean

12

by "less skilled"?

13 BY MR. KESSLER:

14

Q

Use any definition you want.

15

Again, I'm happy for you to explain to the

16

jury how you would define "skill" under the

17

any definition of "skill" you can define it.

18

Are the women less skilled than the

19

men?

20

A

At that level of the game, you are

21

talking about the best women and

22

professional men around the world, they are

23

all great athletes, first and foremost; and

24

they are experienced soccer players.

25

Q

So would you agree the women are

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 26 of 33 Page ID #:2547

1

not less skilled?

Page 173

2

MR. FINKEL: Object to the form

3

again. And calls for a legal

4

conclusion, I should add.

5

A

You are putting words in my mouth.

6

I just said to you that at that

7

level of the game, our men and our women are

8

all great athletes, and our women

9

collectively were very successful, yes.

10 BY MR. KESSLER:

11

Q

I'm just trying to establish -- and

12

again, you can give me any view --

13

A

I'm not in a position, Mr. Kessler,

14

I'm not a coach, I'm not a technical person.

15

I might have play 40, 50 years ago, that's

16

not the point.

17

The point I'm trying to make is

18

that, you know, they do different work here.

19

They play different competitors. They are

20

not comparable.

21

The women, we love, we adore our

22

women, they're great players, it's a great

23

team, they were very successful, I'm not

24

taking anything away from them.

25

But you are putting words in my

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 27 of 33 Page ID #:2548

Page 174

1

mouth and you're trying to get me to say

2

something I'm not prepared to say. I can't

3

make a general comment about one being

4

better than another. Simple as that.

5

Q

Okay. If the women's national team

6

head team coach won the World Cup testified

7

in this case that she believed the women on

8

her team were as skilled as the men's

9

national team, and she is an expert, would

10

you have any basis in your experience to

11

disagree with that?

12

A

No.

13

MR. FINKEL: Object to the

14

form.

15

A

I would take her advice.

16 BY MR. KESSLER:

17

Q

Okay.

18

Now, take a look at the second page

19

on this letter. It states in the letter

20

that, "At my request" -- this is the second

21

paragraph -- "US Soccer staff conducted

22

extensive analysis of the past ten years of

23

US Soccer's financials."

24

Let me stop there. Who, in

25

US Soccer, concluded that it should be a

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 28 of 33 Page ID #:2549

1

Do you know if for the period

Page 215

2 fiscal 2016 through fiscal year '20, to the

3 extent we have information to date, do you

4 know if the men's or women's team generated

5 a higher net for the Federation?

6

A

I don't off the top of my head, no.

7

Q

Did you ask to have any analysis

8 like that prepared for the class period on a

9 net basis before you sent out your letter to

10 the world on that subject?

11

A

As I said to you, the letter was

12 prepared with a ten-year perspective and

13 that's what the numbers -- the analysis was

14 for.

15

Q

Okay.

16

Let's take a look at --

17

MR. KESSLER: We'll mark as

18

Exhibit 134, a copy of a document

19

called Book of Reports for the annual

20

general meeting.

21

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 134, Book

22

of Reports dated February 13

23

through 16, annual general meeting

24

2020, no Bates numbers, was marked

25

for Identification.)

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 29 of 33 Page ID #:2550

1 BY MR. KESSLER:

Page 216

2

Q

I'll ask you, Mr. Cordeiro, if you

3

recognize this Exhibit 134?

4

A

Yes.

5

Q

What is this exhibit?

6

A

This is Section 4 relating to the

7

proposed budget for the new fiscal year.

8

Q

And for what purpose was this

9

prepared?

10

A

This is something we prepare

11

annually. It goes out to our membership in

12

advance of our annual general meeting at

13

which time the budget is discussed and voted

14

on.

15

Q

Okay. And is there first a meeting

16

by the national council who reviews this?

17

Could you describe to me the process?

18

A

No, the AGM is the national

19

council.

20

Q

I'm sorry. Thank you.

21

So at the AGM, the national council

22

meets and they're asked to approve the

23

budget for the year, correct?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

Okay. Does the board approve the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 30 of 33 Page ID #:2551

1 budget separately or in advance of the

Page 217

2 national council?

3

A

The board in this case met in

4 December and voted to recommend the budget

5 to the national council.

6

Q

And is the budget that the board

7 voted to recommend this past December, the

8 one that's contained in this report?

9

A

Yeah, I would have to look at it

10 carefully, but I'm assuming it is, yeah.

11

Q

Just look through it and make sure.

12

I mean, this was produced by USSF,

13 I'm assuming it's the right one, but you

14 should tell me from your knowledge.

15

A

Yeah. It looks -- yeah.

16

Q

It looks to you to be the correct

17 document, right?

18

And this is something that USSF

19 produces regularly each year in the course

20 of their business for the AGM to vote upon?

21

A

Oh, yes, every year.

22

Q

Okay.

23

Now, let's take a look at Page 4 of

24 this document, which has a Roman V, Budget

25 Detail.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 31 of 33 Page ID #:2552
Page 299
1

2

THE REPORTER: Are you ordering

3

this expedited?

4

MR. KESSLER: Yes, for Friday,

5

please.

6

7

8

9

(Whereupon, the deposition was

10

concluded at 4:02 p.m.)

11

12

________________________

CARLOS CORDEIRO

13

14

15 Subscribed and sworn

16 to before me this

17 _____ day of ___________, 2020

18

19 __________________________ Notary Public
20

21

22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGCKON-AFIGDRENTDIAoLcuPmUReSnUtA1N7T0-T1O3 PRFOilTeEdCT0I2V/2E0O/2R0DERPage 32 of 33 Page ID #:2553

1

ERRATA SHEET

Page 300

2 Case Name:

3 Deposition Date:

4 Deponent:

5 Pg. No. Now Reads

Should Read Reason

6 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

7 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

8 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

9 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

10 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

11 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

12 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

13 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

14 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

15 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

16 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

17 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

18 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

19 ___ ___ __________ __________ ____________________

20

_____________________

21

Signature of Deponent

22 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME

23 THIS ____ DAY OF __________, 2020.

24 ____________________

25 (Notary Public) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:__________

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-13 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 33 Page ID #:2554

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-14 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2555
EXHIBIT 12 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-14 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2556

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-14 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2557

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-14 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:2558

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-15 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:2559
EXHIBIT 13

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-15 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:2560

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-15 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:2561

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-15 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:2562

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-15 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:2563

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-15 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:2564

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-16 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:2565
EXHIBIT 14

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i1a6l Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:2566

Page 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

vs.

7 UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.,
8 Defendant.
9

) ) ) ) ) No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR ) ) ) ) )

10

11

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PRAPTIKA (PINKY) RAINA

12

Chicago, Illinois

13

Tuesday, January 21st, 2020

14

15

16

17

THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED CONFIDENTIAL

18 THE PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT REGARDING EXHIBIT 114

19

HAS BEEN DESIGNATED CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES

20

ONLY

21

22

23

24 REPORTED BY: GREG S. WEILAND, CSR, RMR, CRR

25 JOB NO.:

173649

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i1a6l Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:2567

Page 13

1

Winston & Strawn on behalf of the Morgan

2

plaintiffs.

3

MR. MORRISON: Brian Morrison with the law

4

firm of Tadler Law on behalf of Hope Solo.

5

MS. WAHLKE: Lydia Wahlke, U.S. Soccer.

6

MR. NICHOLS: Rich Nichols on behalf of

7

Hope Solo.

8

MR. FINKEL: And Noah Finkel from

9

Seyfarth Shaw on behalf of the United States

10

Soccer Federation.

11

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And will the court

12

reporter swear in the witness, please.

13

(Witness sworn.)

14

PRAPTIKA (PINKY) RAINA

15 after being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

16

EXAMINATION

17 BY MS. LEIDEN:

18

Q Good morning, Ms. Raina.

19

A Good morning.

20

Q Have you ever had your deposition taken

21 before?

22

A No, I have not.

23

Q Okay. So I'll just spend a few minutes

24 going over some ground rules and explanations of how

25 things will go today.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i1a6l Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:2568

1 the past.

Page 23

2

Q And breaking that down, you said -- the

3 first thing you said was that you manage the

4 budgeting process.

5

Can you explain kind of what your role is

6 in managing the budgeting process?

7

A Yes. So the budget process starts off

8 with a kickoff where I set expectations with the

9 organization on what they need to do to put their

10 inputs together.

11

Then there is a consolidation process

12 after all those inputs have been received by

13 finance. And then there's a review process that

14 finance conducts with all that information.

15

Q The kickoff that you mentioned, are there

16 specific individuals at U.S. Soccer who are involved

17 with that kickoff?

18

A It's all the departments at U.S. Soccer.

19

Q Would that include the president?

20

A The president as in Carlos Cordeiro?

21

Q Yes.

22

A No, it would not involve Carlos.

23

Q Okay. Who would it involve specifically?

24

A Everybody in the U.S. Soccer organization.

25 That would include our CEO and everybody in that

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i1a6l Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:2569

1

Q Okay. And you said -- I think you

Page 89

2 referred to it as the "inputs from business."

3

So in setting -- let's just start with the

4 2021 budget since you're directly involved in that,

5 it sounds like. What is the process for getting

6 inputs from the business side of U.S. Soccer in

7 order to set the actual budget for 2021?

8

A You'll have to be a bit more specific

9 because it's different by departments.

10

Q Okay. So what departments are involved?

11

A All departments.

12

Q What -- which departments?

13

A Referee, coaching, women's national team,

14 men's national team.

15

Q Got it. So let's stick with the -- since

16 we're on this page, let's stick with the women's

17 national team.

18

A Okay.

19

Q So who, first of all, from the business

20 side would be involved in working with you on the

21 women's national team budgeting?

22

A So that would be the managing director of

23 team administration.

24

Q And who is that?

25

A Tom King.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i1a6l Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:2570

1

Q Anybody else other than Mr. King?

Page 90

2

A On the business side it would be Tom King.

3

Q What about for the men's national team

4 expenses?

5

A Tom King. Let's clarify, expenses.

6

Q Yes. Sticking with expenses for now.

7

And for the process of setting the 2021

8 budget, what has been the process in terms of

9 working with Mr. King on budgeting for the women's

10 national team?

11

A On the women's national team, no different

12 than the men's national team. It's the same process

13 on the expenses. Tom King provides his inputs such

14 as hotels, meals, flights, the schedule for the

15 upcoming year, and we take those inputs and validate

16 those against what we see as actuals.

17

So an example of that would be hotels in

18 the model are -- I'm just making up numbers --

19 hotels in his model are priced at 400 a night, and

20 we determine based on what our actuals are it is

21 closer to 250, so we would evaluate that input and

22 based on that make a determination whether we need

23 to revise that input.

24

And we would do that process for all the

25 inputs provided by him and then put together an

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i1a6l Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:2571

1 Morgan vs. USSF; Solo vs. USSF

Page 230

2 No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR; 3:18-CV-05215 JD

3

4

I hereby certify that I have read the

5 foregoing transcript of my deposition, given on

6 January 21st, 2020, at the place aforesaid,

7 consisting of pages 1 through 229, inclusive, and I

8 do again subscribe and make oath that the same is a

9 true, correct, and complete transcript of my

10 deposition so given as aforesaid, as it now appears.

11

Please check one:

12

__________ I made no corrections

13

__________ Number of errata sheets submitted

14

(signed) ______________________________________

15

PRAPTIKA (PINKY) RAINA

16 ALSO PRESENT:________________________________
17

18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
19 before me this ____ day of ____________________ 2020.
20 _____________________________
21 Notary Public

22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i1a6l Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:2572

Page 231

1

CORRECTION PAGE

2

3 CASE NAME:

Morgan vs. USSF; Solo vs. USSF

4 DEPOSITION OF: Praptika (Pinky) Raina

5 DATE TAKEN:

January 21st, 2020

6

7 PAGE

LINE

CHANGE

8 ____

____

________________________________________

9 ____

____

________________________________________

10 ____

____

________________________________________

11 ____

____

________________________________________

12 ____

____

________________________________________

13 ____

____

________________________________________

14 ____

____

________________________________________

15 ____

____

________________________________________

16 ____

____

________________________________________

17 ____

____

________________________________________

18 ____

____

________________________________________

19 ____

____

________________________________________

20 ____

____

________________________________________

21 ____

____

________________________________________

22 ____

____

________________________________________

23 DATE:

________________________________________

24 SIGNATURE:

________________________________________

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-16 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:2573

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2574
EXHIBIT 15

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2575

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2576

Year
2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2017 2017
2017

Date

Opponent

10-Nov Costa Rica 7-Nov Sweden 6-Oct Korea Republic 3-Oct Korea Republic 3-Sep Portugal 29-Aug Portugal 3-Aug Ireland
7-Jul Netherlands 2-Jul England 28-Jun France 24-Jun Spain 20-Jun Sweden 16-Jun Chile 11-Jun Thailand 26-May Mexico 16-May New Zealand 12-May South Africa 7-Apr Belgium
4-Apr Australia
5-Mar Brazil 2-Mar England 27-Feb Japan 22-Jan Spain 19-Jan France 13-Nov Scotland

8-Nov Portugal

17-Oct Canada

14-Oct Jamaica

10-Oct Trinidad & Tobago

7-Oct Panama

4-Oct Mexico
4-Sep Chile 31-Aug Chile 2-Aug Brazil 29-Jul Australia
26-Jul Japan 12-Jun China PR 7-Jun China PR 8-Apr Mexico 5-Apr Mexico 7-Mar England 4-Mar France 1-Mar Germany 21-Jan Denmark 12-Nov Canada 9-Nov Canada
22-Oct Korea Republic

Ranking Score Result

Competition

38 6-0 W 5 3-2 W 20 1-1 D 20 2-0 W 30 3-0 W 30 4-0 W 33 3-0 W 8 2-0 W 3 2-1 W 4 2-1 W 13 2-1 W 9 2-0 W 39 3-0 W 34 13-0 W 26 3-0 W 19 5-0 W 49 3-0 W 20 6-0 W

Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Women's World Cup Women's World Cup Women's World Cup Women's World Cup Women's World Cup Women's World Cup Women's World Cup Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly

6 5-3 W 10 1-0 W 4 2-2 D 8 2-2 D 12 1-0 W 3 1-3 L 19 1-0 W

Friendly SheBelieves Cup SheBelieves Cup SheBelieves Cup Friendly Friendly Friendly

33 1-0 W
5 2-0 W
64 6-0 W
52 7-0 W
66 5-0 W
24 6-0 W 39 4-0 W 39 3-0 W 7 4-1 W 8 1-1 D 6 4-2 W 17 2-1 W 17 1-0 W 25 6-2 W 25 4-1 W 3 1-0 W 6 1-1 D 2 1-0 W 12 5-1 W 5 3-1 W 5 1-1 D

Friendly Women's World Cup Qualifying Women's World Cup Qualifying Women's World Cup Qualifying Women's World Cup Qualifying Women's World Cup Qualifying Friendly Friendly Tournament of Nations Tournament of Nations Tournament of Nations Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly SheBelieves Cup SheBelieves Cup SheBelieves Cup Friendly Friendly Friendly

15 6-0 W

Friendly

Venue

City

TIAA Bank Stadium MAPFRE Stadium Soldier Field Bank of America Stadium Allianz Field Lincoln Financial Field Rose Bowl Groupama Stadium Groupama Stadium Parc Des Princes Stade Aguste-DeLaune II Stade Oceane Parc Des Princes Stade Aguste-DeLaune II Red Bull Arena Busch Stadium Levi's Stadium Banc of California Stadium
Dick's Sporting Goods Park Raymond James Stadium Nissan Stadium Talen Energy Stadium Estadio José Rico Pérez Stade Oceane The Simple Digital Arena

Jacksonville Columbus Chicago Charlotte St. Paul Philadelphia Pasadena Lyon Lyon Paris Reims Le Havre Paris Reims Harrison St. Louis Santa Clara Los Angeles
Commerce City
Tampa Nashville Chester Alicante Le Havre Glasgow

Estadio António Coimbra da Mota Lisbon

Toyota Stadium

Frisco

Toyota Stadium

Frisco

WakeMed Soccer Park

Cary

WakeMed Soccer Park

Cary

WakeMed Soccer Park Avaya Stadium StubHub Center Toyota Park Pratt & Whitney Stadium Children's Mercy Park FirstEnergy Stadium Rio Tinto Stadium BBVA Compass Stadium EverBank Field Orlando City Stadium Red Bull Arena MAPFRE Stadium SDCCU Stadium Avaya Stadium BC Place

Cary
San Jose Carson Bridgeview East Hartford Kansas City Cleveland Sandy Houston Jacksonville Orlando Harrison Columbus San Diego San Jose Vancouver

WakeMed Soccer Park

Cary

State

Country

FL

USA

OH

USA

IL

USA

NC

USA

MN

USA

PA

USA

CA

USA

-

France

-

France

-

France

-

France

-

France

-

France

-

France

NJ

USA

MO

USA

CA

USA

CA

USA

CO

USA

FL

USA

TN

USA

PA

USA

-

Spain

-

France

-

Scotland

Surface
Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass
Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass

Hotel Accomodations
One Ocean Resort and Spa LeVeque Hotel Columbus Ritz Carlton Chicago Omni Charlotte Loews MSP The Logan Hotel Westin Pasadena Fourviere Hotel Metropole La Residence Relais de la Malmaison Grand Hotel Continental Reims Hotel Barnere Le Royal Melia La Defense Best Western La Paix Westin Jersey City Hotel St. Louis Hotel Valencia Omni Downtown Los Angeles

Means of Team Travel to Match
Charter Commercial Charter Commercial Charter Commercial Commercial N/A Train Train Bus Bus Bus Charter Commercial Charter Commercial Charter

Renaissance Denver Downtown Le Meridien Tampa The Thompson Le Meridien Philadelphia Hospes Amerigo Hotel Hotel Barriere Le Normandy Marriott Glasgow

Charter Charter Charter Charter Charter Charter Charter

-

Portugal

Grass

IberoStar Lisbon

Commercial

TX

USA

Grass

Westin Stonebriar

N/A

TX

USA

Grass

Westin Stonebriar

Charter

NC

USA

Grass

Renaissance Raleigh North Hills N/A

NC

USA

Grass

Renaissance Raleigh North Hills N/A

NC

USA

Grass

CA

USA

Grass

CA

USA

Grass

IL

USA

Grass

CT

USA

Grass

KS

USA

Grass

OH

USA

Grass

UT

USA

Grass

TX

USA

Grass

FL

USA

Grass

FL

USA

Grass

NJ

USA

Grass

OH

USA

Grass

CA

USA

Grass

CA

USA

Grass

-

Canada

Turf

Renaissance Raleigh North Hills Hotel Valencia Westdrift Park Hyatt Chicago Hotel Godowin Intercontinental Kansas City Ritz Carlton Cleveland Grand America Hotel Hotel Derek One Ocean Hotel Omni Championsgate Westin Jersey City The Lofts U.S. Grant Hotel Fairmont San Jose Sheraton Wall Center

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Charter Charter Bus Commercial Commercial

NC

USA

Grass

Renaissance Raleigh North Hills Commercial

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2577

Year
2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2016 2016 2016 2016
2016
2016
2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Date

Opponent

19-Oct Korea Republic 19-Sep New Zealand 15-Sep New Zealand 3-Aug Japan 30-Jul Brazil 27-Jul Australia 11-Jun Norway
8-Jun Sweden 9-Apr Russia 6-Apr Russia 7-Mar France 4-Mar England 1-Mar Germany 13-Nov Romania 10-Nov Romania 23-Oct Switzerland 19-Oct Switzerland

18-Sep Netherlands

15-Sep Thailand
12-Aug Sweden
9-Aug Colombia 6-Aug France 3-Aug New Zealand 22-Jul Costa Rica
9-Jul South Africa 5-Jun Japan 2-Jun Japan 10-Apr Colombia 6-Apr Colombia 9-Mar Germany 6-Mar France 3-Mar England 21-Feb Canada 19-Feb Trinidad & Tobago 15-Feb Puerto Rico 13-Feb Mexico 10-Feb Costa Rica 23-Jan Ireland 16-Dec China PR 13-Dec China PR 10-Dec Trinidad & Tobago 25-Oct Brazil 21-Oct Brazil 20-Sep Haiti 17-Sep Haiti 19-Aug Costa Rica 16-Aug Costa Rica 5-Jul Japan 30-Jun Germany 26-Jun China 22-Jun Colombia 16-Jun Nigeria 12-Jun Sweden

Ranking Score Result

Competition

15 3-1 W 19 5-0 W 19 3-1 W 6 3-0 W 8 4-3 W 7 0-1 L 11 1-0 W 6 1-0 W 25 5-1 W 25 4-0 W 3 0-3 L 5 0-1 L 2 1-0 W 36 5-0 W 36 8-1 W 15 5-1 W 15 4-0 W

Friendly Friendly Friendly Tournament of Nations Tournament of Nations Tournament of Nations Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly SheBelieves Cup SheBelieves Cup SheBelieves Cup Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly

12 3-1 W

Friendly

32 9-0 W

Friendly

6 1-1 L-PK (3-4) Olympics

24 2-2 D

Olympics

3 1-0 W

Olympics

17 2-0 W

Olympics

29 4-0 W

Friendly

52 1-0 W

Friendly

7 2-0 W

Friendly

7 3-3 D

Friendly

24 3-0 W

Friendly

24 7-0 W

Friendly

2 2-1 W

SheBelieves Cup

3 1-0 W

SheBelieves Cup

5 1-0 W

SheBelieves Cup

11 2-0 W

Olympic Qualifying

48 5-0 W

Olympic Qualifying

108 10-0 W

Olympic Qualifying

26 1-0 W

Olympic Qualifying

34 5-0 W

Olympic Qualifying

32 5-0 W

Friendly

15 0-1 L

Friendly

15 2-0 W

Friendly

48 6-0 W

Friendly

7 3-1 W

Friendly

7 1-1 D

Friendly

63 8-0 W

Friendly

63 5-0 W

Friendly

34 7-2 W

Friendly

34 8-0 W

Friendly

4 5-2 W

Women's World Cup

1 2-0 W

Women's World Cup

16 1-0 W

Women's World Cup

28 2-0 W

Women's World Cup

33 1-0 W

Women's World Cup

5 0-0 D

Women's World Cup

Venue
Mercedes-Benz Superdome Nippert Stadium Dick's Sporting Goods Park StubHub Center Qualcomm Stadium CenturyLink Field Komplett Arena Gamla Ullevi Stadium BBVA Compass Stadium Toyota Stadium RFK Stadium Red Bull Arena Talen Energy Stadium StubHub Center Avaya Stadium U.S. Bank Stadium Rio Tinto Stadium
Georgia Dome
MAPFRE Stadium
Mane Garrincha Stadium Amazonia Arena Mineirão Stadium Mineirão Stadium Children's Mercy Park Soldier Field FirstEnergy Stadium Dick's Sporting Goods Park Talen Energy Stadium Pratt & Whitney Stadium FAU Stadium Nissan Stadium Raymond James Stadium BBVA Compass Stadium BBVA Compass Stadium Toyota Stadium Toyota Stadium Toyota Stadium Qualcomm Stadium Mercedes-Benz Superdome University of Phoenix Stadium The Alamodome Florida Citrus Bowl CenturyLink Field Legion Field Ford Field Finley Stadium Heinz Field BC Place Olympic Stadium Lansdowne Stadium Commonwealth Stadium BC Place Winnipeg Stadium

City
New Orleans Cincinnati Commerce City Carson San Diego Seattle Sandefjord Gothenburg Houston Frisco Washington D.C. Harrison Chester Carson San Jose Minneapolis Sandy
Atlanta
Columbus
Brasilia
Manaus Belo Horizonte Belo Horizonte Kansas City Chicago Cleveland Commerce City Chester East Hartford Boca Raton Nashville Tampa Houston Houston Frisco Frisco Frisco San Diego New Orleans Glendale San Antonio Orlando Seattle Birmingham Detroit Chattanooga Pittsburgh Vancouver Montreal Ottawa Edmonton Vancouver Winnipeg

State
LA OH CO CA CA WA TX TX DC NJ PA CA CA MN UT

Country
USA USA USA USA USA USA Norway Sweden USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

GA

USA

OH

USA

-

Brazil

-

Brazil

-

Brazil

-

Brazil

KS

USA

IL

USA

OH

USA

CO

USA

PA

USA

CT

USA

FL

USA

TN

USA

FL

USA

TX

USA

TX

USA

TX

USA

TX

USA

TX

USA

CA

USA

LA

USA

AZ

USA

TX

USA

FL

USA

WA

USA

AL

USA

MI

USA

TN

USA

PA

USA

-

Canada

-

Canada

-

Canada

-

Canada

-

Canada

-

Canada

Surface
Turf Turf Grass Grass Grass Turf Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Turf Grass Grass over Turf
Grass
Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Turf Grass Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Grass Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf

Hotel Accomodations
NOPSI Hotel, New Orleans Hotel Covington Kimpton Monaco Denver Belamar Hotel Westin San Diego Gaslamp Hyatt Olive 8 Scandic Park Scandic Crown JW Marriott Houston W Hotel Dallas W Washington DC The Westin Jersey City The Inn at Penn (Phil) The Belamar Hotel Valencia Santa Ana Row Westin Minneapolis Marriott University Park Hotel

Means of Team Travel to Match
Commercial Commercial Commercial Bus Commercial Commercial Bus Commercial Bus Commercial Bus Bus Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial

The Ritz-Carlton Atlanta

Commercial

Renaissance Columbus Downtown

Hotel

Commercial

Royal Tulip Brasilia Alvorada Tropical Manaus Mercure Hotel Belo Horizonte Mercure Hotel Belo Horizonte Intercontinental Kansas City Westin Chicago North Shore Westin Cleveland Downtown JW Marriott at Cherry Creek Hotel Palomar Philadelphia Marriott Hartford Downtown Boca Raton Marriott Renaissance Nashville Hotel Hilton Tampa Downtown JW Marriott Houston JW Marriott Houston The Westin Stonebriar The Westin Stonebriar The Westin Stonebriar The Westin San Diego JW Marriott New Orleans Westin Phoenix Downtown Eilan Hotel & Spa Grand Bohemian Hotel Grand Hyatt Seattle Westin Birmingham Westin Book Cadillac Detroit The Chattanoogan Renaissance Hotel Sheraton Wall Center Le Centre Sheraton Fairmont Delta Edmonton South Coast Coal Harbour Delta Winnepeg

Charter Charter N/A Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Bus Bus Commercial Commercial Commercial N/A Bus N/A N/A Commercial Bus Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Charter Bus Charter Charter Charter N/A

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-17 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2578

Year
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014 2014 2014
2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014

Date

Opponent

8-Jun Australia 30-May Korea Republic 17-May Mexico 10-May Ireland
4-Apr New Zealand 11-Mar France
9-Mar Iceland 6-Mar Switzerland 4-Mar Norway 13-Feb England 8-Feb France

21-Dec Brazil

18-Dec Argentina

14-Dec Brazil

10-Dec China PR

26-Oct Costa Rica

24-Oct Mexico

20-Oct Haiti

17-Oct Guatemala

15-Oct Trinidad & Tobago
18-Sep Mexico 13-Sep Mexico
20-Aug Switzerland
19-Jun France 14-Jun France 8-May Canada 10-Apr China PR 6-Apr China PR 12-Mar Korea DPR 10-Mar Denmark 7-Mar Sweden 5-Mar Japan 13-Feb Russia 8-Feb Russia 31-Jan Canada

Ranking Score Result

Competition

Venue

10 3-1 W 18 0-0 D 25 5-1 W 31 3-0 W 17 4-0 W 3 2-0 W 20 0-0 D 19 3-0 W 12 2-1 W 6 1-0 W 3 0-2 L
8 0-0 D
37 7-0 W
2-3 L 6
14 1-1 D
40 6-0 W
25 3-0 W
60 6-0 W
79 5-0 W
46 1-0 W 25 4-0 W 25 8-0 W

Women's World Cup

Winnipeg Stadium

Friendly

Red Bull Arena

Friendly

StubHub Center

Friendly

Avaya Stadium

Friendly

Busch Stadium

Algarve Cup

Estádio Algarve

Algarve Cup

Municipal Stadium

Algarve Cup

Municipal Stadium

Algarve Cup

Municipal Stadium

Friendly

Stadium MK

Friendly

Stade du Moustoir

International Tournament of

Brasilia

Mané Garrincha Stadium

International Tournament of

Brasilia

Mané Garrincha Stadium

International Tournament of

Brasilia

Mané Garrincha Stadium

International Tournament of

Brasilia

Mané Garrincha Stadium

Women's World Cup

Qualifying

PPL Park

Women's World Cup

Qualifying

PPL Park

Women's World Cup

Qualifying

RFK Stadium

Women's World Cup

Qualifying

Toyota Park

Women's World Cup

Qualifying

LIVESTRONG Sporting Park

Friendly

Sahlen's Stadium

Friendly

Rio Tinto Stadium

19 4-1 W 4 2-2 D 4 1-0 W 7 1-1 D 16 3-0 W 16 2-0 W 10 3-0 W 13 3-5 L 6 0-1 L 3 1-1 D 21 8-0 W 21 7-0 W 7 1-0 W

Friendly
Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Algarve Cup Algarve Cup Algarve Cup Algarve Cup Friendly Friendly Friendly

Wakemed Soccer Park Pratt & Whitney Stadium Raymond James Stadium Investors Group Field Qualcomm Stadium Dick's Sporting Goods Park Belavista Municipal Stadium Municipal Stadium Municipal Stadium Belavista Municipal Stadium Georgia Dome FAU Stadium Toyota Stadium

City
Winnipeg Harrison Carson San Jose St. Louis Faro Lagos VR de SA VR de SA Milton Keynes Lorient
Brasilia
Brasilia
Brasilia
Brasilia
Chester
Chester
Washington
Bridgeview
Kansas City
Rochester Sandy
Cary
East Hartford Tampa Winnipeg San Diego Commerce City Parchal Albufeira Albufeira Parchal Atlanta Boca Raton Frisco

State
NJ CA CA MO -

Country
Canada USA USA USA USA Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal England France

Surface
Turf Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Turf

Hotel Accomodations
Delta Winnepeg Westin Jersey City Newport The Belamar Fairmont San Jose The Ritz-Carlton St. Louis Cascade Resort Cascade Resort Cascade Resort Cascade Resort Luton Hoo Hotel & Spa Sofitel Quiberon

Means of Team Travel to Match
Charter Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial N/A Commercial Train Commercial

-

Brazil

Grass

Royal Tulip Brasilia Alvorada

N/A

-

Brazil

Grass

Royal Tulip Brasilia Alvorada

N/A

-

Brazil

Grass

Royal Tulip Brasilia Alvorada

N/A

-

Brazil

Grass

Royal Tulip Brasilia Alvorada

Commercial

PA

USA

Grass

Westin Wilmington

N/A

PA

USA

Grass

Westin Wilmington

Commercial

DC

USA

Grass

Renaissance DuPont Circle

Commercial

IL

USA

Grass

Oak Brook Hills Resort

Commercial

KS

USA

NY

USA

UT

USA

Grass Turf Grass

Intercontinental Kansas City Rochester Airport Marriott Salt Lake Marriott Downtown

Commercial Commercial Commercial

NC

USA

Grass

CT

USA

Grass

FL

USA

Grass

-

Canada

Turf

CA

USA

Grass

CO

USA

Grass

-

Portugal

Grass

-

Portugal

Grass

-

Portugal

Grass

-

Portugal

Grass

GA

USA

Turf

FL

USA

Grass

TX

USA

Grass

Renaissance Raleigh North Hills Hilton Hartford Renaissance Tampa Delta Winnepeg Hilton San Diego JW Marriott Cherry Creek Cascades Resort Cascades Resort Cascades Resort Cascades Resort The Westin Buckhead The Westin Ft. Lauderdale The Westin Stonebriar

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Bus N/A Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-18 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:2579
EXHIBIT 16

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCoennfti1d7e0n-t1i8al Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:2580

Page 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

----------------------------------------------------X

3 ALEX MORGAN, MEGAN RAPINOE, BECKY SAUERBRUNN,

CARLI LLOYD, MORGAN BRIAN, JANE CAMPBELL, DANIELLE

4 COLAPRICO, ABBY DAHLKEMPER, TIERNA DAVIDSON, CRYSTAL

DUNN, JULIE ERTZ, ADRIANNA FRANCH, ASHLYN HARRIS, TOBIN

5 HEATH, LINDSEY HORAN, ROSE LAVELLE, ALLIE LONG, MERRITT

MATHIAS, JESSICA McDONALD, SAMANTHA MEWIS, ALYSSA

6 NAEHER, ELLEY O’HARA, CHRISTEN PRESS, MALLORY PUGH,

CASEY SHORT, EMILY SONNETT, ANDI SULLIVAN and McCALL

7 ZERBONI,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10 UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.,

11

Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------X

12

13

14

CONFIDENTIAL

15

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JILL ELLIS

16

Miami, Florida

17

January 15, 2020

18

19

REPORTED BY: BOBBIE ZELTMAN

20

Professional Realtime Court Reporter

21

22

23 Job Number: 174943

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCoennfti1d7e0n-t1i8al Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:2581

1

MS. WAHLKE: Lydia Wahlke on

Page 6

2 behalf of US Soccer.

3

MS. LEIDEN: And I think we

4 have one of my colleagues on the

5 phone.

6

MS. PARSIGIAN: Yes, this is

7 Jennifer Parsigian from Winston & Strawn

8 for Plaintiffs.

9

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the

10 court reporter please swear in the

11 witness.

12

THE REPORTER: Raise your right

13 hand, please.

14

Do you solemnly swear that the

15 testimony you're about to give will be

16 the truth, the whole truth and nothing

17 but the truth, so help you God?

18

THE WITNESS: Yes.

19

THE REPORTER: Very good.

20

JILL ELLIS,

21

having been first duly sworn by

22 Barbara R. Zeltman, Notary Public, was

23

examined and testified as follows:

24

EXAMINATION BY MS. LEIDEN:

25 Q

Good morning.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCoennfti1d7e0n-t1i8al Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:2582

1 There's just reasons.

Page 155

2

Q

And so when you -- you said you

3 provided some input with respect to

4 surfaces.

5

Was that similar to the game

6 location where you would learn what the

7 surface was and then provide input, or were

8 you involved at all in kind of making the

9 decision from the start?

10

A

I mean, after 2016, I don't

11 think -- I mean, I can't think that we

12 played on another turf field, so before

13 that -- I mean, the World Cup in 2015 was on

14 turf, so we had to train on turf to be ready

15 to play on turf in a world environment.

16

But I think after I guess 2016, I'm

17 trying to think, we played mainly on grass,

18 but I would be given -- I got to know the

19 stadiums to know they were grass. So if

20 they said we're playing here, I knew it was

21 grass. But after a certain point they were

22 all grass.

23

Q

Were there times after you learned

24 essentially where the game was going to be

25 played that you requested that it be moved

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCoennfti1d7e0n-t1i8al Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:2583

Page 156

1

to be played on grass rather than turf?

2

A

I'm trying to think.

3

I mean, I think I recall -- this is

4

maybe the end of 2015 finding out we were

5

playing potentially on a turf field and I

6

raised an issue and they actually -- I think

7

it was Georgia -- I can't remember exactly,

8

but they put grass down.

9

Q

At the Georgia Dome?

10

A

Yes.

11

MS. LEIDEN: Let's go off the

12

record.

13

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is

14

12:35 p.m. We are going off the

15

record.

16

(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was

17

taken at 12:35 p.m. through 1:42 p.m.)

18

AFTERNOON SESSION

19

JILL ELLIS,

20

resumed, having been previously

21

duly sworn, was examined

22

and testified further as follows:

23

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is

24

1:42 p.m. We're back on record.

25 BY MS. LEIDEN:

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCoennfti1d7e0n-t1i8al Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:2584

1

Q

Welcome back.

Page 157

2

Before we broke for lunch, we were

3 talking about generally your responsibility

4 as head coach and different decisions that

5 were made about the team.

6

And we had discussed that you did

7 have significant input in terms of deciding

8 the opponent that the team would play,

9 right?

10

A

Yes.

11

Q

And then we were talking about game

12 locations and then field services.

13

And is it accurate to say that

14 US Soccer would make the decision with

15 respect to both locations and the field

16 service?

17

A

Yes.

18

Q

And I believe there are two

19 different things you had talked about in

20 terms of field. One was the size of the

21 field and one was the actual makeup of the

22 surface, whether it was artificial or turf,

23 right?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

And US Soccer would make those

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCoennfti1d7e0n-t1i8al Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:2585

1 decisions and you might have input on them

Page 158

2 that you would provide essentially after the

3 fact?

4

A

Yes.

5

Q

Okay.

6

The next thing I want to talk about

7 is travel.

8

So similar question is: Did you

9 have a role in making a decision in terms

10 of, first let's say, what type of hotel

11 accommodations that you and the players

12 would have when you traveled for games?

13

A

No.

14

Q

How would you learn what the

15 accommodations would be?

16

A

So when it was Tim who was my

17 administrator, he located the hotels, and

18 then Molly did it as time, so Molly was

19 responsible for finding the hotels. Her

20 process, I mean, because I know she sent

21 certain parameters to operate in terms of

22 the CBA, so she would find the hotels and

23 then she would let me know.

24

And sometimes she would go scout

25 flights out and she would go fly out there

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCoennfti1d7e0n-t1i8al Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:2586

1 to make sure it was acceptable.

Page 159

2

Q

And were there any times after you

3 learned what the accommodations would be

4 that you made a request that it be changed?

5

A

No.

6

Q

Are you aware of any similar type

7 of requests from the players themselves in

8 terms of hotels?

9

A

The only time I heard players

10 complain about a hotel was I think there was

11 construction at one hotel, and we moved them

12 from like one side of the hotel to the

13 other.

14

You know, I didn't really track a

15 lot of that, I'll be honest, but the players

16 spoke directly to Molly if there was an

17 issue.

18

But, no, I mean, I think -- again,

19 I've been retired for five and a half years.

20 I can't honestly said I've taken issue with

21 a hotel.

22

Q

The next thing in terms of travel,

23 were you involved at all in the decisions as

24 to flights that yourself and the team would

25 take when traveling for games?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCoennfti1d7e0n-t1i8al Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:2587

1

A

No.

Page 160

2

Q

And when I say "flights," I mean,

3 first of all, whether the flight would be a

4 charter flight, whether it would be a

5 commercial flight and then whether within a

6 commercial flight whether any particular

7 class -- same question, in terms of all

8 those options, were you involved at all

9 before the decision was made as to what type

10 of flight?

11

A

No. In 2018 for World Cup

12 qualifiers, that's when I was specifically

13 asked for charter. And so that was probably

14 the only time I've involved myself in

15 flights.

16

Q

And was that request granted?

17 Honored?

18

A

Yes.

19

Q

Other than the World Cup

20 qualifiers, were there other times that the

21 women's team took charter flights?

22

A

We definitely chartered back from

23 the World Cup in Canada because we went to

24 LA.

25

Q

In 2015?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:2588

1

A

Yes. '19 as well.

Page 161

2

I think we took some charters

3 around She Believes tournament -- just

4 because it was a really terrible ride -- it

5 was crazy, but other than that I don't

6 recall.

7

Q

And with respect to the type of

8 flight and the class on a commercial flight,

9 were there any times other than making the

10 request specifically for the charter flights

11 that you made a request to change the

12 flights either type or time or anything with

13 respect to that?

14

A

Gosh. Not that I can remember.

15

No, not that I can remember. I

16 mean, I remember after once the new CBA came

17 in, the players got business class flights

18 internally which was huge because it was

19 physically so much better.

20

So but prior to that or involving

21 myself in flights or changing flights, I

22 can't remember -- would there be one time

23 where I said, Hey, can we get on an earlier

24 flight when I looked at the schedule. But

25 we do the schedule a month out, so when they

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 11 of 28 Page ID #:2589

1 say, Hey -- I think it's like on occasion,

Page 162

2 can we train that morning and push the

3 flight back? You know, things like that,

4 maybe occasionally. I can count on one

5 hand, potentially.

6

Q

And then similar question with

7 respect to the training personnel and

8 medical personnel that would -- well, first

9 just, and I think we covered this a little

10 bit already -- that were used by the team

11 generally in terms of hiring training

12 personnel, medical staff, was that something

13 you were involved in the decision making?

14

A

So once James Bunce was hired in --

15 end of 2017 -- I'm not exactly sure -- I was

16 invited in the interviews for the physical

17 therapist and new trainer, this was after

18 Rick left. That's been kind of my only kind

19 of involvement in that process.

20

In terms of securing the massage

21 therapists or trainers, that was always

22 handled out of Chicago. I think Hughie did

23 it, Hugh O'Malley did it way back when and I

24 think it got passed on, but that was kind of

25 the administrative side that Molly dealt

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:2590

1 with all of that.

Page 163

2

Q

And what about whether and how

3 those personnel would travel with the team

4 to games?

5

Were you involved in deciding who

6 would kind of be on the travel group to a

7 particular game?

8

A

I mean, everybody that was in count

9 for the most part, you know, like we took

10 over planes, there were 50 of us when we

11 traveled with the players and staff.

12 Sometimes the staff would take -- they would

13 split non-essential personnel so always the

14 medical team would travel with the players.

15 Molly would always travel with the players,

16 but if we had to send a different group

17 because they were not essential, sometimes

18 the comp crew would take a different flight.

19 That's the only time I can recall us

20 splitting up, so to speak.

21

Q

As the head coach, did you have any

22 visibility into the travel accommodations

23 for the men's team?

24

A

Did I have --

25

Q

Visibility. Did you have any

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:2591

1 knowledge of how they were traveling?

Page 164

2

A

I mean, I was told. I didn't see

3 it per se but I knew they chartered.

4

Q

You knew that the men were

5 generally taking chartered flights?

6

A

Yes.

7

Q

Was there any discussion on your

8 end with respect to asking for the same

9 thing?

10

A

Yes.

11

Q

And who would have been involved in

12 those conversations?

13

A

Tom King.

14

Q

And that was between you and Tom

15 King?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

And what did Mr. King respond?

18

A

I think one time he said -- I don't

19 think it's in the CBA but I pushed for the

20 World Cup qualifiers and he said he'd speak

21 to Dan and it got approved.

22

Q

So that would have been 2019?

23

A

End of '18.

24

Q

Do you recall ever making that

25 request or request for respective charters

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:2592

1 flights before those World Cup qualifiers?

Page 165

2

A

I think yes. I think we took a

3 couple -- yeah, it was something that I felt

4 was important because of just, you know, the

5 time involved in going domestic.

6

Q

But generally speaking while you

7 were the head coach, it's your understanding

8 that the men did take more charter flights

9 than the woman overall, right?

10

A

Yes.

11

Q

And then similar question with

12 respect to hotel accommodations, things like

13 that: Did you have any knowledge of what

14 types of hotels the men were staying at,

15 that type of thing?

16

A

Not directly, no. I mean, I think

17 Molly was pretty vigilant in checking out

18 places, and I know she talked to the men's

19 counterpart to her and would get hotel

20 information and stuff like that, so they

21 would compare.

22

Q

Other than charter flights, were

23 there any other accommodations or travel

24 issues that you recall bringing to the

25 attention of US Soccer as being different

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 15 of 28 Page ID #:2593

Page 235

1

MS. KERSHAW: Just clarifying.

2 BY MS. LEIDEN:

3

Q

And we have been talking about or

4

looking at budgets that are specific to

5

certain years, and so this document

6

aggregates certain information from fiscal

7

year 2012 through fiscal year 2020.

8

So there are two items in this

9

summary. The first is hotels and from the

10

fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2020, the

11

expenses for the women's team has been about

12

$7.3 million and the men's team has been

13

about $10.7 million.

14

Do you see that?

15

A

Yes.

16

Q

On the right-hand side?

17

A

Yes.

18

Q

And on Air Travel, it looks like

19

the men's team is about 14.3 million and the

20

women is about 6.3 million?

21

A

Yup.

22

MS. KERSHAW: I'm just going to

23

object again to the foundation of

24

this document. She can't verify

25

whether these numbers are accurate or

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 16 of 28 Page ID #:2594

1

correct.

Page 236

2

But answer. You can still answer

3

the question.

4

MS. LEIDEN: Well, with

5

respect -- I'm not asking her for

6

foundation.

7

As I said, this was a document

8

prepared by Plaintiffs' counsel. So with

9

respect, I don't think that's an

10

objection that has any merit. But again

11

with all of these, I'm not asking her to

12

authenticate a document she's never seen.

13

I'm asking her questions about the

14

numbers that are reflected in the

15

documents.

16 BY MS. LEIDEN:

17

Q

So my actual question to you after

18

all that is: Are you aware of any reason

19

why the soccer Federation has spent over

20

$3 million more on the men's team than the

21

women's team in hotels for fiscal year 2020?

22

A

Do I know why? No.

23

Q

And then the same question with

24

respect to why the US Soccer has spent about

25

$8 million more on the men's team than the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 17 of 28 Page ID #:2595

1 women's team on air travel over that same

Page 237

2 period of time?

3

A

No.

4

Q

Are you surprised at all by these

5 numbers?

6

A

That word "surprise" again.

7

I look at it and I go, Okay, what

8 am I doing that year. That's kinda how I

9 look at things, you know, am I playing a lot

10 of games.

11

But, no, I'm not surprised.

12

Q

And you had testified a little bit

13 about this earlier, but your general

14 understanding, I believe, was that the women

15 played about 24 games or so per year?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

And that generally speaking, the

18 Women's National Team has played more -- a

19 greater number of teams than the men's team

20 in this period, right?

21

A

Yes. I don't know for certain, but

22 I would imagine so, yes.

23

Q

And the Women's National Team won

24 two World Cups during this time frame,

25 right?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 18 of 28 Page ID #:2596

1

A

Correct.

Page 238

2

Q

And the men's team won zero World

3 Cups during this period?

4

A

Correct.

5

Q

And setting aside that particular

6 document, was it your understanding while

7 you were the head coach of the Women's

8 National Team that US Soccer spent more

9 money on the men's team than the women's

10 team?

11

A

Did I know that factually, no. Did

12 I assume that, yes, because I knew they got

13 charters.

14

Q

So that was one specific thing that

15 you knew or were told was that the men had

16 chartered flights and the women didn't,

17 right?

18

A

Correct.

19

Q

Are there any other specific

20 things that you can think of that you were

21 told or found out in terms of differences

22 between funds spent on one versus the other?

23

A

I mean, not related to the players,

24 no. Coaches' salaries, yes. But --

25

Q

That's a good point. So coaching

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 19 of 28 Page ID #:2597

Page 239

1

salary, chartered flights, is there anything

2

else besides those two things that you are

3

aware of in terms of individual line items?

4

A

No.

5

Q

But I take it you would have

6

preferred those be equal?

7

MS. KERSHAW: Is that a

8

question?

9

A

Do I answer? Would I have

10

preferred?

11

Jill Ellis' preference would be to

12

take more money than everybody. So my

13

preference would be more.

14 BY MS. LEIDEN:

15

Q

Right. Let me ask a clean question

16

for the record.

17

Would it have been your preference

18

that US Soccer spend the same amount of

19

money on your salary as compared to the

20

salary of the Men's National Team head

21

coach?

22

A

Correct. Yes.

23

Q

And would it have been your

24

preference that US Soccer spend at least the

25

same amount of money for flights for the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 20 of 28 Page ID #:2598

1 Women's National Team that it did for the

Page 240

2 men's team?

3

A

Yes.

4

Q

You can set that away. I'll shift

5 you away from numbers for a while and talk

6 about kind of the responsibilities and the

7 duties of players on the team as opposed to

8 your specific job duties.

9

Generally speaking, what's your

10 understanding of what the job duties are for

11 a player on the Women's National Team?

12

A

I don't think job duties is gender

13 specific across the board, so I think they

14 would be the same responsibilities: To be a

15 good professional, to come into camp fit, to

16 perform at a high level, to seek treatment

17 when you're injured are I think the

18 parameters of which a player has

19 responsibilities.

20

Q

And those things that you

21 mentioned, being a good professional,

22 fitness, performing at a high level, seeking

23 treatment for injuries, would those be the

24 same expectations for players on the Men's

25 National Team?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 21 of 28 Page ID #:2599

1

A

Certainly.

Page 241

2

Q

Would you agree that one of the

3 responsibilities or requirements for a

4 player on the Women's National Team would be

5 available for team training?

6

A

Yes.

7

Q

And be available for games and

8 tournaments?

9

A

Yes.

10

Q

And to be available to travel for

11 both training and tournaments and games?

12

A

Yes.

13

Q

And that would be the same on the

14 men's side as well?

15

A

Correct.

16

Q

So generally speaking, the

17 responsibilities and requirements, I'll say

18 that, for being on the US Men's National

19 Team would be the same as the requirements

20 and responsibility for being on the Women's

21 National Team, correct?

22

A

Yes.

23

Q

And shifting away from duties or

24 responsibilities, would you say there's

25 skills necessary to be on the Women's

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 22 of 28 Page ID #:2600

1 National Team?

Page 242

2

A

Certainly.

3

Q

And could you, at a high level,

4 kind of talk about the skills that you

5 looked for as a head coach for your players?

6

A

I mean, it's the four pillars of

7 the game. So you're looking at athleticism,

8 you are looking at tactical IQ, you are

9 looking at technical proficiency, and mental

10 fortitude.

11

Q

And what do you mean by "tactical

12 IQ"?

13

A

Meaning they have a good base

14 understanding of the game in terms of space

15 and decision-making. So it's the thinking

16 part of the game. There are varying

17 disagrees of that even within our squad

18 because it's experienced-based, but that's

19 the thinking part of the game, yeah.

20

Q

And by "technical proficiency,"

21 would you be referring to specific physical

22 soccer skills?

23

A

Passing, shooting, dribbling,

24 heading such.

25

Q

I believe you referred to those as

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 23 of 28 Page ID #:2601

1 "pillars," right?

Page 243

2

A

Yes.

3

Q

So those pillars: Athleticism,

4 tactical IQ, tactical proficiency and mental

5 fortitude, those all would be skills that

6 would be necessary for a man to be on the

7 Men's National Team, right?

8

A

I would imagine so. I've never

9 coached men, but I would hazard to say a

10 player is a player.

11

Q

Do you think the players on the

12 Women's National Team are as skilled as the

13 players on the Men's National Team?

14

A

Yes.

15

Q

Do you think they work as hard as

16 the players on the Men's National Team?

17

A

Yes.

18

Q

Do you think that the US Women's

19 National Team is more popular than the US

20 Men's National Team currently?

21

A

I'm not on social media but I would

22 hazard to say yes.

23

Q

Do you have any insight into the

24 ranking or level of team that the Men's

25 National Team faces?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 24 of 28 Page ID #:2602

1

A

In the FIFA rankings in the level

Page 244

2 of opponents, I don't know the FIFA men's

3 rankings but I know the top teams. I don't

4 know who the men play in terms of FIFA

5 ranks.

6

Q

But I assume you do have visibility

7 for that for the Women's National Team,

8 right?

9

A

Yes.

10

Q

And generally speaking, would you

11 say that the Women's National Team plays

12 fairly high-ranked opponents?

13

A

Yes.

14

Q

And has that been true throughout

15 your tenure as the head coach?

16

A

I think it's actually increased.

17 As we built in tournaments and invited the

18 elite teams into the tournaments, I actually

19 think our schedule has grown in strength

20 over time.

21

Q

And sorry. Just to clarify, you

22 think that over time, the team has actually

23 faced tougher competition?

24

A

Yeah, because we go to these

25 tournaments and you bring in the top three

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 25 of 28 Page ID #:2603

1 or four teams and each tournament is

Page 245

2 determined by tier, so I think we've played

3 a very rigorous schedule.

4

Q

Can you explain exactly what you

5 mean by "tier"?

6

A

If you play a top ten team, the

7 elite teams in the world, if you're playing

8 mid-range. I mean, I think there's a

9 hundred-something rankings so we tend to

10 play the top teams as much possible.

11

MS. LEIDEN: This document was

12

already marked at -- this was

13

Exhibit 51 at the deposition of Jay

14

Berhalter.

15

And I'll represent that, as Counsel

16

represented at Mr. Berhalter's

17

deposition, that this is a summary

18

prepared by Plaintiffs' counsel that is

19

based on documents that were produced by

20

United States Soccer Federation in this

21

case and that was pulled from

22

USSF-MORGAN-023627 through 023628 and

23

that this summarizes for 2014 and 2019

24

the Men's National Team games and the

25

Women's National Team games and the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 26 of 28 Page ID #:2604

Page 298

1

MS. LEIDEN: That's all for me.

2

Hopefully, that means we're done.

3

MS. KERSHAW: We're done.

4

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is

5

5:21 p.m. We're going off the

6

record.

7

8

9

(Whereupon, the deposition was

10

concluded at 5:21 p.m.)

11

12

________________________

JILL ELLIS

13

14

15 Subscribed and sworn

16 to before me this

17 _____ day of ___________, 2020

18

19 __________________________ Notary Public
20

21

22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocumCeonntf1id7e0n-1ti8alFiled 02/20/20 Page 27 of 28 Page ID #:2605

1 STATE OF FLORIDA

)

PAGE ______ of _____

Page 299

2

) ss:

3 COUNTY OF BROWARD )

4

I wish to make the following

5 changes, for the following reasons:

6 PAGE LINE

7 ____ ____

CHANGE: _____________________________

8

REASON: _____________________________

9 ____ ____

CHANGE: _____________________________

10

REASON: _____________________________

11 ____ ____

CHANGE: _____________________________

12

REASON: _____________________________

13 ____ ____

CHANGE: _____________________________

14

REASON: _____________________________

15 ____ ____

CHANGE: _____________________________

16

REASON: _____________________________

17 ____ ____

CHANGE: _____________________________

18

REASON: _____________________________

19 ____ ____

CHANGE: _____________________________

20

REASON: _____________________________

21 _____________________
22 Witness's signature

__________ Date

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-18 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 28 Page ID #:2606

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-19 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2607
EXHIBIT 17

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-19 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2608

Page 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 _________________________________

)

5

)

ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

)

6

)

Plaintiffs,

) Case No.

7

) 2:19-cv-01717

vs.
8

) RGK-AGR )

UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

9 FEDERATION, INC.,

)

)

10

Defendant.

)

_________________________________

11

12

13

DEPOSITION OF ALEX MORGAN

14

Los Angeles, California

15

Thursday, December 19, 2019

16

Volume I

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Reported by:

24 Gail E. Kennamer, CSR 4583, CCRR

25 Job No. 172865

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-19 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:2609

Page 2

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 _________________________________

)

5

)

ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

)

6

)

Plaintiffs,

) Case No.

7

) 2:19-cv-01717

vs.

) RGK-AGR

8

)

UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

9 FEDERATION, INC.,

)

)

10

Defendant.

)

_________________________________

11

12

13

Deposition of Alex Morgan, Volume I, taken

14 on behalf of Defendant at 2029 Century Park East, Suite 15 3500, Los Angeles, California; beginning at 10:07 a.m.

16 and ending at 5:28 p.m.; Thursday, December 19, 2019,

17 before Gail E. Kennamer, CSR 4583, CCRR.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-19 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:2610

Page 10

1

Los Angeles, California; Thursday, December 19, 2019

2

10:07 a.m.

3

4

ALEX MORGAN,

5 a witness herein, having been administered an oath, was

6 examined, and testified as follows:

7

8

-EXAMINATION-

9

10

BY MS. FERRARI:

11

Q. Ms. Morgan, have you ever been deposed before?

12

A. I have not.

13

Q. All right.

14

MR. KESSLER: Just before we do that, are we

15 good for appearances or just take it from our cards?

16

THE REPORTER: Yes, I have your appearances.

17

MR. KESSLER: We don't have to state our

18 appearances. Okay. Sorry.

19

BY MS. FERRARI:

20

Q. Since you have not been deposed before, I want

21 to talk to you a little bit about the process before we

22 start.

23

The court reporter is taking down everything you say

24 here today, so it's important that you answer audibly with

25 "Yeses" and "Nos." "Uh-huh," "Uh-uh," nods of the head,

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-19 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:2611

Page 212

1

A. Yes.

2

Q. And it requires more skill to play for the U.S.

3 Men's National Team than the U.S. Soccer U17 boys' team;

4 right?

5

A. Yes. That would be the progression.

6

Q. And it requires more skill to play for the U.S.

7 Men's National Team than the U.S. Soccer Youth 17 girls'

8 team?

9

A. It's difficult to compare that.

10

Q. Why can't you compare it?

11

A. Because the Youth 17 women's team has never

12 competed in official matches against either the Youth 17

13 boys' team or the full men's team.

14

Q. I apologize. I should say women's and men's,

15 and I shouldn't say boys and girls.

16

A. That's okay.

17

Q. All right. It requires -- Do you think it

18 requires more skill to play for the U.S. Men's National

19 Team than the U.S. Women's National Team?

20

A. No.

21

Q. It's a different skill?

22

A. Is it a different skill to play for the Men's

23 National Team than the Women's National Team?

24

Q. Yeah. The Men's National Team members and

25 Women's National Team members, do they have the same

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-19 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:2612

Page 226

1

***

2

3

I, ALEX MORGAN, do hereby declare under penalty of

4 perjury that I have read the foregoing transcript;

5 that I have made any corrections as appear noted, in 6 ink, initialed by me, or attached hereto; that my 7 testimony as contained herein, as corrected, is true and

8 correct.

9

10

EXECUTED this _______day of __________, 20__,

11

at______________________, ___________________.

(City)

(State)

12

13

____________________________________

14

ALEX MORGAN

VOLUME I

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-19 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:2613

Page 227
1

2

I, Gail E. Kennamer, the undersigned, a Certified

3 Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, do hereby,

4 certify:

5

That the foregoing proceedings were

6 taken before me at the time and place therein set

7 forth; that any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings,

8 prior to testifying, were placed under oath; that

9 a verbatim record of the proceedings was made by

10 me using machine shorthand which was thereafter

11 transcribed under my direction; further that the

12 foregoing is an accurate transcription thereof.

13

I further certify that I am neither

14 financially interested in the action nor a

15 relative or employee of any attorney or any of the

16 parties.

17

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date

18 subscribed my name.

19

Dated: December 31, 2019

20

________________________________
21

22

GAIL E. KENNAMER, CSR 4583, CCRR

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-19 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:2614

Page 228

1

ERRATA SHEET

2 Case Name:

3 Deposition Date:

4 Deponent:

5 Pg. No. Now Reads

Should Read Reason

6 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

7 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

8 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

9 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

10 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

11 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

12 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

13 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

14 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

15 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

16 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

17 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

18 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

19 ___ ___ __________

__________ ____________________

20

_____________________

21

Signature of Deponent

22 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME

23 THIS ____ DAY OF __________, 2020.

24 ____________________

25 (Notary Public) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:__________

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:2615
EXHIBIT 18

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2616

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 1

2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

)

4

)

Plaintiff,

)

5

)

vs.

) 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

6

)

UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

7 FEDERATION, INC.,

)

)

8

Defendant.

)

-------------------------------)

9

10

11

12

DEPOSITION OF CARLI LLOYD

13

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

14

Friday, December 20, 2019

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Reported by: FRANCIS X. FREDERICK, CSR, RPR, RMR
25 JOB NO. 172871

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:2617

1 C A R L I L L O Y D, called as a witness,

Page 5

2

having been duly sworn by a Notary

3

Public, was examined and testified as

4

follows:

5 EXAMINATION BY

6 MR. FINKEL:

7

Q. Ms. Lloyd, could you please state

8 and spell your name for the record.

9

A. Carli Lloyd. C-A-R-L-I,

10 L-L-O-Y-D.

11

Q. And I'm Noah Finkel. I'm an

12 attorney for the United States Soccer

13 Federation.

14

Have you ever had your deposition

15 taken before?

16

A. No.

17

Q. Have you ever testified in any

18 kind of case before?

19

A. No.

20

Q. So what will happen today is I'll

21 be asking you questions. You will be

22 answering them. If you don't hear one of my

23 questions, just let me know that. If I talk

24 too quickly and you don't get it all, and I

25 have a tendency to do that, just tell me and I

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:2618

1 we can go."

Page 108

2

What did you mean by that?

3

A. For us to get something out of it

4 to challenge ourselves but also to be able to

5 compete with the size, strength, and

6 athleticism of the boys, that's where we have

7 capped it off. That's where our coaches have

8 capped it off because suddenly it becomes a

9 non-skill game but versus athletic big,

10 strong, fast game.

11

Q. And do you think the team could be

12 competitive against the national U18 team?

13

A. If they weren't big, strong and

14 fast?

15

Q. Sure.

16

A. And they weren't men? The

17 genetics they essentially have, yes.

18

Q. They are men, of course, right?

19

A. Of course.

20

Q. Okay. And so if you --

21

A. But if you're basing it off of

22 skill, yes, I think that we are a very skilled

23 team and we definitely could.

24

Q. Okay. And do you think that the

25 team could be competitive against the senior

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:2619

1 Men's National Team?

Page 109

2

A. I'm not sure.

3

Q. Okay.

4

A. Shall we fight it out to see who

5 wins and then we get paid more?

6

Q. It would be a great event,

7 wouldn't it?

8

A. Might be some injuries there.

9

Q. Well, let's hope not. We don't

10 want that for either team.

11

A. Just kidding.

12

Q. Well, do you -- well, so why do

13 you think that the -- why is it capped at the

14 U16? You alluded to U18 you don't play and I

15 think I miss -- I think I missed the reason

16 why on that.

17

MS. SPANGLER: Objection. Asked

18

and answered. And also calls for

19

speculation. But you can answer if you

20

can.

21

A. My individual development, I've

22 been training with this U18 academy boys team

23 since they were U12. This is my -- that's my

24 individual development to train with that

25 team.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:2620

1 sports to have that?

Page 130

2

MS. SPANGLER: Same objection.

3

A. Yes. But you're an attorney. If

4 I were an attorney, we're both doing the same

5 job.

6

Q. Right. Well, there aren't

7 separate firms for men and women.

8

A. But it's essentially the same job.

9 They're just men and we're just women. Our

10 makeup. Our genetics.

11

Q. Okay. Well, do you think that the

12 players on the two teams are -- well, why --

13 if there are two separate teams -- I'm sorry.

14 Let me just make sure. You don't have a

15 problem with there being separate teams for

16 men and women, right?

17

A. No.

18

Q. Okay. And do you then agree that

19 the players on the two teams are not equal in

20 every respect?

21

MS. SPANGLER: Objection to the

22

form. Vague.

23

A. Yeah, I'm not really

24 understanding.

25

Q. Well, I mean, you testified

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:2621

1 earlier about speed and strength and

Page 131

2 athleticism. Do you think that the players on

3 the men's team have different speed, strength

4 and athleticism than the players on the

5 women's team?

6

A. Yes. The genetic makeup of that,

7 yes.

8

Q. Okay.

9

A. Skill wise, I'm sure that I -- I

10 regard myself as a very, very skillful player.

11 I wouldn't doubt that I'm more skillful than

12 some of those male players.

13

Q. What about in total ability?

14

A. Ability is your own ability to go

15 as far as you want. Ability is very

16 open-ended.

17

Q. Now, do you think that -- by

18 ability I mean kind of caliber of play

19 overall. So let's approach it this way.

20

I mean, do you think that having

21 greater speed is a factor in a player's

22 overall soccer ability?

23

A. I think that that's subjective.

24 I'm not a super blazingly fast player but I'm

25 a complete player. So there's a lot of

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:2622

1 damages that are set forth in the Complaint

Page 140

2 you would be seeking in this lawsuit?

3

A. Yes.

4

MS. SPANGLER: I don't have any

5

other questions.

6

MR. FINKEL: Nor do I.

7

MS. SPANGLER: Thank you.

8

(Time Noted:

12:48 p.m.)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

____________________

20

CARLI LLOYD

21

22 Subscribed and sworn to before me

23 this ___ day of __________, 2020.

24

25 _________________________________

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:2623
TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-20 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:2624

1 NAME OF CASE: MORGAN v. USSF

Page 147

2 DATE OF DEPOSITION: DECEMBER 20, 2019

3 NAME OF WITNESS: CARLI LLOYD

4 Reason codes:

1. To clarify the record.

5

2. To conform to the facts.

3. To correct transcription errors.

6 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____

From __________________ to _____________

7

Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____

8 From __________________ to _____________

9 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____ From __________________ to _____________
10 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____
11 From __________________ to _____________

12 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____ From __________________ to _____________
13 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____
14 From __________________ to _____________

15 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____ From __________________ to _____________
16 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____
17 From __________________ to _____________

18 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____ From __________________ to _____________
19 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____
20 From __________________ to _____________

21 Page _______ Line ______ Reason _____ From __________________ to _____________
22 ____________________________
23 CARLI LLOYD
24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2625
EXHIBIT 19

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2626

Page 125

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

)

)

5

Plaintiffs, )

)

6

vs.

) 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

)

7 UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

FEDERATION, INC.,

)

8

)

Defendant. )

9 -----------------------------)

(Caption continued on the next page.)

10

11

* * *CONFIDENTIAL* * *

12 CONT'D. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SUNIL GULATI

13

New York, New York

14

December 18, 2019

15

Volume II

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Reported by: 24 KATHY S. KLEPFER, RMR, RPR, CRR, CLR 25 JOB NO. 173646

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:2627

Page 130

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

2

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the start

3

of media labeled number 1 in the

4

video-recorded deposition of Sunil Gulati in

5

the matter of Alex Morgan, et al. versus the

6

United States Soccer Federation, and Hope

7

Solo versus the United States Soccer

8

Federation, Inc., in the United States

9

District Court for the Northern District of

10

California, San Francisco Division, on

11

December 18, 2019 at approximately 9:to a.m.

12

My name is Lem Lattimer. I'm the

13

legal video specialist from TSG Reporting.

14

The court reporter is Kathy Klepfer from TSG

15

Reporting.

16

Counsels, please introduce yourself.

17 SUNIL GULATI, having been previously sworn,

18

resumed and testified as follows:

19 EXAMINATION BY (Cont'd.)

20 MR. KESSLER:

21

Q. Good morning, Mr. Gulati.

22

A. Good morning.

23

Q. Mr. Gulati, are the FIFA rules for

24 playing the game the same for the Men's Team and

25 the Women's Team?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:2628

Page 132

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

2

depositions with respect to documents that

3

were produced in the Morgan case but not the

4

Solo case, with the agreement from Solo's

5

counsel that they will keep those particular

6

non-produced documents in the Solo matter

7

attorneys eyes only until we reach an

8

agreement on the Protective Order.

9

Is that an agreement?

10

MS. de BARTOLOMEO: Yes, it is.

11

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Thank you.

12 BY MR. KESSLER:

13

Q. Okay. We'll start again.

14

Good morning again, Mr. Gulati.

15

A. Good morning.

16

Q. Mr. Gulati, I was just asking are the

17 FIFA rules of the games the same for the Men's

18 Team and the Women's Team?

19

A. I take it by that you mean the laws of

20 the game, which is FIFA's overriding what we

21 would call rules here.

22

I think that's correct. There's some

23 modifications for various competitions, but

24 they're -- the laws of the game are the same.

25

Q. The field length is the same?

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:2629

Page 133

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

2

A. In the laws of the game, the field

3 length, there is some -- some ranges. So that's

4 why I said for certain events they may not be

5 exactly the same, but it's not specific to

6 gender at the World Cup, but there may be

7 some --

8

Q. That's not really -- there's no gender

9 distinction between the size of the field,

10 right?

11

A. In the laws of the game, that's

12 correct.

13

Q. And in the laws of the game, it's the

14 same length of the game?

15

A. Yes.

16

Q. Okay. And the -- the rules of the

17 game, you know, what's a penalty, you know,

18 what's off-sides, those rules are all the same

19 for the men and the women under FIFA rules,

20 correct?

21

A. What is a penalty, what is off-sides

22 is -- are the same interpretation, yes.

23

Q. Okay. Do you agree that the Women's

24 National Team players train as hard as the Men's

25 National Team players train for their

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:2630

Page 134

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

2 competitions?

3

MS. McLAUGHLIN: Objection. Form.

4

A. I'm not -- I'm not quite sure what

5 that means. So if you want to clarify a little

6 bit more.

7

Q. Okay. So do they work as hard and as

8 diligently to prepare for their games as the men

9 work to prepare for the men's games, in your

10 view?

11

A. I assume that's the case, yes.

12

Q. Okay. And I think we agreed yesterday

13 the women, in general, play more games each year

14 on the Women's National Team than the Men's

15 National Team; is that correct?

16

A. In general terms, that's correct.

17

Q. Now, Mr. Gulati, when you stepped down

18 as president of USSF, there was an election in

19 2018 for a new president; is that correct?

20

A. Yes.

21

I didn't step down, in that

22 terminology. My term was up, and I didn't seek

23 reelection; and then, yes, there was another

24 election.

25

Q. You decided not to stand for

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:2631

Page 288

1

SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

2

3

CERTIFICATE

4 STATE OF NEW YORK )

: ss

5 COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

6

I, Kathy S. Klepfer, a Registered

7 Merit Reporter and Notary Public within and

8 for the State of New York, do hereby

9 certify:

10

That SUNIL GULATI, the witness whose

11 deposition is herein before set forth, was

12 duly sworn by me and that such deposition is

13 a true record of the testimony given by such

14 witness.

15

I further certify that I am not

16 related to any of the parties to this action

17 by blood or marriage and that I am in no way

18 interested in the outcome of this matter.

19

In witness whereof, I have hereunto

20 set my hand this 20th day of December, 2019.

21

22

-------------------------------

KATHY S. KLEPFER, RPR, RMR, CRR, CLR

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:2632

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:2633
EXHIBIT 20 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:2634

Page 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs/ Claimants,

6

vs.

Case No.

7 UNITED STATES SOCCER

2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

8 FEDERATION, INC.,

9

Defendant/Respondent.

10 ______________________________/

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14

15 HOPE SOLO,

17

vs.

Case No. 3:18-CV-05215 JD

18 UNITED STATES SOCCER

FEDERATION, INC.,

19

Defendant.

______________________________/

20

CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

21

30(b)(6) VIDEO DEPOSITION OF JAY BERHALTER

22

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

23

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2019

24 Reported by:

DEBORAH HABIAN, RMR, CSR, CCR, CRR, CLR

25 JOB NO. 173643

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 39 Page ID #:2635
Page 17
1 arrangement or the court in the Solo case orders

2 otherwise.

3

MR. KESSLER: Okay, that's perfectly

4 acceptable with us. We've made it clear to

5 Miss Solo's counsel that from our standpoint

6 we're prepared to share all the documents that

7 we've produced from our side because we think

8 that's what the two courts envision.

9

Okay. Swear in the witness.

10

THE REPORTER: Raise your right hand,

11 please.

12

(Oath administered.)

13

THE WITNESS: I do.

14

THE REPORTER: Thank you.

15

16

JAY BERHALTER,

17 called as a witness herein by the plaintiffs,

18 having been first duly sworn, was examined and

19 testified as follows:

20

EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. KESSLER:

22

Q. Good morning. Would you please state

23 your full name and address for the record.

24

A. Jay Berhalter. My home address or my

25 work address?

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 39 Page ID #:2636

Page 36

1 no.

2

Q. Okay. Do you supervise any operations

3 regarding those two teams in some other role?

4

A. I oversee the events related to those

5 two teams, yes.

6

Q. Okay. Describe to me what it means

7 that you "oversee the events related to those

8 two teams."

9

A. U.S. Soccer operates events that the

10 men's team and the women's team plays in and I

11 manage that area.

12

Q. Okay. And do you manage the -- the

13 administrative operations that are responsible,

14 for example, for staging those events?

15

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

16

THE WITNESS: What do you mean

17 specifically?

18 BY MR. KESSLER:

19

Q. Okay. So things like travel, hotel,

20 venue selection, are those functions that report

21 to you for the Men's National Team and the

22 Women's National Team for events that are

23 staged?

24

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

25

THE WITNESS: Travel, no.

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 39 Page ID #:2637

Page 37

1 Administration, no. Events, venue selection, we

2 are a part of that process, yes.

3 BY MR. KESSLER:

4

Q. Okay. So venue selection. What other

5 aspect of the events would report to you besides

6 venue selection?

7

A. Well, the operation of the event in the

8 stadium itself, the marketing and promotion of a

9 particular event.

10

Q. How about the sale of tickets?

11

A. Yes.

12

Q. The pricing of tickets?

13

A. Yes.

14

Q. Do you have responsibilities concerning

15 the relationship between USSF and Soccer United

16 Marketing in terms of sponsorships, broadcasting

17 or other areas where Soccer United Marketing is

18 involved?

19

A. I'm involved in that, yes.

20

Q. Okay. What is your involvement in

21 that?

22

A. It depends on a particular situation,

23 but we work closely with Soccer United

24 Marketing.

25

Q. Okay. Are you the principal liaison to

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 39 Page ID #:2638

Page 38

1 Soccer United Marketing for USSF or is there

2 somebody else who fulfills that role?

3

A. We have a number of people who work

4 closely with them on this business, yes.

5

Q. You would be one of them?

6

A. Yes.

7

Q. Is there any other way in which your

8 job responsibilities concerning the commercial

9 operations of USSF relate to the Women's

10 National Team or the Men's National Team?

11

A. In what respect? What --

12

Q. In any respect I'm asking you.

13

A. I think I've fairly described it.

14

Q. Okay. Are you responsible for the

15 financial accounting of revenues and expenses

16 regarding the Women's National Team and the

17 Men's National Team?

18

A. In my capacity, in my role at U.S.

19 Soccer?

20

Q. Yes.

21

A. I'm not.

22

Q. Are you responsible for that in some

23 other role?

24

A. No.

25

Q. Okay. Do you have occasion to review

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 39 Page ID #:2639

Page 39

1 the revenues and expenses of the Men's National

2 Team and the Women's National Team?

3

A. Yes.

4

Q. Okay. And that would be a regular part

5 of your job responsibilities?

6

A. I'm -- I'm aware of the financials of

7 the women's and the men's teams, yes.

8

Q. Okay. Are you involved in the

9 budgeting process with regard to the Men's

10 National Team and the Women's National Team for

11 each fiscal year?

12

A. I'm involved in part of it, yes.

13

Q. What part are you involved in?

14

A. The parts related to events.

15

Q. Who would be responsible overall for

16 putting together a budget for revenues and

17 expenses for the Men's National Team and the

18 Women's National Team at the USSF? Is there one

19 person who has overall responsibility for that?

20

A. Well, on the revenue side, I'm

21 responsible for that. And on the team side,

22 each individual team creates their own budget

23 and then it rolls into the overall budget.

24

Q. Okay.

25

A. So ultimately it goes into the chief

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 39 Page ID #:2640

Page 40

1 financial officer.

2

Q. Okay. So you're responsible for

3 generating the revenue projections for each

4 team; is that correct?

5

A. Yes.

6

Q. Okay. And then --

7

A. Or I work with a group that generates

8 them, yes.

9

Q. But are -- do you report to anyone in

10 that or are you the person that other people

11 report to on that, on doing revenue projections?

12

A. Ultimately it reports to me, yes.

13

Q. Okay. And you're saying each team

14 comes up with an expense budget for each year;

15 is that correct?

16

A. Yes.

17

Q. Okay. And that's rolled up into a

18 revenue and expense projection for the team for

19 the year?

20

A. That's correct.

21

Q. And is that then approved by somebody?

22

A. Ultimately it's approved by our

23 National Council, yes.

24

Q. Okay. Is it approved by the National

25 Council or by the board?

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 39 Page ID #:2641

Page 41

1

A. Both.

2

Q. Both. So each year there's some

3 approval process where the board and the

4 National Council would say, here's our

5 projections for the next year. And then do they

6 take a vote on it?

7

A. Yes.

8

MR. KESSLER: So I'm just going to

9 raise the subject here. We've had previous

10 discussions about producing the transcripts of

11 the Board of Governors' meetings that would be

12 responsive and relevant to our document requests

13 and we've been told that everything at the board

14 meetings was covered by the -- a collective

15 bargaining strategy privilege. If the boards

16 are presented with expense and revenue budgets,

17 that's obviously going to have nothing to do

18 with collective bargaining, in my view, and that

19 that would be both responsive and required to be

20 produced. So I'd ask you to please take that

21 under advisement regarding that.

22

MR. STOLZENBACH: That -- that's my

23 first recollection of somebody suggesting that

24 the reason their transcripts were requested had

25 to do with something other than the collective

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 39 Page ID #:2642

Page 64

1 broadcast revenues that don't come in through

2 SUM or Nike?

3

A. We don't, no.

4

Q. Okay. So that -- so those two

5 agreements would cover that number?

6

A. That's the vast majority, yes.

7

Q. Okay. Now, am I correct that SUM does

8 not provide you with any breakdown of what

9 portion of the revenues it gives to you are

10 attributed to the men's team and what portion

11 are attributed to the Women's National Team,

12 correct?

13

A. Say that again. I want to make sure I

14 understand.

15

Q. SUM does not provide you with any

16 breakdown of what portion of the revenues it

17 pays to you are attributed to the men's team

18 versus the Women's National Team; is that

19 correct?

20

A. They do not.

21

Q. Yeah. In fact, are you familiar with

22 the submissions made on that issue to the EEOC

23 by USSF?

24

A. I'm not.

25

Q. Okay. So I will represent to you -- I

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 39 Page ID #:2643

Page 65

1 could show it to you, but I'll just ask if you

2 agree with this -- that a statement was made,

3 it's impossible for USSF to come up with a -- a

4 breakdown of how much of the SUM revenues are

5 attributed to the men's team versus the women's

6 team, because it's never been provided that

7 information from SUM. Do you have any basis as

8 the 30(b)(6) witness to disagree with that

9 representation that was made to the EEOC?

10

A. No.

11

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

12

THE WITNESS: I don't.

13 BY MR. KESSLER:

14

Q. Okay. Now, next to "marketing,

15 sponsorship and broadcast," there's almost

16 $4 million in expenses listed. Why are there

17 expenses of these revenues if -- if the Nike

18 agreement is already negotiated and done, and

19 SUM does all the expenses for its work? You

20 know, what is this $4 million?

21

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

22

THE WITNESS: Well, U.S. Soccer --

23 there's some personnel engaged in that that are

24 required to deliver on our obligations to both

25 Soccer United Marketing and Nike. And there's

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 39 Page ID #:2644

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 39 Page ID #:2645

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 39 Page ID #:2646

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 39 Page ID #:2647

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 39 Page ID #:2648

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 39 Page ID #:2649

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 39 Page ID #:2650

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 39 Page ID #:2651

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 39 Page ID #:2652

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 39 Page ID #:2653

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 39 Page ID #:2654

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 39 Page ID #:2655

Page 242

1 players can decline an offer of allocation to

2 the -- to the NWSL, correct?

3

A. That's what this says, yes.

4

Q. Okay. And further: "There's no

5 requirement for non-contracted player to accept

6 a NWSL allocation." Correct?

7

A. I'm not sure a non-contracted player

8 would be under this agreement, right?

9

Q. Well, a non-contracted player could be

10 a member of the Women's National Team, and, in

11 fact, there are such players every year,

12 correct?

13

A. Yeah, there are.

14

Q. Right. And those players are still

15 members of the Women's National Team, correct?

16

A. Yes.

17

Q. And they are not required to be on a

18 NWSL team if they do not want to be, correct?

19

A. Correct.

20

Q. In fact, many non-contracted players

21 are not even allocated to NWSL teams, correct?

22

A. I don't know that.

23

Q. Take a look at Article 10: "Players'

24 Duties and Responsibilities," which is one of

25 your subjects that you were required as the

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 39 Page ID #:2656

Page 243

1 30(b)(6) witness, correct?

2

A. Yes.

3

Q. Do you agree with me that Article 10

4 sets forth a list of the players' duties and

5 responsibilities as a member of the Women's

6 National Team?

7

A. That's what this says.

8

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

9 BY MR. KESSLER:

10

Q. Okay. Am I correct that there is no...

11 (reviewing document.)

12

Okay. So take a look at these

13 provisions. Are there comparable provisions --

14 are there also provisions in the men's CBA which

15 sets forth the players' duties and

16 responsibilities?

17

MR. STOLZENBACH: I would object to

18 scope.

19 BY MR. KESSLER:

20

Q. Are you familiar with that?

21

A. I'm not specifically familiar with it,

22 no.

23

Q. Okay. Well, let's take a look at the

24 men's CBA.

25

MR. KESSLER: We'll mark that as the

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 39 Page ID #:2657

Page 244

1 next exhibit. This will be Exhibit 32.

2

(Berhalter Exhibit 32 was

3

marked for ID.)

4 BY MR. KESSLER:

5

Q. And I'll ask you if you recognize this

6 as a copy of the last men's collective

7 bargaining agreement that was in effect through

8 December 31st of 2018, but is still being

9 applied by the USSF with respect to the men's

10 team?

11

A. Yeah. I think there's some formatting

12 errors in here, but broadly looks --

13

Q. Okay. And if you take a look at --

14

MR. STOLZENBACH: Jeff, can I just say

15 that this version is really bad and we've used

16 other versions in other depositions. So --

17

MS. WAHLKE: Yeah, this --

18

MR. STOLZENBACH: -- to the extent you

19 want to ask him about stuff that you can

20 actually read, that's fine, and we can

21 substitute it at some point.

22

MR. KESSLER: And I'm happy to

23 substitute at some point if there's a more

24 legible version. I think the ones we're going

25 to ask about should not be a problem. But if

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 39 Page ID #:2658

Page 245

1 there is a problem, then you can let me know in

2 terms of its legibility.

3 BY MR. KESSLER:

4

Q. Taking a look at this, if you look

5 at -- give me a second. If you look at page...

6 just had it out, sorry.

7

Oh, look at page 546. And you'll -- do

8 you see page 546?

9

A. I do.

10

Q. And do you see this sets forth the

11 duties of the players on -- under this player

12 agreement; is that -- under the -- under the

13 player agreements with the United States Soccer

14 Federation; is that correct?

15

A. Yes.

16

Q. Okay. Have you done any comparison

17 between the player duties for -- set forth here

18 for the Men's National Team and the player

19 duties for the Women's National Team to see to

20 what degree they are substantially similar?

21

A. I have not.

22

Q. Okay. But do you agree -- do you

23 agree, though, if one were to compare the

24 duties, this is where you would look, right?

25 You would look in the two CBAs in these sections

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 39 Page ID #:2659

Page 246

1 that I've identified?

2

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object to form.

3

THE WITNESS: This is where player

4 duties and responsibilities are outlined, yes.

5

MR. KESSLER: Okay. Let's move on now

6 to a different subject. I'm just going to mark,

7 so that they're in the record -- this is just

8 the circulars from FIFA announcing the -- the

9 World Cup bonuses, and I just want to get them

10 in the record and have you identify them.

11

So let's mark those as the next

12 exhibits in line, which will be 33, 34, 35.

13

So 33 will be the circular that was

14 distributed on December 17, 2013, by FIFA.

15

34 will be the one distributed on

16 January 7th, 2015, by FIFA.

17

And 35 will be the circular distributed

18 on January 25th, 2019, by FIFA, just so that we

19 have a clear record about that for future use.

20

(Berhalter Exhibit 33, Exhibit

21

34 and Exhibit 35 were marked

22

for ID.)

23

(Off record discussion.)

24 BY MR. KESSLER:

25

Q. So I just want to get you to

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 39 Page ID #:2660

Page 253

1

A. It should.

2

Q. Right. Okay. And it is still true

3 that no country on the men's and women's side

4 has reached four Olympic gold medals or four

5 Women's World Cup victories, correct?

6

A. That's correct.

7

Q. Let me go next...

8

Comparing the job responsibilities of

9 the Women's National Team and the Men's National

10 Team, is it true that each team plays friendlies

11 with other national teams from other countries?

12

A. Both teams play friendly matches, yes.

13

Q. And is it true that each plays their

14 games, their friendly games, in different venues

15 around the country domestically and sometimes in

16 venues overseas, correct?

17

A. That's correct.

18

Q. Neither one of them has a home stadium,

19 if you will, correct?

20

A. I think that's fair to say, yes.

21

Q. Right. Is it true that each of the

22 teams, the men's team and the Women's National

23 Team, play in a World Cup run by FIFA every four

24 years, or at least tries to compete in a World

25 Cup run by FIFA every four years?

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 39 Page ID #:2661

Page 254

1

A. They play in different World Cups, yes.

2

Q. Okay. Is it true that each of the

3 teams play in -- in tournaments that are

4 organized that they play in for each of them, as

5 opposed to a friendly, a tournament where

6 there's a victor declared in the tournaments?

7

A. Be more specific.

8

Q. Well, for example, it's correct that

9 the Men's National Team would play in either the

10 Gold Cup or the Copa América would be a

11 tournament where a victor is declared, correct?

12

A. That would be an official tournament,

13 yes.

14

Q. Right. And is it correct that the

15 women's team plays in tournaments in which a

16 victor is declared as well?

17

A. Not in the same -- not recognized the

18 same as what you just mentioned for the men.

19 There is not an equivalent of a women's Copa

20 América that we can play in.

21

Q. Whether it's the same, do you agree --

22 for example, you're familiar with the

23 SheBelieves Cup?

24

A. I am.

25

Q. Is a victor declared in that

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 39 Page ID #:2662

Page 255

1 tournament?

2

A. Yes. But it's a series of friendly

3 matches that we've effectively branded.

4

Q. When you say "official tournament," do

5 you mean official by who? What -- what makes it

6 official? Or as opposed to an unofficial

7 tournament?

8

A. It is recognized by FIFA on the FIFA

9 calendar.

10

Q. Okay. And has FIFA refused to

11 recognize the tournaments that the women play

12 in?

13

A. They don't -- there's not a -- they

14 don't recognize them, yeah.

15

Q. Okay. Do you think that's right?

16

A. I think it's different. I think it's

17 different.

18

Q. Well, don't --

19

A. It's not a matter of right or wrong.

20 It's, the tournaments that the men's team is

21 playing in, the Gold Cup as an example, is a

22 Confederation championship. And the SheBelieves

23 is a competition that U.S. Soccer organizes. So

24 FIFA wouldn't recognize a Federation-based

25 series of friendlies.

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 39 Page ID #:2663

Page 256

1

Q. Has U.S. Soccer sought to get FIFA

2 recognition for the SheBelieves tournament?

3

A. We have not.

4

Q. Other than the FIFA recognition, do you

5 agree that otherwise the SheBelieves tournament

6 is, in fact, a tournament?

7

A. Well, it's been branded as such, yeah.

8

Q. Okay.

9

A. It's --

10

Q. Is there anything to stop U.S. Soccer,

11 to your knowledge, from applying to have it

12 recognized by FIFA as a tournament?

13

A. I'm not aware that FIFA recognizes

14 Federation activities as official on a FIFA

15 calendar. We play within the FIFA window, but

16 I'm -- I'm -- I'm not aware that they recognize

17 any Federation activity.

18

Q. You don't know whether it could be

19 recognized or not under FIFA rules?

20

A. To date it has -- no Federation has had

21 a recognized competition like that.

22

Q. But -- but to date USSF hasn't applied

23 for such recognition either. It hasn't

24 requested it.

25

MR. STOLZENBACH: Object, it assumes

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 39 Page ID #:2664

Page 257

1 facts not in evidence.

2

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that we

3 would need to because we played on a FIFA

4 window, so it's -- you know, no, we haven't --

5 we have not asked for it to be sanctioned.

6 BY MR. KESSLER:

7

Q. Okay. I now want to talk about a

8 different subject which is the -- the subject

9 of decisions regarding some of the working

10 conditions for the Women's National Team and the

11 Men's National Team.

12

So first of all, who makes the

13 decisions in USSF regarding whether or not the

14 Women's National Team or the Men's National Team

15 will play on a grass surface, an artificial turf

16 surface or an artificial turf that has grass put

17 on top of the artificial turf? Who -- where in

18 USSF is that decision made?

19

A. It's a collaborative process that'd be

20 done with the coach, now with the general

21 manager and with our events group.

22

Q. Okay. Are you part of the

23 decision-making process there because it's your

24 events group?

25

A. At times I am, yes.

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 39 Page ID #:2665

Page 258

1

Q. Okay. And let me show you a document

2 that's been produced by the USSF with a Bates

3 stamp number 24977 and 24978 called "Features

4 considered used when determining venue locations

5 for MNT/WNT games."

6

(Berhalter Exhibit 37 was

7

marked for ID.)

8 BY MR. KESSLER:

9

Q. Do you familiar -- are you familiar

10 with this document?

11

A. You know, actually I haven't seen this

12 document before.

13

Q. Okay. So you don't know -- do you know

14 if it was prepared just for this lawsuit or

15 whether it had any other business purpose

16 outside of this lawsuit?

17

A. I'm sure it was not prepared just for

18 this lawsuit, no.

19

Q. Okay. So you believe this is a

20 document just on -- you don't know why it was

21 prepared or who prepared it?

22

A. I just haven't seen the form -- this

23 specific form.

24

Q. Okay.

25

A. The content is familiar.

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 39 Page ID #:2666

Page 259

1

Q. Looking through this list, if you can,

2 does it correspond with your understanding of

3 the features that would be considered by USSF in

4 determining location for games in the Men's

5 National Team and the Women's National Team?

6

A. I think this is representative of the

7 factors, yes.

8

Q. Okay. And one of the factors is the

9 type of playing surface, correct?

10

A. Yes.

11

Q. Okay. And is the same set of factors

12 used in determining the venue for the Men's

13 National Team as the Women's National Team? In

14 other words, is it the exact same list of

15 factors or are there any differences in the

16 consideration between the two teams in selecting

17 venue, to your knowledge?

18

A. This looks representative for both

19 teams.

20

Q. Okay. And is it the same

21 decision-making group for the venue location for

22 the Men's National Team and the Women's National

23 Team within USSF or is -- are there different

24 members of the group depending on whether it's

25 the men's team or the women's team?

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 39 Page ID #:2667

Page 260

1

A. Well, the women's coach wouldn't be

2 involved in choosing the men's team location,

3 nor would the men's team coach be involved in

4 the women's location or the GMs of respective

5 teams.

6

Q. So the men's team coach is -- has a

7 role -- the men's team coach or the GM has a

8 role in selecting the men's team venue, and the

9 women's coach has a role in selecting the

10 women's venue, correct?

11

A. Yes.

12

Q. Is there a GM for the women's team?

13

A. There is.

14

Q. Okay. So the women's GM would also be

15 involved in that selection process?

16

A. Yes.

17

Q. Okay. And when the women's team coach

18 and GM participate in the decision, are they

19 acting on behalf of USSF in making that

20 decision? In other words, it's a USSF decision,

21 correct?

22

A. Yes.

23

Q. Okay. And the same would be true of

24 the men's team coach and the men's team GM when

25 they're participating in that decision, then

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 39 Page ID #:2668

Page 261

1 they're also acting on behalf of USSF, correct?

2

A. I believe that, yes.

3

Q. And ultimately does your group, the

4 events group, have to decide on the venue? Do

5 you get like a final approval right on the

6 venue?

7

A. Not necessarily, no. It's a

8 collaborative process.

9

Q. Okay. Have you ever opposed a venue

10 and you were overridden by others in the

11 collaborative process from your group?

12

A. Me personally?

13

Q. Yes.

14

A. Yes.

15

Q. Okay. Which venue was that?

16

A. I don't recall the specifics, but...

17

Q. Okay. Is there anybody who has

18 ultimate approval authority of venue can't be

19 overridden? Like does Mr. Flynn have a final

20 say when he was the CEO? Does the CEO have a

21 final say on that?

22

A. I mean, I think you can say that. I

23 mean, if we couldn't reach consensus, I think he

24 could make the decision, yes.

25

Q. Okay. Let me turn your attention now

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 39 Page ID #:2669

Page 323

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs/ Claimants,

6

vs.

Case No.

7 UNITED STATES SOCCER

2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

8 FEDERATION, INC.,

9

Defendant/Respondent.

10 ______________________________/

11

12

13

I hereby certify that I have read the

14 foregoing transcript of my deposition given at

15 the time and place aforesaid, consisting of 16 pages 1 to 322, inclusive, and I do again 17 subscribe and make oath that the same is a true, 18 correct, and complete transcript of my 19 deposition so given as aforesaid and includes 20 changes, if any, so made by me.
21

________________________________

22

JAY BERHALTER

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO 23 before me this _____ day

of ______________, A.D. _________.
24

_____________________________

25

Notary Public

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 38 of 39 Page ID #:2670

Page 324

1

REPORTER CERTIFICATE

2

I, Deborah Habian, a Certified

Shorthand Reporter within and for the State of 3 Illinois, do hereby certify:

4

That previous to the commencement of

the examination of the witness, the witness was 5 duly sworn to testify the whole truth concerning

the matters herein;

6

That the foregoing deposition was 7 reported stenographically by me, was thereafter

reduced to printed transcript by me, and

8 constitutes a true record of the testimony given

and the proceedings had;
9

That the said deposition was taken

10 before me at the time and place specified;

11

That the reading and signing by the

witness of the deposition transcript is not

12 stated herein;

13

That I am not a relative or employee

of attorney or counsel, nor a relative or

14 employee of such attorney or counsel for any of

the parties hereto, nor interested directly or 15 indirectly in the outcome of this action.

16

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set

my hand this 16th day of December, 2019.
17

18

19

20

__________________________________

DEBORAH HABIAN, CSR, RMR, CRR, CLR

21

IL CSR NO. 084-02432

MO CCR NO. 1409
22

23

24

25

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-22 Filed 02/20/20 Page 39 of 39 Page ID #:2671

Page 325

1

ERRATA SHEET FOR THE TRANSCRIPT OF:

2 Case Name:

Alex Morgan, et al. v USSF

3 Dep. Date:

December 12, 2019

4 Deponent:
5

Jay Berhalter

6 Pg. Ln. 7 ___ ___ 8 ___ ___ 9 ___ ___ 10 ___ ___ 11 ___ ___ 12 ___ ___

Now reads ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

Should Read ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

Reason ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

13 ___ ___ 14 ___ ___

____________ ____________ ______ ____________ ____________ ______

15 ___ ___ 16 ___ ___ 17 ___ ___ 18 ___ ___ 19 ___ ___
20

____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

______ ______ ______ ______ ______

_________________________

21

Signature of Deponent

22

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME
23

THIS ____DAY OF ___________, 20__.
24

___________________________ 25 (Notary Public) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _______

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-23 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2672
EXHIBIT 21

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-23 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2673

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-23 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2674

Year Date

Opponent

Ranking Score Result

Competition

Venue

2019 2019 2019 2019 2019

19-Nov Cuba 15-Nov Canada 15-Oct Canada 11-Oct Cuba 10-Sep Uruguay

179 4-0 W

69

4-1 W

75

0-2 L

178 7-0 W

5

1-1 D

Nations League Nations League Nations League Nations League Friendly

Truman Bodden Sports Complex Orlando City Stadium BMO Field Audi Field Busch Stadium

2019 6-Sep Mexico

12

2019

7-Jul Mexico

18

2019

3-Jul Jamaica

54

2019 30-Jun Curacao

79

2019 26-Jun Panama

75

2019 22-Jun Trinidad & Tobago 92

0-3 L 0-1 L 3-1 W 1-0 W 1-0 W 6-0 W

Friendly Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup

MetLife Stadium Soldier Field Nissan Stadium Lincoln Financial Field Children's Mercy Park FirstEnergy Stadium

2019 18-Jun Guyana

177 4-0 W

Gold Cup

Allianz Field

2019

9-Jun Venezuela

29

0-3 L

Friendly

Nippert Stadium

2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018

5-Jun Jamaica 26-Mar Chile 21-Mar Ecuador
2-Feb Costa Rica 27-Jan Panama 20-Nov Italy 15-Nov England 16-Oct Peru 11-Oct Colombia 11-Sep Mexico

56

0-1 L

13

1-1 D

58

1-0 W

36

2-0 W

71

3-0 W

19

0-1 L

5

0-3 L

21

1-1 D

14

2-4 L

16

1-0 W

Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly

Audi Field BBVA Compass Stadium Orlando City Stadium Avaya Stadium StateFarm Stadium Luminus Arena Wembley Stadium Pratt & Whitney Stadium Raymond James Stadium Nissan Stadium

2018 2018 2018 2018 2018

7-Sep Brazil 9-Jun France 2-Jun Ireland 28-May Bolivia 27-Mar Paraguay

3

0-2 L

7

1-1 D

31

1-2 L

57

3-0 W

30

1-0 W

Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly

MetLife Stadium Groupama Stadium Aviva Stadium Talen Energy Stadium WakeMed Soccer Park

2018 2017 2017 2017

28-Jan Bosnia-Herzegovina 38

14-Nov Portugal

3

10-Oct Trinidad & Tobago 99

6-Oct Panama

60

0-0 D 1-1 D 1-2 L 4-0 W

Friendly Friendly World Cup Qualifying World Cup Qualifying

StubHub Center Estadio Dr. Magalhaes Pessoa Ato Boldon Stadium Orlando City Stadium

2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017

5-Sep Honduras 1-Sep Costa Rica 26-Jul Jamaica 22-Jul Costa Rica 19-Jul El Salvador 15-Jul Nicaragua 12-Jul Martinique 8-Jul Panama 1-Jul Ghana 11-Jun Mexico

75

1-1 D

21

0-2 L

76

2-1 W

26

2-0 W

103 2-0 W

105 3-0 W

-

3-2 W

52

1-1 D

49

2-1 W

17

1-1 D

World Cup Qualifying World Cup Qualifying Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup Friendly World Cup Qualifying

Estadio Olimpico Metropolitano Red Bull Arena Levi's Stadium AT&T Stadium Lincoln Financial Field FirstEnergy Stadium Raymond James Stadium Nissan Stadium Pratt & Whitney Stadium Estadio Azteca

2017 2017

8-Jun Trinidad & Tobago 77

3-Jun Venezuela

58

2-0 W 1-1 D

World Cup Qualifying Dick's Sporting Goods Park

Friendly

Rio Tinto Stadium

City

State

George Town -

Orlando

FL

Toronto

ON

Washington

D.C.

-

St. Louis

MO

East

Rutherford NJ

Chicago

IL

Nashville TN

Philadelphia PA

Kansas City KS

Cleveland OH

St. Paul

MN

Cincinati OH

Washington

D.C.

-

Houston

TX

Orlando

FL

San Jose

CA

Glendale AZ

Genk

-

London

-

East Hartford CT

Tampa

FL

Nashville TN

East

Rutherford NJ

Lyon

-

Dublin

-

Chester

PA

Cary

NC

Carson

CA

Leiria

-

Couva

-

Orlando

FL

San Pedro

Sula

-

Harrison NJ

Santa Clara CA

Arlington TX

Philadelphia PA

Cleveland OH

Tampa

FL

Nashville TN

East Hartford CT

Mexico City -

Commerce

City

CO

Sandy

UT

Country

Surface

Cayman Islands Grass

USA Canada

Grass Grass

USA

Grass

USA

Grass

Hotel Accomodations

Means of Team Travel to Match

Kimpton Seafire
Omni ChampionsGate Hotel X

Charter Commercial Charter

Fairfax Marriott at Fair Oaks Commercial

Westin St. Louis

Charter

USA

Grass over turf Hilton Short Hills

Commercial

USA

Grass

W Chicago-Lakeshore

Charter

USA

Grass

Thompson Nashville

Charter

USA

Grass

Sofitel Philadelphia

Charter

USA

Grass

The Fontaine

Charter

USA

Grass

Ritz-Carlton Cleveland

Charter

USA

Grass

The Graduate Minneapolis Commercial

Renaissance Cincinnati

USA

Grass over turf Downtown

Charter

USA USA USA USA USA Belgium England USA USA USA

Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass

Hotel Annapolis Four Seasons Houston Omni ChampionsGate Hilton San Jose Renaissance Glendale Radisson Blu Hasselt Hilton Syon Park Hilton Hartford Hilton Tampa Downtown Thompson Nashville

Commercial Charter Commercial Charter Charter Charter Commercial Charter Commercial Charter

USA France Ireland USA USA

Grass over turf Grass Grass Grass Grass

W Hoboken Radisson Blu Lyon Radisson Blu St. Helen's Sofitel Philadelphia Renaissance Glendale

Commercial Charter Commercial Commercial Commercial

USA Portugal Trinidad USA
Honduras USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA Mexico

Grass

The Shade Redondo Beach

Grass

Corinthia Hotel Lisbon

Grass

Hyatt Regency Trinidad

Grass

The Grand Bohemian

Hilton Princess San Pedro

Grass

Sula

Grass

W Hoboken

Grass

Fairmont San Jose

Grass over concret Westin Dallas Downtown

Grass

Sofitel Philadelphia

Grass

Ritz-Carlton Cleveland

Grass

Westin Tampa Bay

Grass

Renaissance Nashville

Grass

Hilton Hartford

Grass

Four Seasons Mexico City

Commercial Commercial Charter Commercial
Charter Commercial Charter Charter Charter Charter Charter Commercial Charter Charter

USA

Grass

USA

Grass

Four Seasions Denver Hyatt Centric Park City

Commercial Charter

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-23 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2675

Year
2017 2017 2017 2017 2016 2016

Date

Opponent

28-Mar Panama 24-Mar Honduras
3-Feb Jamaica 29-Jan Serbia 15-Nov Costa Rica 11-Nov Mexico

Ranking Score Result

Competition

Venue

53

1-1 D

65

6-0 W

77

1-0 W

45

0-0 D

18

0-4 L

17

1-2 L

World Cup Qualifying World Cup Qualifying Friendly Friendly World Cup Qualifying World Cup Qualifying

Estadio Rommel Fernandez Avaya Stadium Finley Stadium Qualcomm Stadium Estadio Nacional MAPFRE Stadium

2016 11-Oct New Zealand

88

1-1 D

2016 7-Oct Cuba

139 2-0 W

2016 6-Sep Trinidad & Tobago 68

4-0 W

2016 2-Sep St. Vincent and the Gre156 6-0 W

2016 25-Jun Colombia

3

0-1 L

Friendly Friendly World Cup Qualifying World Cup Qualifying Copa America

RFK Stadium Estadio Pedro Marrero TIAA Bank Stadium Arnos Vale Stadium University of Phoenix Stadium

2016 2016

21-Jun Argentina 16-Jun Ecuador

1

0-4 L

13

2-1 W

Copa America Copa America

NRG Stadium CenturyLink Field

2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

11-Jun Paraguay 7-Jun Costa Rica 3-Jun Colombia
28-May Bolivia 25-May Ecuador 22-May Puerto Rico 29-Mar Guatemala

44

1-0 W

23

4-0 W

3

0-2 L

79

4-0 W

12

1-0 W

152 3-1 W

95

4-0 W

Copa America Copa America Copa America Friendly Friendly Friendly World Cup Qualifying

Lincoln Financial Field Soldier Field Levi's Stadium Children's Mercy Park Toyota Stadium Juan Ramon Loubriel Stadium MAPFRE Stadium

2016 25-Mar Guatemala

95

0-2 L

2016 5-Feb Canada

85

1-0 W

2016 31-Jan Iceland

36

3-2 W

2015 17-Nov Trinidad & Tobago 54

0-0 D

2015 13-Nov St. Vincent and the Gre129 6-1 W

2015 13-Oct Costa Rica

42

0-1 L

2015 10-Oct Mexico

27

2-3 L

World Cup Qualifying Friendly Friendly World Cup Qualifying World Cup Qualifying Friendly CONCACAF Cup

Estadio Mateo Flores StubHub Center StubHub Center Hasely Crawford Stadium Busch Stadium Red Bull Arena The Rose Bowl

2015 8-Sep Brazil

5

1-4 L

Friendly

Gilette Stadium

2015 4-Sep Peru

48

2-1 W

Friendly

RFK Stadium

2015 2015 2015

25-Jul Panama 22-Jul Jamaica 18-Jul Cuba

62

1-1 L-PK

76

1-2 L

104 6-0 W

Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup

Talen Energy Stadium The Georgia Dome M&T Bank Stadium

2015 2015 2015 2015

13-Jul Panama 10-Jul Haiti
7-Jul Honduras 3-Jul Guatemala

62

1-1 D

79

1-0 W

75

2-1 W

93

4-0 W

Gold Cup Gold Cup Gold Cup Friendly

Children's Mercy Park Gilette Stadium Toyota Stadium Nissan Stadium

2015 10-Jun Germany

1

2-1 W

Friendly

Rhein Energie Stadion

2015 2015 2015 2015

5-Jun Netherlands 15-Apr Mexico 31-Mar Switzerland 25-Mar Denmark

6

4-3 W

18

2-0 W

12

1-1 D

28

2-3 L

Friendly Friendly Friendly Friendly

Amsterdam Arena The Alamodome Stadion Letzigrund NRGi Park

2015 2015

8-Feb Panama 28-Jan Chile

55

2-0 W

14

2-3 L

Friendly Friendly

StubHub Center Estadio El Teniente

City

State

Panama City -

San Jose

CA

Chattanooga TN

San Diego CA

San Jose

-

Columbus OH

Washington

D.C.

-

Havana

-

Jacksonville FL

Kingstown -

Glendale AZ

Houston

TX

Seattle

WA

Country
Panama USA USA USA Costa Rica USA
USA Cuba USA St. Vincent USA
USA USA

Surface
Grass Grass Turf Grass Grass Grass

Hotel Accomodations
Westin Panama Fairmont San Jose The Chattanoogan Renaissance San Diego Marriott Costa Rica The Lofts

Means of Team Travel to Match
Charter Commercial Commercial Bus Charter Commercial

Grass

W DC

Grass

Parque Central

Grass

One Ocean

Grass

Buccament Bay Resort

Grass

Hotel Palomar Phoenix

JW Marriott Houston

Grass over concret Downtown

Grass over turf Grand Hyatt

Charter Charter Commercial Charter Charter
Charter Charter

Philadelphia PA

Chicago

IL

Santa Clara CA

Kansas City KS

Frisco

TX

Bayamón -

Columbus OH

Guatemala

City

-

Carson

CA

Carson

CA

Port of Spain -

St. Louis

MO

Harrison NJ

Pasadena CA

Foxborough MA

Washington

D.C.

-

Philadelphia PA

Atlanta

GA

Baltimore MD

Kansas City KS

Foxborough MA

Frisco

TX

Nashville TN

USA USA USA USA USA Puerto Rico USA
Guatemala USA USA Trinidad USA USA USA
USA
USA
USA USA USA
USA USA USA USA

Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass
Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass
Grass over turf

Hotel Palomar Philadelphia Charter

Renaissance Blackstone Charter

Fairmont San Jose

Charter

The Raphael

Commercial

W Dallas-Victory

Commercial

Condado Plaza Hilton

Commercial

The Lofts

Charter

Intercontinental Guatemala

City

Charter

The Belamar

Commercial

The Belamar

Commercial

Hyatt Regency Trinidad Charter

Westin St. Louis

Charter

W Hoboken

Charter

The Langham Pasadena Commercial

Renaissance Boston Patriot

Place

Commercial

Grass
Grass Grass over turf Grass over turf
Grass Grass over turf Grass Grass

W DC Renaissance Philadelphia Airport Atlanta Marriott Marquis Hilton Baltimore Westin Kansas City at Crown Center Boston Marriott Quincy Westin Stonebriar Renaissance Nashville

Commercial
Charter Charter Charter
Charter Charter Charter Commercial

Cologne

-

Amsterdam -

San Antonio TX

Zurich

-

Arhus

-

Carson

CA

Rancagua -

Germany
Netherlands USA Switzerland Denmark
USA Chile

Grass

Intercontinental Dusseldorf Train

Sofitel Legend The Grand

Grass

Amsterdam

Commercial

Grass over concret Omni La Mansión del Rio Commercial

Grass

Renaissance Zurich Tower Commercial

Grass

Radisson Blu Aarhus

Charter

JW Marriott Santa Monica

Grass

Le Merigot

Commercial

Grass

Intercontinental Santiago Commercial

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-23 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:2676

Year 2014

Date

Opponent

18-Nov Ireland

2014 14-Nov Colombia 2014 14-Oct Honduras

2014 2014

10-Oct Ecuador 3-Sep Czech Republic

2014

1-Jul Belgium

2014 26-Jun Germany

2014 2014 2014 2014

22-Jun Portugal 16-Jun Ghana
7-Jun Nigeria 1-Jun Turkey

2014 2014 2014

27-May Azerbaijan 2-Apr Mexico 5-Mar Ukraine

2014 1-Feb Korea Republic

Ranking Score Result

Competition

61

1-4 L

Friendly

3

1-2 L

56

1-1 D

Friendly Friendly

21

1-1 D

35

1-0 W

Friendly Friendly

11

1-2 L

World Cup

2

0-1 L

World Cup

4

2-2 D

37

2-1 W

44

2-1 W

39

2-1 W

World Cup World Cup Friendly Friendly

85

2-0 W

20

2-2 D

18

0-2 L

Friendly Friendly Friendly

53

2-0 W

Friendly

Venue Aviva Stadium
Craven Cottage FAU Stadium
Pratt & Whitney Stadium Generali Arena
Arena Fonte Nova
Arena Pernambuco
Arena Amazonia Estadio das Dunas TIAA Bank Stadium Red Bull Arena
Candlestick Park University of Phoenix Stadium Antonis Papadopoulos Stadium
StubHub Center

City Dublin

State -

Country Ireland

Surface Grass

London

-

Boca Raton FL

England USA

Grass Grass

East Hartford CT

Prague

-

USA

Grass

Czech Republic Grass

Salvador -

Brazil

Grass

Recife

-

Brazil

Grass

Manaus

-

Natal

-

Jacksonville FL

Harrison NJ

Brazil Brazil USA USA

Grass Grass Grass Grass

San Francisco CA

Glendale AZ

Larnaca

-

USA USA Cyprus

Grass Grass Grass

Carson

CA

USA

Grass

Hotel Accomodations

Means of Team Travel to Match

The Marker Hotel

Charter

Hyatt Regency London-The

Churchill

Commercial

W Ft. Lauderdale

Commercial

Hartford Marriott

Farmington

Bus

Hilton Prauge

Commercial

Novotel Salvador Hangar

Aeroporto

Charter

Golden Tulip Recife Palace Charter

Blue Tree Premium Manaus Charter

Serhs Natal Grand

Charter

One Ocean

Charter

W Hoboken

Charter

Sofitel San Francisco Bay Hotel Palomar Phoenix Golden Bay Beach Hotel JW Marriott Santa Monica Le Merigot

Commercial Commercial Charter
Commercial

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:2677
EXHIBIT 22

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:2678

1 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Brian Stolzenbach (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
2 bstolzenbach@seyfarth.com 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
3 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448 Telephone: (312) 460-5000
4 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000

5 Kristen M. Peters (SBN 252296) kmpeters@seyfarth.com
6 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021
7 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
8 Attorneys for Defendant
9 [complete list of counsel of
10 record following signature block]

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

16 Plaintiffs,

17 v.

18

UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.,

19 Defendant.

20

21

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, AND 11

Judge:

Hon. R. Gary Klausner

Complaint Filed: March 8, 2019

Trial Date:

May 5, 2020

22

23 PROPOUNDING PARTY(IES): Alex Morgan, et al., Plaintiffs

24 RESPONDING PARTY(IES): United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Defendant

25 SET NO.:

One (1)

26

Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (“Defendant” or “U.S. Soccer”)

27 submits these supplemental answers to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11, in

28

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:2679

1 accordance with Rule 26(e). Defendant reserves the right to supplement its answers

2 further, as warranted in accordance with Rule 26(e).

3 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

4

State all facts supporting Your contention that “any alleged pay differential

5 between Plaintiffs and allegedly comparable USMNT players is based on differences in

6 the aggregate revenue generated by the different teams and/or any other factor other than

7 sex,” as claimed in USSF’s First Affirmative Defense.

8 ANSWER TO NO. 1:

9

Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 1’s request for a statement of “all facts”

10 supporting Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense as unduly burdensome and not

11 proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to the extent that

12 Interrogatory No. 1 is premised on Plaintiffs’ incorrect assertions that they receive a

13 lesser rate of pay than allegedly comparable members of the United States Senior Men’s

14 National Soccer Team (“MNT players”) and that MNT players are comparable

15 employees as a matter of law. On the basis of its objections, Defendant interprets

16 Interrogatory No. 1 to seek a concise summary of the factual basis for Defendant’s

17 assertion that Plaintiffs are paid differently from MNT players for reasons other than sex,

18 without prejudice to Defendant’s ability to raise other facts in support of its First

19 Affirmative Defense at any other time in this litigation. Subject to and without waiving

20 its objections, Defendant answers Interrogatory No. 1 as follows:

21

The compensation terms set forth in the two relevant collective bargaining

22 agreements applicable to Plaintiffs and the compensation terms set forth in the relevant

23 collective bargaining agreement applicable to MNT players reflect only a part of the

24 different overall bargains reached by the respective labor organizations representing

25 Plaintiffs and MNT players, and those overall bargains, in turn, reflect the culmination of

26 complex collective bargaining negotiations between sophisticated parties. Factors such as

27 different individuals being involved, different bargaining priorities, different timing,

28 2

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:2680

1 different surrounding circumstances, and the inherently complex nature of collective

2 bargaining, especially in the context of the particular bargaining units and collective

3 bargaining agreements at issue, all played a role in the ultimate outcome in each set of

4 negotiations, and none of those factors is the sex of the members of the respective

5 bargaining units. Put another way, the differences between the compensation terms in the

6 collective bargaining agreements applicable to Plaintiffs and those in the collective

7 bargaining agreement applicable to the MNT players exist as a result of the choice made

8 by players to organize into separate bargaining units and then as the result of a complex

9 set of choices and trade-offs made separately by each of those bargaining units and U.S.

10 Soccer to arrive at altogether different deals governing their terms and conditions of

11 employment.

12

One of the specific factors other than sex that played a role in this collective

13 bargaining was Defendant’s legitimate, good-faith belief that the activities of the Senior

14 Men’s National Team (MNT) had generated and would continue to generate more game-

15 related revenue and net profit, on both a per-game and overall basis, for Defendant than

16 the activities of the Senior Women’s National Team (WNT) during the terms of the two

17 relevant collective bargaining agreements applicable to Plaintiffs. Historically, this

18 revenue has come primarily from U.S. Soccer-promoted events (i.e., individual soccer

19 matches and tournaments) that U.S. Soccer controls and, separately, receiving prize

20 money based on participation and success in events (i.e., individual soccer matches and

21 tournaments) controlled by other entities, such as FIFA, Concacaf, and, to the extent

22 applicable, CONMEBOL.

23

Among other things, Defendant believed that MNT matches had generated and

24 would continue to generate more revenue, both overall and on a per-match basis, for U.S.

25 Soccer than WNT matches. This belief was founded upon and is reflected in U.S.

26 Soccer’s financial data and documents produced to Plaintiffs in this litigation.

27

28 3

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:2681

1

To illustrate the revenue differences between WNT and MNT matches, from Fiscal

2 Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2019, the WNT has earned gross revenue of $101.3

3 million over 238 games for an average of $425,446 per game. By contrast, the MNT has

4 earned gross revenue of $185.7 million over 191 games for an average of $972,147 per

5 game. When event and team expenses are considered, WNT games have generated a net

6 profit (ticket revenues minus event and team expenses) in only two years (2016 and

7 2017). Across the entire 11-year period, WNT games generated a net loss of $27.6

8 million. Across this same 11-year period, MNT games generated a net loss of $3.13

9 million. It should also be noted that part of what assists the MNT in generating greater

10 match-related revenue for U.S. Soccer is the nature of, and interest in, its opponents, both

11 in terms of generating ticket sales for matches against those teams and in generating

12 payment to U.S. Soccer from other countries’ federations, in exchange for sending the

13 MNT to another country to play. Information regarding past and expected event-related

14 revenue affected U.S. Soccer’s view regarding what was both prudent and fair to

15 negotiate in the different collective bargaining agreements.

16

Similarly, U.S. Soccer held a legitimate, good-faith belief that the MNT had

17 generated and would have the potential to continue generating more prize money and

18 other revenue from events that are not controlled by U.S. Soccer. Plaintiffs participate in

19 only one tournament, every four years, that generates prize money for Defendant from an

20 external source. That tournament is the FIFA Women’s World Cup. In contrast, U.S.

21 Soccer has received prize money for participation and success in various tournaments in

22 which the MNT players participate, most notably the FIFA Men’s World Cup, the Gold

23 Cup, and Copa America. Further, the prize money available to Defendant through the

24 FIFA Men’s World Cup is far greater than that associated with the FIFA Women’s World

25 Cup.

26

At the same time, the international soccer environment in which the MNT players

27 compete is far more competitive by many measures than that in which Plaintiffs compete.

28 4

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:2682

1 The MNT players have lower odds of succeeding in the face of such greater competition.

2 In short, MNT players must achieve more and/or better results against tougher

3 competition in order to qualify for, and succeed in, tournament competition. The MNT

4 players also have more opportunities to play friendlies against tougher competition, and

5 they face longer odds against succeeding in friendlies as a result. In part, the terms of the

6 different collective bargaining agreements reflect the possibility of higher rewards for

7 achieving success in a realm of tougher competition. Those terms also reflect the

8 financial realities associated with providing some players with guaranteed pay combined

9 with rewards for on-field success when that success is more likely, versus providing other

10 players with contingent pay based almost entirely upon on-field success when achieving

11 that success is less likely.

12

They also reflect Defendant’s estimation of the broader effect on its overall

13 revenue associated with the success of one team, compared to the other. In this regard,

14 U.S. Soccer also held a legitimate, good-faith belief that the activities of the MNT were

15 more responsible for its ability to generate revenue derived from marketing, broadcasting,

16 and sponsorship rights than those of the WNT and that this would continue to be the case

17 during the period covered by the two WNT collective bargaining agreements. Pursuant to

18 U.S. Soccer’s agreement with Soccer United Marketing (“SUM”), a marketing company

19 that sells rights for a number of soccer-related entities such as U.S. Soccer, Major League

20 Soccer, Concacaf, the National Women’s Soccer League, the Mexican Football

21 Federation, and other soccer properties, U.S. Soccer granted SUM the exclusive right to

22 sell a bundle of its broadcasting, sponsorship, and marketing rights. In exchange for these

23 rights, SUM pays an annual guaranteed fee to U.S. Soccer, and if certain revenue targets

24 are reached, U.S. Soccer receives additional upside payments. At the time when it

25 negotiated the relevant collective bargaining agreements applicable to Plaintiffs, and all

26 other relevant times, U.S. Soccer believed that the economic value of the right to

27 associate with the MNT players was a larger driver of the money SUM and Nike (and

28 5

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:2683

1 possible successors to them in the future) were and would be prepared to pay to U.S.

2 Soccer than the economic value of the right to associate the WNT players. This is based

3 primarily on comparative television ratings and ticket sales data for MNT matches and

4 WNT matches. Information regarding the respective value of the past and expected

5 marketing, sponsorship, and broadcast rights of the WNT and MNT informed the basis

6 for what U.S. Soccer believed to be both prudent and fair in negotiating the different

7 collective bargaining agreements.

8

In addition, when the parties were negotiating the 2013-2016 WNT collective

9 bargaining agreement, that occurred against the backdrop of the top-level women’s

10 soccer league in the United States—Women’s Professional Soccer—having folded in

11 2012 after just three seasons and the previous attempt at a top-level league, the Women’s

12 United Soccer Association, having failed in 2003 after three seasons of play. In

13 November 2012, it was announced that a third attempt at a top-tier women’s professional

14 league, the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), would start play in 2013. One of

15 the areas of focus for the WNTPA and U.S. Soccer during negotiations for the 2013-2016

16 CBA negotiations was the interaction between that CBA and the success of the NWSL, a

17 league whose foundation, start-up, and ongoing operations were and are substantially

18 supported, both financially and otherwise, by U.S. Soccer as part of its mission to grow

19 the sport in the United States. That focus continued in negotiations for the 2017-2021

20 collective bargaining agreement. Under these collective bargaining agreements, a core

21 group of WNT players receive a guaranteed annual salary from U.S. Soccer for playing

22 on the WNT, and a core group of WNT players receive a separate guaranteed annual

23 salary from U.S. Soccer for playing on a team in the NWSL while still remaining

24 employed by U.S. Soccer. The two groups largely overlap, but not entirely. Plaintiffs’

25 and their fellow WNT players’ and the WNTPA’s desire for certain terms in the

26 collective bargaining agreement pertaining to the NWSL, their desire to remain employed

27 by U.S. Soccer, and their desire to achieve certain objectives related to the NWSL, as

28 6

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:2684

1 well as U.S. Soccer’s objectives with respect to the NWSL, were factors in the overall

2 compensation package the parties negotiated each time. These are factors that were not

3 and never have been present in negotiations with the MNTPA.

4

Another factor is Defendant’s status as a non-profit National Governing Body,

5 whose broad mission is to support and develop the sport of soccer, at all levels, in the

6 United States. Defendant is thus responsible for using its resources to serve all of its

7 members and to plan prudently for the future with long-term investments that help grow

8 soccer in the United States for years to come.

9

In addition, the fact that Plaintiffs’ compensation structure is determined by multi-

10 year collective bargaining agreements serves as a deterrent to making modifications to

11 that compensation structure during the term of each such agreement. Federal labor law

12 prohibits U.S. Soccer from making unilateral mid-term modifications to the

13 compensation terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and it also prohibits the

14 WNTPA from forcing U.S. Soccer to change them. Among other things, these rules help

15 to further the policy of the United States to promote “sound and stable industrial peace,”

16 as Congress expressed it in the National Labor Relations Act. Although parties to a

17 collective bargaining agreement may mutually agree to modify its provisions during its

18 term, one of the main benefits of the multi-year agreement is to avoid perpetual labor

19 disputes and to achieve a period of stability and labor peace. Accordingly, even if certain

20 legitimate expectations regarding future events at the time when the parties negotiated

21 each collective bargaining agreement ultimately turned out not to be precisely correct or

22 even if perceptions ultimately changed during the term of that agreement, that did not

23 require U.S. Soccer to re-open either collective bargaining agreement during its term, for

24 purposes of changing its compensation terms—any more than it required the MNTPA to

25 re-negotiate its collective bargaining agreement when the MNT players unexpectedly

26 failed to qualify for the 2018 FIFA Men’s World Cup or required the WNTPA to re-

27 negotiate its collective bargaining agreement when the WNT unexpectedly lost in the

28 7

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:2685

1 quarterfinals of the 2016 Olympic Games. Nor did the WNTPA ever propose revising the

2 collective bargaining agreement to match the one covering MNT players in any event.

3

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Defendant refers Plaintiffs to its and the WNTPA’s

4 respective contract proposals, Defendant’s bargaining notes, and the parties’ written

5 communications exchanged during the bargaining processes in 2012-2013 and 2015-

6 2017, along with the 2013 and 2017 WNTPA collective bargaining agreements and the

7 2011 collective bargaining agreement with the MNTPA, for further detail regarding the

8 collective bargaining between U.S. Soccer and the WNTPA. These documents reveal that

9 the bargaining parties made a collection of trade-offs and other agreements that resulted

10 in two collective bargaining agreements signed by the WNTPA and ratified by the WNT

11 players, which contain various compensation provisions that differ in various ways from

12 those found in the MNT collective bargaining agreement, entirely as a result of factors

13 other than the sex of the players on the WNT.

14 INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

15

Identify and state all facts regarding each “legitimate business reason[]” that You

16 contend supported “every decision U.S. Soccer made with respect to the conduct alleged

17 in the Complaint,” as claimed in USSF’s Eighth Affirmative Defense.

18 ANSWER TO NO. 2:

19

Defendant objects to Interrogatory No. 2’s request for a statement of “all facts”

20 regarding “each legitimate business reason” supporting “every decision U.S. Soccer made

21 with respect to the conduct alleged in the Complaint,” as unduly burdensome and not

22 proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects because it remains

23 unclear which decisions are being challenged by Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Defendant

24 further objects to Interrogatory No. 2 as duplicative of Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent

25 that it seeks facts supporting the legitimate business reasons for any decision regarding

26 compensation. On the basis of its objections, Defendant interprets Interrogatory No. 2 as

27 seeking a concise summary of the factual basis for Defendant’s Eighth Affirmative

28 8

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 23 Page ID #:2686

1 Defense as it relates to Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Complaint that: (a) U.S. Soccer

2 required Plaintiffs to play matches on artificial turf at a rate far in excess of that required

3 of MNT players, (b) U.S. Soccer expended fewer resources advertising WNT games than

4 it expended advertising MNT games, and (c) U.S. Soccer has provided charter flights to

5 the MNT more frequently than to the WNT, without prejudice to Defendant’s ability to

6 raise other facts in support of its Eighth Affirmative Defense at any other time in this

7 litigation and to respond to any other allegations Plaintiffs claim to be pursuing. Subject

8 to and without waiving its objections, Defendant answers Interrogatory No. 2 as follows:

9

(a) Field surfaces. To begin with, U.S. Soccer does not concede that a grass

10 surface is always superior to an artificial turf surface, particularly in situations when the

11 FIFA Quality Programme has certified the surface or where a reputable program has

12 performed substantially similar installation and testing.

13

During the class period, which commences on June 11, 2015, the WNT has played

14 12 domestic matches in a venue with artificial turf. Those matches occurred between

15 August 19, 2015, and October 19, 2017. On one of those occasions (September 18, 2016,

16 against the Netherlands at the Georgia Dome), U.S. Soccer arranged to install a

17 temporary grass surface over the artificial turf. During the class period, the WNT also

18 played 7 matches on artificial turf outside the United States: six matches in the 2015

19 FIFA Women’s World Cup in Canada and one friendly match against Canada in

20 Vancouver on November 10, 2017.

21

During the class period, the MNT has played 11 domestic matches in a venue with

22 artificial turf. Those matches occurred between July 10, 2015, and September 6, 2019. On

23 10 of those occasions (all but the friendly match on February 3, 2017, against Jamaica in

24 Chattanooga), a temporary grass surface was installed over the artificial turf or, in two

25 instances, directly over concrete.

26

Accordingly, U.S. Soccer interprets this interrogatory as requesting facts related to

27 the legitimate business reasons for the decision to install temporary grass over the

28 9

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 23 Page ID #:2687

1 artificial turf (or over concrete) at a higher rate for the MNT than the WNT (without

2 conceding that temporary grass laid over artificial turf or over concrete is a superior

3 surface to artificial turf or that any grass surface is always superior to all other surfaces).

4

To begin with, four of the MNT’s matches in question were Gold Cup matches

5 played in 2015 and 2017. U.S. Soccer did not control the selection of venues, the decision

6 to install temporary grass, or the venues to which the MNT was assigned during those

7 tournaments. Concacaf controlled all those decisions. Nor did U.S. Soccer pay for the

8 installation of temporary grass on those occasions. Concacaf did.

9

Similarly, U.S. Soccer did not control the selection of venues, the decision not to

10 install temporary grass, or the venues to which the WNT was assigned during the 2015

11 FIFA Women’s World Cup. FIFA and/or the host organizing committee controlled those

12 decisions.

13

Next, two of the MNT’s matches in question were the quarterfinal and semifinal

14 matches during the Copa America Centenario in 2016. The decision to install temporary

15 grass for those matches as part of the overall tournament planning was made by the local

16 organizing committee, CA 2016 LOC LLC, without reference to whether the MNT would

17 advance to or play in those particular matches. Further, this decision was required by the

18 tournament owners, Concacaf and CONMEBOL. Because the parties associated with

19 organizing the tournament anticipated receiving tens of millions of dollars in revenue

20 from the tournament, the expenses associated with laying temporary grass for those

21 matches was a prudent business decision. In addition, the participating countries entered

22 into the tournament understanding that the fields would be grass. For all these reasons, it

23 was necessary and prudent to install temporary grass for those matches.

24

Next, three of the MNT’s matches in question were a friendly against Mexico (at

25 MetLife Stadium) and two friendlies against Brazil (in Gillette Stadium and MetLife

26 Stadium). U.S. Soccer expected those three matches to generate enough revenue for U.S.

27 Soccer to make it prudent to spend the money necessary to install temporary grass.

28 10

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 23 Page ID #:2688

1 Further, U.S. Soccer did not believe Brazil or Mexico would have been willing to send

2 their teams to the United States to play on artificial turf, and U.S. Soccer believes that the

3 ability to play against competition like Mexico and Brazil is important to the

4 development of the team and that the revenue generated from such matches is important

5 to its goal of growing the sport of soccer overall.

6

Finally, the MNT played Venezuela at Nippert Stadium on June 9, 2019, and U.S.

7 Soccer had temporary grass installed. This was one of the MNT’s two preparatory

8 matches for the 2019 Gold Cup—a very important tournament for U.S. Soccer. U.S.

9 Soccer determined that the combination of anticipated revenue from the match and the

10 desire to play a preparatory match for a major tournament on natural grass warranted the

11 decision.

12

In comparison, seven of the WNT’s domestic matches played on artificial turf

13 during the relevant period were played between the conclusion of the 2015 Women’s

14 World Cup and the end of that calendar year, as part of the series of friendlies required by

15 the collective bargaining agreement because the team won the 2015 Women’s World

16 Cup, and three others were fall friendlies in 2016 and 2017. U.S. Soccer did not

17 anticipate generating enough revenue from these matches to make the installation of

18 temporary grass financially prudent, nor did it believe installation of temporary grass was

19 necessary to attract opponents or for purposes of preparing for an upcoming tournament

20 such as the Gold Cup. Indeed, as it happens, the average event revenue for the three MNT

21 friendly matches against Brazil and Mexico described earlier in this answer was more

22 than $1 million higher than the average event revenue for the ten WNT friendly matches

23 described in this paragraph. In addition, the desire of U.S. Soccer to spread its Senior

24 National Team matches across various cities in various regions of the country, the

25 relatively large number of matches required to be played in a relatively short period of

26 time during fall and winter, and the desire to prioritize venues with grass fields for 2016

27

28 11

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 23 Page ID #:2689

1 in preparation for the Olympic Games all played a role in the number and concentration

2 of matches on artificial turf in the second half of 2015.

3

The one other domestic WNT match played on artificial turf was a match in the

4 inaugural Tournament of Nations during the summer of 2017. The match was played

5 against Australia in July of that year. Although a tournament in name, the matches in the

6 Tournament of Nations are in reality a series of international friendlies under FIFA rules.

7 This was an effort by U.S. Soccer to market friendlies in a different way, to generate fan

8 interest around the WNT, and to provide the team with a string of matches against a

9 relatively high level of competition. U.S. Soccer, however, did not anticipate generating

10 enough revenue from the Australia match to justify the installation of temporary grass on

11 the field. By way of comparison, the 2016 Copa America quarterfinal match between the

12 MNT and Ecuador at the very same venue saw a paid attendance approximately 30,000

13 higher than the paid attendance for this Tournament of Nations match.

14

Finally, U.S. Soccer agreed to play a friendly against Canada in Canada in

15 November 2017 because the Canadian team was a top ten team at the time, is a major

16 rival of the United States in the sport of women’s soccer, and is its geographic neighbor.

17 The Canadian Soccer Association (U.S. Soccer’s counterpart in Canada) selected the

18 location for the November 10, 2017, friendly match, and U.S. Soccer agreed to play there

19 because the CSA chose BC Place in Vancouver, the third largest city in Canada. BC

20 Place was the main stadium for the 2010 Winter Olympics, the site of the FIFA Women’s

21 World Cup Final in 2015, and has since hosted the Canadian Men’s National Team in

22 Nations League Qualifying. It is also home to the Vancouver Whitecaps of Major League

23 Soccer and the BC Lions of the Canadian Football League. It is, in short, a major sports

24 venue for both men and women in one of Canada’s major cities. The west coast location

25 was also convenient for travel to the follow-up match three days later in San Jose,

26 California, providing additional time in market for player recovery, and was conducive to

27 available broadcast windows.

28 12

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 23 Page ID #:2690

1

(b) Advertising of games. The WNT and MNT share the same team of event

2 marketing and promotion employees at U.S. Soccer who dedicate what they determine, in

3 good faith, to be the appropriate amount of advertising resources to any particular WNT

4 or MNT match in light of the importance of the match in the context of the WNT’s and

5 MNT’s separate international competitions and the projected match attendance,

6 viewership, and event revenue. U.S. Soccer advertises WNT and MNT matches in a

7 manner that helps U.S. Soccer grow its fan base so that it can generate more revenue to

8 be invested in U.S. Soccer’s mission. U.S. Soccer uses the following channels of match

9 advertising: U.S. Soccer-owned social media, paid advertising, website posts, match-

10 related communications with ticketholders and subscribers, and (when possible)

11 broadcast and sponsorship promotion. To maximize impact, U.S. Soccer typically focuses

12 advertising around key “energy moments,” including the World Cup qualification rounds

13 for the MNT, the Men’s and Women’s World Cups, the Olympic Games for the WNT,

14 significant friendly matches, and other tournaments and qualification events. As such, the

15 amount of resources spent advertising WNT and MNT events varies at any fixed point in

16 time and depends on which events the team expects to have in the near future and

17 whether the team is experiencing an “energy moment.” Additionally, if a match is

18 projected to sell out, U.S. Soccer generally does not spend any further resources

19 advertising the match unless another reason exists (e.g., encouraging record-breaking

20 attendance, as with a recent match in Philadelphia). Moreover, from 2014 to 2019, U.S.

21 Soccer generally has expended a greater amount of money advertising WNT matches

22 than MNT matches. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ claim relates to advertisements provided

23 by third parties (for example, signage in a venue city provided by that venue city), U.S.

24 Soccer works in partnership with each city’s sports commission and/or tourism bureau to

25 understand what complimentary opportunities to promote a match exist within the venue

26 city. In the event that complimentary opportunities do not exist, U.S. Soccer determines

27

28 13

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 23 Page ID #:2691

1 whether there is inventory available for purchase that will provide sufficient return on

2 investment and makes its best business judgment as to whether to make the purchase.

3

(c) Charter flights. U.S. Soccer will limit this answer to the limitations period

4 applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims. Generally, U.S. Soccer has provided charter flights,

5 which are much more expensive than commercial flights, to the WNT and MNT based on

6 a consideration of competitive need, cost, and alternatives available. The parties are

7 working on a stipulation regarding match spreadsheets that summarize, among other

8 things, the type of transportation provided by U.S. Soccer to the WNT players and MNT

9 players for the purpose of arriving in the city where each match has been played during

10 the requested time period. U.S. Soccer generally does not provide charter flights to

11 players flying into the start of a training camp because they are traveling separately from

12 the locations of their respective homes or club teams, and this is reflected in the

13 referenced charts.

14

In addition, Concacaf paid for the charter flights for the MNT players in

15 connection with the three Gold Cups during the class period, the Local Organizing

16 Committee paid for the charter flights for the MNT players during the Copa America

17 Centenario, and the Local Organizing Committee arranged and paid for the in-country

18 travel associated with the 2015 and 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cups, with the exception

19 of the WNT players’ team flight from Vancouver to Edmonton on June 17, 2015, which

20 U.S. Soccer paid for (the Local Organizing Committee had originally scheduled a

21 commercial flight).

22

With respect to team travel to matches after arriving in camp, for the remaining

23 matches during the class period, the referenced spreadsheets accurately demonstrate a

24 trend for both teams receiving charter flight accommodations more frequently over time.

25 To the extent that there is a disparity in the relative frequency with which U.S. Soccer has

26 provided charter flights to the WNT and MNT during this time, it reflects the facts that

27 (1) the MNT plays more non-friendly matches (for which the cost is more likely to be

28 14

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 23 Page ID #:2692

1 outweighed by competitive advantage), (2) the MNT plays more of its non-friendly

2 matches outside the United States, particularly in locations in the Western Hemisphere

3 with more limited direct commercial flight availability and at times with little turnaround

4 time between matches in different countries, and (3) as described previously in these

5 interrogatory answers, the MNT generates more revenue for U.S. Soccer.

6 INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

7

State separately the revenues USSF received from FIFA that are attributable to the

8 World Cup performances of the MNT and WNT, respectively, for each year from 2011

9 through 2019 and identify any restrictions FIFA imposed on USSF’s use or distribution

10 of those revenues.

11 ANSWER TO NO. 5:

12

Defendant objects to the phrase “attributable to the World Cup performances of the

13 MNT and WNT” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving its objections,

14 Defendant interprets this phrase to request the amount of prize money received from

15 FIFA and not to include money received as preparation costs. In that regard, U.S. Soccer

16 has received the following amounts in FIFA prize money for the WNT’s participation in

17 the FIFA Women’s World Cup and for the MNT’s participation in the FIFA Men’s

18 World Cup, from 2011 through 2019:

19

2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup: $800,000

20

2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup: $2,000,000

21

2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup:1 $4,000,000

22

TOTAL

$6,800,000

23

24

2014 FIFA Men’s World Cup: $9,000,000

25

2018 FIFA Men’s World Cup:

$0

26

TOTAL

$9,000,000

27

28 1 Anticipated but not yet fully received by U.S. Soccer. 15

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 23 Page ID #:2693

1

2 FIFA did not impose restrictions related to U.S. Soccer’s use of the aforementioned prize

3 money.

4 INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

5

State separately the USSF revenues (other than those identified in response to

6 Interrogatory No. 5 above) that are attributable to the performance of the MNT and

7 WNT, respectively, for each year from 2014 through 2019.

8 ANSWER TO NO. 6:

9

Defendant objects to the term “revenues” as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad

10 because it could read so broadly that it would include all revenues from any source

11 whatsoever, regardless of whether they are relevant to the claims or defenses of either

12 party. Defendant also objects to the phrase “attributable to the performance of the MNT

13 and WNT” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its objections, Defendant interprets

14 Interrogatory No. 6 as seeking the match event revenue from MNT and WNT matches

15 and states that the following table summarizes the revenue generated by MNT and WNT

16 matches controlled by U.S. Soccer (excluding the revenues associated with the Copa

17 America Centenario, which is separately identified below the chart) and for which U.S.

18 Soccer received the revenue for each fiscal year from 2014 through 2019:

19

20

Fiscal Year

MNT Event Revenue

WNT Event Revenue

21

2014

22

2015

23

2016

2017

24

2018

25

2019

26

2020*

27

TOTAL

$17,388,488 $18,760,395 $22,244,353 $14,612,618 $12,865,851 $16,370,831 $9,830,972 $112,073,508

$6,937,009 $5,409,093 $27,922,331 $14,615,046 $12,097,195 $12,554,448 $17,833,133 $97,368,255

28 16

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 23 Page ID #:2694

1 * Through September 31, 2019. Once U.S. Soccer has completed the accounting process

2 of “closing” its records through December 31, 2019 (which still will be a partial fiscal

3 year), it will supplement this response in accordance with Rule 26(e).

4

Although not reflected in the chart above, CA2016 Local Organizing Committee,

5 LLC, a single member LLC of which U.S. Soccer is the sole member, received

6 $34,110,906.23 in revenue for the six games in which the MNT participated in the Copa

7 America Centenario Tournament in 2016 (U.S. Soccer FY2017). U.S. Soccer paid the

8 per-game ticket bonus required by the MNT players’ collective bargaining agreement for

9 Copa America Centenario Tournament games in which the MNT participated in 2016

10 (U.S. Soccer FY2017) because these were matches controlled by a U.S. Soccer

11 subsidiary.

12 INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

13

State separately for each year from 2014 through 2019 the expenses USSF paid for

14 benefits provided to WNT players under the WNT collective bargaining agreement.

15 ANSWER TO NO. 11:

16

Defendant objects to the term “benefits” as vague and ambiguous. Subject to its

17 objection, Defendant interprets the term “benefits” in this interrogatory to be seeking

18 information pertaining to medical, dental, and vision insurance; severance and

19 pregnancy/adoption leave pay; 401(k) plan retirement benefits; and childcare payments

20 (not including airfare and hotel accommodations provided for the caregiver, which would

21 be burdensome to locate and determine). Subject to its objection, Defendant answers as

22 follows:

23

Medical Insurance: To satisfy its agreement under the applicable collective

24 bargaining agreements to provide medical insurance benefits to WNT players, Defendant

25 has arranged for coverage of WNT players through The United States Olympic &

26 Paralympic Committee (USOPC) Elite Athlete Health Insurance Program (EAHI).

27 Defendant is permitted to enroll a limited number of athletes in EAHI, and it has chosen

28 17

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 23 Page ID #:2695

1 to use its allotted EAHI slots only for WNT players from 2014 through 2019. As part of

2 the collective bargaining agreement Defendant entered with the WNTPA in 2017,

3 Defendant has been obligated by Section 12.A.3. of that agreement to pay WNT players

4 who receive EAHI insurance $1,500 per year. Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Defendant has

5 produced payroll reports to Plaintiffs reflecting the cost of those payments between 2017

6 and 2019.

7

Dental Insurance:

8

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Defendant has produced documents reflecting its payments

9 for dental insurance for WNT players. See USSF_Morgan_068352 -

10 USSF_Morgan_069503.

11

Vision Insurance:

12

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Defendant has produced documents reflecting its payments

13 for vision insurance for WNT players. See USSF_Morgan_069504 -

14 USSF_Morgan_069668.

15

401(k) Benefits:

16

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Defendant has produced documents reflecting its payments

17 for administrative fees for WNT players’ 401(k) accounts. See USSF_Morgan_068335 -

18 USSF_Morgan_068351.

19

Severance and Pregnancy/Adoption Leave Pay

20

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Defendant has produced payroll reports, payroll request

21 submissions, contract termination notices, and pregnancy/adoption leave notifications.

22 Combined, these business records are the best source from which best to determine the

23 amount expended by Defendant on these items during the requested time period.

24

Childcare Payments

25

Defendant’s best information regarding the amount of childcare payments made

26 between 2014 and 2019 remains the information provided in its prior iteration of this

27 answer.

28 18

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 23 Page ID #:2696

1 DATED: January 31, 2020
2
3
4

AS TO OBJECTIONS, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By: /s/Brian Stolzenbach

5

One of the Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES SOCCER

6

FEDERATION, INC.

7 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

8 Ellen E. McLaughlin (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: emclaughlin@seyfarth.com
9 Noah A. Finkel (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
10 Brian Stolzenbach (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: bstolzenbach@seyfarth.com
11 Cheryl A. Luce (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: cluce@seyfarth.com
12 Sharilee K. Smentek (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ssmentek@seyfarth.com
13 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448
14 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
15 Kristen M. Peters (SBN 252296)
16 E-mail: kmpeters@seyfarth.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
17 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200
18 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219

19 Chantelle C. Egan (SBN 257938) cegan@seyfarth.com
20 Giovanna A. Ferrari (SBN 229871) gferrari@seyfarth.com
21 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, California 94105
22 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
23 Attorneys for Defendant

24

25

26

27

28 19

61471620v.3

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 23 Page ID #:2697

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 23 Page ID #:2698

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a

party to the within action. My business address is 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500,

3 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021. On January 31, 2020, I served the within

document(s):

4

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.’S

5 SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2,

5, 6, AND 11

6

I sent such document from facsimile machines (310) 201-5219 on January 31,

7  2020. I certify that said transmission was completed and that all pages were

received and that a report was generated by said facsimile machine which confirms

8

said transmission and receipt.

9

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon

 fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set

10

forth below.

11

by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the

 address(es) set forth below.

12

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope or package provided

13  by an overnight delivery carrier with postage paid on account and deposited for

collection with the overnight carrier at Los Angeles, California, addressed as set

14

forth below.

15

by transmitting the document(s) listed above, electronically, via the e-mail

 addresses set forth below.

16

electronically by using the Court’s ECF/CM System.

17 

18

19

Jeffrey L. Kessler David G. Feher

20

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

21

200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-4193

22

23

Cardelle B. Spangler WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

24

35 West Wacker Drive

25

Chicago, IL 60601

Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
Tel. (212) 2946700; Fax (212) 294-4700 Email: jkessler@winston.com;
dfeher@winston.com
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
Tel. (312) 558-5600; Fax (312) 558-5700 Email: cspangler@winston.com

26

27

28

61101328v.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE USDC CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-24 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 23 Page ID #:2699

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-25 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2700
EXHIBIT 23

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-25 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2701

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:2702
EXHIBIT 24

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:2703

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:2704

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:2705

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:2706

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:2707

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:2708

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:2709

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:2710

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:2711

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:2712

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:2713

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:2714

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:2715

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:2716

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:2717

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:2718

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:2719

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:2720

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:2721

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-26 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:2722

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:2723
EXHIBIT 25

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:2724

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:2725

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:2726

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:2727

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:2728

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:2729

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:2730

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:2731

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:2732

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 28 Page ID #:2733

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:2734

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:2735

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:2736

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 28 Page ID #:2737

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 28 Page ID #:2738

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 28 Page ID #:2739

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 28 Page ID #:2740

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 28 Page ID #:2741

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 28 Page ID #:2742

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 28 Page ID #:2743

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 28 Page ID #:2744

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 28 Page ID #:2745

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 28 Page ID #:2746

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 28 Page ID #:2747

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 28 Page ID #:2748

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 28 Page ID #:2749

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-27 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 28 Page ID #:2750

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-28 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:2751
EXHIBIT 26 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-29 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:2752
EXHIBIT 27 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-30 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:2753
EXHIBIT 28 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-31 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2754
EXHIBIT 29

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-31 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2755

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 1

2

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

NO. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

4 --------------------------------X ALEX MORGAN, et al.,
5 Plaintiffs,
6 VS.
7 UNITED STATES SOCCER
8 FEDERATION, INC.,

9

Defendant.

--------------------------------X

10

11

12

13

DEPOSITION

14

OF

15

MEGAN RAPINOE

16

Thursday, January 16, 2020

17

620 Eighth Avenue

18

New York, New York

19

20

21 Reported by: AYLETTE GONZALEZ, RPR, CLR, CCR
22 JOB NO. 175029

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-31 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:2756

1 M E G A N R A P I N O E,

Page 5

2

called as a witness, having been

3

duly sworn by a Notary Public,

4

was examined and testified as

5

follows:

6 EXAMINATION BY

7 MR. STOLZENBACH:

8

Q. Good morning, Ms. Rapinoe. I'm

9 Brian Stolzenbach, as you know. And I

10 represent U.S. Soccer in both the case that

11 you and many of your teammates have filed, as

12 well as the separate case that Ms. Solo has

13 filed.

14

Just for the record, would you

15 state and spell your name so we have it right.

16

A. Megan Rapinoe, M-E-G-A-N,

17 R-A-P-I-N-O-E.

18

Q. And have you ever had your

19 deposition taken before?

20

A. No.

21

Q. Have you ever testified before in

22 any context?

23

A. No.

24

Q. Okay. So I'll go through a few

25 things just so you have a good sense of the

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-31 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:2757

1

A. Just the one.

Page 108

2

Q. There was just the one in November?

3

A. I was not at that.

4

Q. When it comes to team travel, so

5 travel as the United States Women's National

6 Team, once you're together in camp, so

7 excluding the assembling from all corners of

8 the country or the earth, have you flown

9 anything other than charters since the

10 beginning of 2019?

11

A. I don't believe so, not since 2019,

12 beginning of that. Or that time period

13 specifically that you're talking about.

14

Q. Okay. Have you ever heard or seen

15 any statements by somebody from U.S. Soccer

16 that caused you to believe that U.S. Soccer

17 has treated you worse than male soccer players

18 because of your sex?

19

A. Public statements?

20

Q. Any kind of statements.

21

A. Have I ever heard or seen

22 statements?

23

Q. Correct.

24

A. Yeah, I would say that's true.

25

Q. Okay. Can you describe each of

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-31 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:2758

1 those statements to me?

Page 109

2

A. One of the famous statements,

3 mostly the market realities would suggest that

4 we don't deserve to be paid the same when

5 market realities I don't think did, in fact,

6 suggest that. I don't remember specific

7 statements, definite overall sentiment.

8

Q. Okay. Any actual specific

9 statements other than the market reality

10 statement?

11

A. I can't recall right now.

12

Q. Who made the market reality

13 statement?

14

A. I believe that was Russ Sauer.

15

Q. And when was that?

16

A. 2016.

17

Q. During the June 27th bargaining

18 session, would it be?

19

A. I don't recall if it was that one

20 specifically.

21

Q. Did Mr. Sauer make that statement

22 on more than one occasion that you heard?

23

A. I don't recall.

24

(Rapinoe Exhibit 13, Plaintiffs'

25

Collective Action Complaint for

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-31 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:2759

Page 111

1

Q. And is that -- it's in quotes, is

2 that an actual quote that Mr. Sauer said,

3 "Market realities are such that the women do

4 not deserve to be paid equally to the men"?

5

A. Meaning like did I hear him say

6 that or is it worthy of being in a quote?

7

Q. Did you hear him say those exact

8 words? And in particular, did you hear him

9 say that the women do not deserve to be paid

10 equally?

11

A. Yeah, I think that's correct.

12

Q. Is it possible that he said only

13 that market realities were a basis for

14 different payment to the women, as opposed to

15 using the word "deserve"?

16

MS. SPANGLER: Objection to the

17

form.

18

You can answer if you can.

19

A. I suppose it's possible, but I also

20 answered yes to the question before so, I

21 think he said that.

22

Q. Okay. And this was during a

23 bargaining session, correct, that he said it?

24

A. Yes.

25

Q. Okay. Do you recall who else was

TSG Reporting - Worldwide (877) 702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-31 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:2760

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-31 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:2761

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-32 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2762
EXHIBIT 30

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-32 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2763

Page 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2

ALEX MORGAN, ET AL.

)

3

)

Plaintiff,

)

4

)

VS.
5

)

Civil Action No.:

)

2:19-cv-01717

UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

6 FEDERATION, INC.

)

)

7

Defendant

)

8

- AND -

9

HOPE SOLO, ET AL.

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

VS.
12

)

Civil Action No.:

)

3:18-cv-05215 JD

UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

13 FEDERATION, INC.

)

)

14

Defendant

)

15

16

17

ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

RICH NICHOLS

18

DECEMBER 4, 2019

19

20

ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICH NICHOLS,

produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendant and

21 duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered

cause on Wednesday, December 4, 2019, from 8:13 a.m. to 22 3:05 p.m., before Kari J. Behan, CSR, RPR, CRR, in and for

the State of Texas, reported by computerized stenotype 23 machine, at the offices of K&L Gates, 1717 Main Street,

Suite 2800, Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to the

24 California Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

provisions stated on the record herein. 25 JOB NO. 172862

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-32 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:2764

Page 10

1

PROCEEDINGS:

2

(Wednesday, December 4th, 2019, at 8:13 a.m.)

3

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning of

4 this deposition, the beginning of DVD No. 1. Today's date

5 is December 4th, 2019, and we are on the record at 8:13.

6

If everyone would please announce their

7 appearances after which the court reporter will swear in

8 the witness.

9

MR. STOLZENBACH: Brian Stolzenbach on

10 behalf of United States Soccer Federation.

11

MR. BUDNER: Craig Budner representing the

12 witness, Mr. Nichols.

13

MR. CLASH-DREXLER: Matthew Clash-Drexler on

14 behalf of U.S. Women's National Team Players Association.

15

MS. SPANGLER: Cardelle Spangler on behalf

16 of the Morgan Plaintiffs.

17

MR. STAFFORD: Paul Stafford on behalf of

18 Hope Solo.

19

RICH NICHOLS,

20 after having been first duly sworn by the above-mentioned

21 Certified Court Reporter, was examined and testified as

22 follows:

23

EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. STOLZENBACH:

25

Q. Good morning, Mr. Nichols.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-32 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:2765

Page 128

1

A. I probably said that, uh-huh.

2

Q. And do you recall also saying at the same time:

3 We have only been talking about game revenues and we have

4 not factored TV and sponsorship?

5

A. Yes.

6

Q. Do you recall what, if anything, Ms. Levine said

7 or did in response to that statement?

8

A. No, I don't.

9

Q. Okay. Do you recall being at a bargaining

10 session with the Federation in 2016 when the Federation

11 representatives referred to market realities to explain

12 its financial proposal?

13

A. Yes.

14

Q. What did the Federation representatives -- let me

15 ask it this way: Mr. Sauer, when he referenced marketing

16 -- market realities, explained that revenue attendance and

17 TV have to be taken into account.

18

Didn't he?

19

A. No. What I recall Mr. Sauer saying twice was

20 that market realities is such that the women do not

21 deserve to be paid equal pay.

22

Q. Did he ever explain what market realities were?

23

A. No.

24

Q. Do you recall being at a bargaining session and

25 saying something to the effect of: Information is power,

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-32 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:2766

Page 175

1

CHANGES AND SIGNATURE

2

RICH NICHOLS

3

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

4

PAGE/LINE | CHANGE

REASON

6

_________ | ___________________________________

7

_________ | ___________________________________

8

_________ | ___________________________________

9

_________ | ___________________________________

10

_________ | ___________________________________

11

_________ | ___________________________________

12

_________ | ___________________________________

13

_________ | ___________________________________

14

_________ | ___________________________________

15

_________ | ___________________________________

16

_________ | ___________________________________

17

_________ | ___________________________________

18

_________ | ___________________________________

19

_________ | ___________________________________

20

_________ | ___________________________________

21

_________ | ___________________________________

22

_________ | ___________________________________

23

_________ | ___________________________________

24

_________ | ___________________________________

25

_________ | ___________________________________

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-32 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:2767

Page 176

1

I, RICH NICHOLS, have read the foregoing

2 deposition and hereby affix my signature that same is true

3 and correct, except for the changes noted above.

4

5 _______________________________

RICH NICHOLS

6

7

8

9

10 COUNTY OF: __________________ ?

?

11 STATE OF: __________________

?

12

Before me, ________________________________, on 13 this day personally appeared RICH NICHOLS, known to me (or
proved to me under oath or through _________) to be the 14 person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the 15 same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.
16

Given under my hand and seal of office this
17

_________ day of ____________________, ________.

18

19

20

________________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR

21

THE STATE OF ___________

22

My Commission Expires: _________
23 24 25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-32 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:2768

Page 177

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2

ALEX MORGAN, ET AL.

)

3

)

Plaintiff,

)

4

)

VS.
5

)

Civil Action No.:

)

2:19-cv-01717

UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

6 FEDERATION, INC.

)

)

7

Defendant

)

8

- AND -

9

HOPE SOLO, ET AL.

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

VS.
12

)

Civil Action No.:

)

3:18-cv-05215 JD

UNITED STATES SOCCER

)

13 FEDERATION, INC.

)

)

14

Defendant

)

15

16

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION

ORAL & VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

17

RICH NICHOLS

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2019
18

I, Kari J. Behan, CSR, RPR, CRR, and in and for the 19 State of Texas, do hereby certify that the facts as stated

by me in the caption hereto are true;
20

That there came before me the aforementioned named 21 person, who was by me duly sworn to testify the truth

concerning the matters in controversy in this cause;
22

And that the examination was reduced to writing by 23 computer transcription under my supervision; that the

deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the

24 witness.

25

I further certify that I am neither attorney or

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-32 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:2769

Page 178

1 parties to the action in which this deposition is taken, and further that I am not a relative or employee of any
2 attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or financially interested in the action.
3

Given under my hand and seal of office on this 6th 4 day of December, 2019.
5

6

_______________________________

7

KARI BEHAN, CSR, CSR NO. 8564;

Expiration Date: 7-31-2020

8

Firm Registration No. 615

TSG Reporting, Inc.

9

747 Third Avenue, 10th Floor

New York, New York 10017

10

(877) 702-9580

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-33 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:2770
EXHIBIT 31 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-34 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2771
EXHIBIT 32

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-34 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2772

FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 1006

NET REVENUE (REVENUE – EXPENSES) FY ‘16 – FY ‘201

MNT

WNT2

FY 2016

$2,670,077

$9,404,022.30

FY 2017 FY 2018

(-$1,382,390) (-$1,354,788)

$2,305,184.29 (-$3,375,286.71)

FY 2019

(-$3,071,636)

(-$5,791,489.98)

FY 20203

(-$2,955,160)

$7,692,723.99

Total

(-$6,093,897)

$10,235,153.89

1 The figures listed in this Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 Summary are taken from USSF’s accounting summaries found at Bates numbers USSF_Morgan_041681, USSF_Morgan_041694, USSF_Morgan_041706, USSF_Morgan_041728, USSF_Morgan_041740, USSF_Morgan_041747, and USSF_Morgan_063037. Excludes revenue and expenses from the teams’ respective World Cups and World Cup qualifying matches and WNT Olympic qualifying matches.
2 Excludes salaries paid to WNT players for playing for their NWSL teams through October 31, 2019. These salary totals can be found in USSF’s yearly payroll records from 2015–2019 found at USSF_Morgan_057259–USSF_Morgan_057263.
3 Through October 31, 2019.

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-35 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2773
EXHIBIT 33

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i3a5l Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2774

·1· · · · · · ·SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 1

·2· · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

·3· · · · · CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

·4· ·ALEX MORGAN, et al.,· · · · ·) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) ·5· · · · · · · · · Plaintiffs,· ·) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) ·6· · · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · ·) 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) ·7· ·UNITED STATES SOCCER· · · · ·) · · ·FEDERATION, INC.,· · · · · · ) ·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ) · · · · · · · · · · Defendant.· · ) ·9· ·-----------------------------) · · ·(Caption continued on the next page.) 10

11· · · · · · · ·* * *CONFIDENTIAL* * *

12· · · ·VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SUNIL GULATI

13· · · · · · · · ·New York, New York

14· · · · · · · · ·December 17, 2019

15· · · · · · · · · · · Volume I

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23· ·Reported by:

24· ·KATHY S. KLEPFER, RMR, RPR, CRR, CLR

25· ·JOB NO. 173645

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i3a5l Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:2775

·1· · · · · · ·SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 8

·2· · · ·want to put on the record that we have an

·3· · · ·agreement with Hope Solo's counsel that,

·4· · · ·with respect to any documents that have been

·5· · · ·produced in Morgan but not produced in Solo,

·6· · · ·that those will be Attorneys Eyes Only until

·7· · · ·we reach an agreement on the Protective

·8· · · ·Order.

·9· · · · · · ·MR. MORRISON:· And without waiving any

10· · · ·rights to challenge that later on, we agree

11· · · ·for today's purposes.

12· · · · · · ·MS. McLAUGHLIN:· Thank you.

13· ·SUNIL GULATI, having been previously sworn,

14· · · · resumed and testified as follows:

15· ·EXAMINATION BY (Cont'd.)

16· ·MR. KESSLER:

17· · · ·Q.· · So I guess, Mr. Gulati, we can treat

18· ·you as if you're still under oath, if that's

19· ·acceptable to you.

20· · · ·A.· · That's fine.

21· · · ·Q.· · Okay, since you just were deposed as

22· ·the 30(b)(6) witness.

23· · · · · · ·Mr. Gulati, I'm going to mark as

24· ·plaintiffs' 68 a copy of your separate

25· ·deposition notice as an individual witness.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580
YVer1f

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i3a5l Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:2776

·1· · · · · · ·SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 42

·2· ·of helping to start and build leagues,

·3· ·financially or otherwise.· And I have no doubt

·4· ·that Tonya Antonucci and her colleagues would

·5· ·confirm what I have just said.

·6· · · ·Q.· · And to come back to what you said, one

·7· ·of your missions in U.S. Soccer, and part of

·8· ·your business, if you will, would be to do

·9· ·something like support the creation, success of

10· ·the NWSL, correct?

11· · · ·A.· · Certainly in my personal deposition,

12· ·that is the case.· I'm not sure I would have

13· ·given you the same answer in the first part of

14· ·the day because there are colleagues who believe

15· ·that we shouldn't be in that business; that

16· ·you've got people with a lot of money and

17· ·they're taking certain risks and they should

18· ·take those risks.

19· · · ·Q.· · When you were president of USSF, it

20· ·was at least your position as president that

21· ·USSF should make part of its mission to help the

22· ·NWSL succeed, correct?

23· · · ·A.· · Yes.· Absolutely.· Yes.

24· · · ·Q.· · And that's because you thought it was

25· ·in the interests of your mission at USSF,

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580
YVer1f

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i3a5l Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:2777

·1· · · · · · ·SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 43

·2· ·correct?· It wasn't to do a favor for someone

·3· ·else; it was because you thought it was part of

·4· ·USSF's mission; is that right?

·5· · · ·A.· · The mission statement is to make

·6· ·soccer the preeminent sport at all levels.· So

·7· ·professional soccer is one of those levels, but

·8· ·there is, at some times, wide disagreement on

·9· ·what should we be doing; and in my view, in this

10· ·case, the NWSL should be part of that.· And we

11· ·didn't -- we didn't respond to a request from

12· ·the NWSL.· We took the initiative with the NWSL.

13· · · ·Q.· · Okay.· USSF did?

14· · · ·A.· · Yes.

15· · · ·Q.· · Okay.· Is it fair to say by how you've

16· ·been making your comments that there have been

17· ·over the years some USSF board members who

18· ·believe that USSF should not commit so much

19· ·funds to promoting the professional level of

20· ·soccer and it should devote more of it to either

21· ·youth level or audit level or other parts of the

22· ·USSF constituency?

23· · · ·A.· · Every --

24· · · · · · ·MS. McLAUGHLIN:· Objection.· Form.

25· · · ·A.· · Every one of our constituents believe

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580
YVer1f

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i3a5l Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:2778

·1· · · · ·SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 121

·2· ·minute to 5.· So to make sure I don't keep

·3· ·you past what you say was a hard stop, why

·4· ·don't we stop now and we'll resume at 9 in

·5· ·the morning.

·6· · · · ·(Continued on the next page to include

·7· ·the jurat.)

·8· · · · ·MS. McLAUGHLIN:· Sounds good.· Thank

·9· ·you.

10· · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is 4:58

11· ·p.m.· We're off the record.

12· · · · ·(Whereupon, the deposition adjourned

13· ·at 4:58 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. on December 18,

14· ·2019.)

15· · · · · · · · · · oOo

16

17

18

19· · · · · · · · · · · ·____________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · ·SUNIL GULATI 20

21· · Subscribed and sworn to · · · before me this· · ·day 22· · of· · · · · 2019.

23 · · · _______________________ 24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i3a5l Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:2779

·1· · · · ·SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 122

·2

·3· · · · · · · · CERTIFICATE

·4· ·STATE OF NEW YORK ) · · · · · · · · · · · ·:· ss ·5· ·COUNTY OF NEW YORK)

·6· · · · ·I, Kathy S. Klepfer, a Registered

·7· ·Merit Reporter and Notary Public within and

·8· ·for the State of New York, do hereby

·9· ·certify:

10· · · · ·That SUNIL GULATI, the witness whose

11· ·deposition is herein before set forth, was

12· ·duly sworn by me and that such deposition is

13· ·a true record of the testimony given by such

14· ·witness.

15· · · · ·I further certify that I am not

16· ·related to any of the parties to this action

17· ·by blood or marriage and that I am in no way

18· ·interested in the outcome of this matter.

19· · · · ·In witness whereof, I have hereunto

20· ·set my hand this 19th day of December 2019.

21

22· · · · · · · ·------------------------------· · · · · · · · ·KATHY S. KLEPFER, RPR, RMR, CRR, CLR 23

24

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DocuCmoennftid1e7n0t-i3a5l Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:2780

·1· · · · · · ·SUNIL GULATI - CONFIDENTIAL

Page 124

·2· ·NAME OF CASE:· A. Morgan v. USSF

·3· ·DATE OF DEPOSITION:· December 17, 2019

·4· ·NAME OF WITNESS:· Sunil Gulati

·5· ·Reason Codes:

·6· · · · 1.· To clarify the record. · · · · · 2.· To conform to the facts. ·7· · · · 3.· To correct transcription errors.

·8· ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ · · ·From _____________________ to _____________________ ·9 · · ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ 10· ·From _____________________ to _____________________

11· ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ · · ·From _____________________ to _____________________ 12 · · ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ 13· ·From _____________________ to _____________________

14· ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ · · ·From _____________________ to _____________________ 15 · · ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ 16· ·From _____________________ to _____________________

17· ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ · · ·From _____________________ to _____________________ 18 · · ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ 19· ·From _____________________ to _____________________

20· ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ · · ·From _____________________ to _____________________ 21 · · ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ 22· ·From _____________________ to _____________________

23· ·Page ______ Line ______ Reason ______ · · ·From _____________________ to _____________________ 24

25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · __________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · SUNIL GULATI

TSG Reporting - Worldwide· 877-702-9580

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-36 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2781

1 Jeffrey L. Kessler (admitted pro hac vice) jkessler@winston.com
2 David G. Feher (admitted pro hac vice) dfeher@winston.com
3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue
4 New York, New York 10166 Telephone: (212) 294- 6700
5 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700

6 Cardelle B. Spangler (admitted pro hac vice) cspangler@winston.com
7 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive
8 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600
9 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700

10 Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606) dhleiden@winston.com
11 Lev Tsukerman (SBN: 319184) ltsukerman@winston.com
12 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071
13 Tel: (213) 615-1700 Fax: (213) 615-1750
14 Jeanifer E. Parsigian (SBN: 289001)
15 jparsigian@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
16 101 California St., 35th Floor San Francisco, California 94111
17 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -WESTERN DIVISION

21

22 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

23

Plaintiffs/Claimants,

Assigned to: Judge R. Gary Klausner

24 v.

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF

25 UNITED STATES SOCCER

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

26 FEDERATION, INC.,

Date: March 30, 2020

27

Defendant/Respondent. Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 850

28

1
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-36 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2782

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and in support of the concurrently filed

2 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

3 take judicial notice of the following attached exhibits:

4

1. Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the webpage

5 https://www.ussoccer.com/teams/uswnt as of February 20, 2020. This webpage is titled

6 “U.S. Women’s National Team” and was obtained from defendant United States Soccer

7 Federation, Inc.’s (“USSF”) own website.

8

2. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the webpage

9 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-resolution/462/text as of

10 February 20, 2020. This webpage is from a government website, as indicated by the

11 “congress.gov” URL.

12

3. Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the webpage

13 https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba.html

14 as of February 20, 2020. This webpage is titled “Statement About the USWNT 2017-

15 2021 CBA” and contains a statement issued by and from the website of the United States

16 National Soccer Team Players Association, the union for the U.S. Men’s National

17 Soccer Team, on February 12, 2020.

18

4. Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the webpage

19 https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/equal_pay_day.cfm as of February 20, 2020.

20 This webpage is from a government website, as indicated by the “eeoc.gov” URL.

21

5. Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a printout of the U.S. Soccer Safe

22 Soccer Framework handbook that was downloaded from the website

23 https://www.safesoccer.com/ on February 20, 2020. USSF’s website

24 (https://www.ussoccer.com/safe-soccer/faq/policies-and-reporting) directs viewers to

25 this website to obtain a copy of the U.S. Soccer Safe Soccer Framework handbook.

26

Courts may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” if

27 those facts “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy

28 cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). “Courts routinely take
1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-36 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:2783

1 judicial notice of documents found on the internet.” Platte River Ins. Co. v. P & E

2 Automation, Inc., No. 12-CV-05778-JGB-AJW, 2013 WL 12123688, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

3 June 19, 2013); see, e.g., Dzinesquare, Inc. v. Armano Luxury Alloys, Inc., No. 14-CV-

4 01918-JVS-JCGx, 2014 WL 12597154, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2014) (taking

5 judicial notice of webpages, screenshots of webpages, and internet archives); Baxter v.

6 Intelius, Inc., No. 09-CV-1031-AG-MLGx, 2010 WL 3791487, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Sept.

7 16, 2010) (taking judicial notice of webpage). And “information made publicly

8 available on a website maintained by a government entity is [also] judicially

9 noticeable.” Platte River, 2013 WL 12123688, at *2 (listing cases) (taking judicial

10 notice of “documents obtained from publicly accessible websites maintained by

11 government entities”); see, e.g., L’Garde, Inc. v. Raytheon Space & Airborne Sys., 805

12 F. Supp. 2d 932, 937–38 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

13

Here, Exhibit 1 is a printout directly from USSF’s own website. USSF thus

14 cannot credibly dispute the accuracy of its contents. And Exhibit 3 is a printout of a

15 public statement issued by the United States National Soccer Team Players

16 Association—the union with which USSF negotiates the collective bargaining

17 agreements for the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team. USSF again has no reasonable

18 basis to contest the accuracy of Exhibit 3. Similarly, USSF’s own website

19 (https://www.ussoccer.com/safe-soccer/faq/policies-and-reporting) directs consumers

20 to https://www.safesoccer.com/ to obtain a copy of the U.S. Soccer Safe Soccer

21 Framework handbook (Exhibit 5). This Court may take judicial notice of all three

22 webpage printouts. Platte River, 2013 WL 12123688, at *2; Dzinesquare, 2014 WL

23 12597154, at *2–3. And because Exhibits 2 and 4 are both “documents obtained from

24 publicly accessible websites maintained by government entities,” the Equal

25 Employment Opportunity Commission and Congress, this Court may take judicial

26 notice of these documents too. Platte River, 2013 WL 12123688, at *2.

27

For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court take judicial

28 notice of the documents attached hereto as Exhibits 1 through 5.
2 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-36 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:2784

1 Dated: February 20, 2020 2 3 4 5

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler Jeffrey L. Kessler Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
3 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:2785
EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:2786

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:2787

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:2788

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:2789

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:2790

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:2791

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:2792

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:2793

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:2794

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:2795

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:2796

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:2797

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:2798

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:2799

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:2800

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:2801

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:2802

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:2803

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:2804

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-37 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:2805

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-38 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2806
EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-38 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:2807

2/20/2020 Case T2ex:1t -9S-.cRevs-.046127- 11174-thRCGonKgr-eAssG(2R015-2D01o6c):uAmreesonluttio1n7u0rg-in3g8the FUnilietedd S0ta2te/s2S0o/c2ce0r FePdearagtieon3to oimfm4ediaPtelay geleimiInDate gende… Whereas the participation of girls in high school soc#c:e2r8p0ro8grams increased by approximately 45 percent
between 1999 and 2014;
Whereas the participation of girls in team sports results in lifelong improvements to the educational, work, and health prospects of the girls;
Whereas the United States Soccer Federation is the governing body of soccer in all forms in the United States and endeavors to make soccer a preeminent sport in the United States;
Whereas the United States Women’s National Team has won 3 Federation Internationale de Football Association (commonly referred to as “FIFA”) Women’s World Cups, 4 Olympic Gold Medals, and 7 Confederation of North, Central America, and Caribbean Association Football (commonly referred to as “CONCACAF”) Gold Cups;
Whereas the United States Women’s National Team is ranked first in the world as of the date of adoption of this resolution;
Whereas the 2015 final Women’s World Cup match generated an audience of approximately 750,000,000 viewers worldwide and more than 25,000,000 viewers in the United States, the largest audience of any soccer game shown in the United States on English language television;
Whereas the members of the United States Women’s National Team are some of the most visible athletes in the world and serve as an inspiration and as role models to young athletes across the United States and worldwide;
Whereas the members of the United States Women’s National Team, despite the international success of the members, are consistently paid less than similarly situated members of the United States Men’s National Team for doing the same job, regardless of the performance of the teams;
Whereas a woman in 1963 was paid on average only 59 cents for each dollar paid to a male counterpart;
Whereas, in 1963, Congress passed and President Kennedy signed the landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. 201 note; Public Law 88–38) (referred to in this preamble as the “Equal Pay Act”), unequivocally affirming that women deserve equal pay for equal work;
Whereas the enactment of the Equal Pay Act laid the groundwork for title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) and title IX, which together vastly expanded opportunities for girls and women at school and work;
Whereas the pay disparities suffered by the members of the United States Women’s National Team are reflective of the reality of many women in the United States who, more than 50 years after the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, still make on average only 79 cents for each dollar made by a male counterpart;
Whereas those pay disparities exist in both the private and the public sectors and, in many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination;
Whereas unequal pay on the basis of gender tells women and girls that, whether on the soccer field or in the office, the hard work of the women or girls is not valued equally to that of male counterparts;
Whereas unequal pay on the basis of gender violates generally held beliefs regarding equality and fundamental fairness;
Whereas the wage gap equals approximately $10,762 less per year in median earnings for women and their families compared to men;
Whereas, compared to the earnings of White, non-Hispanic men, women on average face a lifetime wage gap of $430,480, African-American women on average face a lifetime wage gap of $877,480, and Latinas on average face a lifetime wage gap of $1,007,080; and
Whereas unequal pay on the basis of gender threatens the economic security of women and their families while the women are in the workforce and the retirement security of women after the women have left the workforce: Now, therefore, be it

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-resolution/462/text

2/3

2/20/2020 Case T2ex:1t -9S-.cRevs-.046127- 11174-thRCGonKgr-eAssG(2R015-2D01o6c):uAmreesonluttio1n7u0rg-in3g8the FUnilietedd S0ta2te/s2S0o/c2ce0r FePdearagtieon4to oimfm4ediaPtelay geleimiInDate gende…

Resolved, That the Senate—

#:2809

(1) urges the United States Soccer Federation to immediately end gender pay inequity and to treat all athletes with the respect and dignity those athletes deserve;

(2) supports an end to pay discrimination based on gender and the strengthening of equal pay protections; and

(3) instructs the Secretary of the Senate to submit a copy of this resolution to the United States Soccer Federation.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-resolution/462/text

3/3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:2810
EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2811

Statement about the USWNT 2017-2021 CBA | US Soccer Players
Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:2812
Historically, the Federation has used that monopoly power as a weapon against the players. For many years they refused to pay players at all. The Federation benefitted from ticket sales, sponsorship, and merchandising while paying players as little as possible. Even now, they use player names, photos, and footage to create implied endorsements by players of Federation sponsors and sponsor products the players do not use, while not paying the players.
USMNT and USWNT players have always received less than fair compensation when playing for the National Teams. At the same time, every training session and game carries the risk of injury.
For the past 40 years, the Federation fought individual player efforts to convince the Federation to pay fair compensation to the professional athletes who represent the United States in international competitions. To try to change that, in 1995 the USMNT players were the first United States National Team in any sport to form a labor organization. The USWNT players followed a few years later. It took unfair labor practice charges filed by the USMNT players and a 1997 National Labor Relations Board action to force the Federation to even recognize and negotiate with the USNSTPA.
After the USMNT and USWNT organized in the late 1990s, a pattern developed that has continued for more than twenty years. With soccer’s popularity in the United States continually rising, the only way for USMNT players to convince the Federation to improve their wages and working conditions has been to come close to a work stoppage. In 1996 that meant the Federation sending replacement players to play a friendly against Peru and in 2005 that meant US Soccer calling up lower division replacement players to prepare for a World Cup qualifier against Mexico. Each time the players refused to be bullied, eventually securing improved compensation and working conditions.
The Federation norm is forcing players to play under expired collective bargaining agreements, sometimes for over two years. Historically, the Federation has justified its unreasonable proposals by claiming its financial future was uncertain. The Federation still claims it cannot afford to pay the players a fair share of the Federation’s revenue from selling the efforts of those players to fans, sponsors, and television.
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba html[2/20/2020 12:43:56 AM]

Statement about the USWNT 2017-2021 CBA | US Soccer Players
Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:2813
The USMNT players stood together and eventually negotiated substantial increases with the Federation in 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2011. As a result, player compensation increased. However, it never came close to a fair percentage of the Federation’s National Team revenues.
The US Women normally negotiated after the men. With our unions working together since 1999, the goal was always to secure for the women comparable gains in pay and working conditions. For more than 20 years, the Federation has resisted any concept of equal pay or basic economic fairness for the USWNT players. Historically, the Federation also refused to include in the women’s CBA the same provisions as the men’s with respect to air travel, hotels, etc. This is systematic gender discrimination that should have never happened.
The current USWNT dispute relates to the agreement the USNSTPA negotiated on behalf of the men in 2011 for 2011-18. From 2003 to 2010, the Federation’s revenues related to the men’s national team and sponsorship of that team had increased significantly. The USMNT players were due for dramatic compensation increases. The men’s 2011-2018 deal was negotiated just at the end of the country’s financial crisis, with the Federation claiming its economic future was uncertain. Given the Federation’s claimed fear of financial uncertainty in 2011, the USMNT players agreed that during the eight years of the new CBA (2011-2018), player compensation would only increase by 25%, a rate of just about 2.8% per year.
As it turns out, 2011-2018 were spectacular years of financial growth and prosperity for the Federation. While USMNT player compensation went up 25% over those eight years, the Federation’s revenues tripled.
In 2009 and 2010, the years with financial information available to the USMNT players when negotiating the 2011-2018 deal, the Federation reported annual cash sponsorship, television, and licensing revenue of about $16 million. Total men’s and women’s National Team game revenue was about $12 million annually. The Federation had just over $50 million in the bank to cover any losses if the economy did not recover. So, as of 2011, when the men executed their CBA, the Federation received $28 million in annual cash revenue related to the men’s and women’s National Teams, with just over $50 million in the bank.
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba html[2/20/2020 12:43:56 AM]

Statement about the USWNT 2017-2021 CBA | US Soccer Players
Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:2814
By 2017, when the USWNT players were conducting their most recent CBA negotiations, the Federation’s annual sponsorship, television, and licensing revenue had grown from $16 million in 2011 to over $49 million. Annual National Team revenues at that time ranged from $29 to $55 million. The Federation had $168 million of net assets. The annual combined revenue related to the men’s and women’s national teams had increased to between $78 and $104 million, with over $168 million in the bank. Once again, both National Team revenues and Federation assets in reserve had tripled.
With the women going first, negotiating a new deal in 2017, the expectation was for dramatic increases in their compensation, comparable to the Federation’s triple-digit increases in revenue. Instead, the women’s 20172021 CBA did not bring the women equality in working conditions and the women did not benefit from the dramatic increase in revenue associated with the USWNT. In fact, in 2017 the Federation insisted the women sign a 20172021 deal that was worse financially than the men’s soon-to-expire 20112018 CBA that had been negotiated six years earlier.
The equal pay dispute, filed by members of the women’s National Team and set for trial in the spring, compares the women’s 2017-2021 deal with the expired men’s CBA negotiated in 2011. The correct comparison should be between what the women got with their 2017-2021 deal and triple what the Federation agreed to pay the men in 2011 or whatever the men negotiate in their new CBA that will be retroactive to January 1, 2019. Those comparisons are what make it clear that the Federation had no intention of compensating the women fairly.
Which brings us to the real issue here. Our view is as follows. Yes, the women’s 2017-2021 deal is worse than the men’s 2011-2018 deal. Yes, the Federation continues to discriminate against the women in their wages and working conditions. We understand why the Federation’s control, not only over the USWNT but also over the only women’s professional league in the United States, the NWSL, might have created tremendous pressure on the USWNT players to get a deal done, even if it was on completely unfair and discriminatory terms. Faced with a monopolist controlling their two primary potential employers and aware that a work stoppage could destroy the third effort at a women’s professional soccer league in the United States, it is our view that the women had no reasonable alternative but to accept the 2017-
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba html[2/20/2020 12:43:56 AM]

Statement about the USWNT 2017-2021 CBA | US Soccer Players
Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 12 Page ID
2021 terms the Federation demanded. #:2815
What we believe should happen is simple. Pay the women significantly more than our recently expired men’s deal. In our estimation, the women were due at least triple what our expired deal was worth in player compensation. We believe the Federation should have agreed to a deal directly tied to a fair share of the revenue players generate. That is what should have happened, based on the entire history of labor negotiations involving the men and women players and the Federation.
Now, the Federation is taking the frivolous position that the USMNT players’ compensation should also stay at those 2011-2018 numbers. This is not because there is any basis for that position. Instead, it’s a desperate attempt to cover-up the fact that what they did to the women in 2017 is indefensible.
Has the new leadership of the Federation simply admitted that what the former leadership did was wrong? Have they offered to negotiate a new, fair deal with the USWNT representatives? Of course not. Instead, the Federation has doubled down on its misconduct. Rather than promote the sport of soccer in positive ways, they are involved in constant disputes and litigation. Rather than share the massive surpluses the women helped generate with the players, they are using those funds to dramatically increase the Federation’s annual legal fee budget to over $10 million to try to impose massive legal fees the women cannot afford. They’re lobbying and using every legal trick in the book to try to distract Congress, the Judge, and the soon-to-be-empaneled jury.
With that mindset, the multiple litigations involving the US Soccer Federation are no surprise. They’re trying to protect their monopoly, their massive revenue streams, and their continued ability to exploit US National Team players.
It is time for this to stop. The Courts, juries, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, Congress, new Federation leadership, or a combination of all five need to reform the Federation. The exploitation of athletes to generate revenues that are siphoned off to benefit owners of forprofit leagues and teams, Federation personnel with massive above-market salaries and bonuses, and self-promoting all-expenses-paid Federation “volunteers,” must end. The practice of paying multi-million dollar bonuses to
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba html[2/20/2020 12:43:56 AM]

Statement about the USWNT 2017-2021 CBA | US Soccer Players
Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 12 Page ID
personnel associated with the Federation#:f2o8r1r6unning various Federationcontrolled tournaments in the United States should be investigated and outlawed. Soccer is perhaps the most corrupt sport in the World. We do not want a US Soccer Federation that behaves like FIFA.
What can you do? Tell the Federation’s sponsors you will not support them until the Federation starts doing the right thing and gives the women a new CBA that pays a fair share of the gate receipts and that television and sponsorship revenue to the players. Write to your Congressional representatives and tell them it is time to reform the Federation. Let the Federation know that you do not believe the false narrative they are circulating. Support the players, not the Federation.
152
FILED UNDER: FEATURED, SOCCER NEWS, TOP POSTS, USMNT TAGGED WITH: US SOCCER
IS THE CONCACAF CHAMPIONS LEAGUE IMPORTANT?
BY J HUTCHERSON
Even with Major League Soccer’s inability to produce a winner, it’s worth asking if the Concacaf Champions League deserves its place on the schedule.
FAMILIAR EXPECTATIONS FOR MLS IN THE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE
BY CLEMENTE LISI
It’s the same old problem for MLS in the 2020 edition, playing games that count before the start of Major League Soccer’s regular season.
MLS EMBRACES THE TRANSFER SAGA
BY JASON DAVIS
MLS changed its approach to the transfer market with clubs paying sizable fees to add designated players and change the scope of the league.
MORE FROM OUR WRITERS
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba html[2/20/2020 12:43:56 AM]

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:2817

Statement about the USWNT 2017-2021 CBA | US Soccer Players
Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:2818
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba html[2/20/2020 12:43:56 AM]

Statement about the USWNT 2017-2021 CBA | US Soccer Players
Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:2819
https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba html[2/20/2020 12:43:56 AM]

Statement about the USWNT 2017-2021 CBA | US Soccer Players
Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:2820
FOLLOW US SOCCER PLAYERS https://ussoccerplayers.com/2020/02/statement-about-the-uswnt-2017-2021-cba html[2/20/2020 12:43:56 AM]

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 170-39 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:2821

 
 Alex Morgan et al v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Docket No. 2_19-cv-01717 (C.D. Cal. Mar 08, 2019), Court Docket

Multiple Documents

Part Description

1

3 pages

2

Memorandum Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of i

3

Exhibit Defendant's Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of La

4

Declaration Gulati Declaration

5

Exhibit 1 to Gulati Declaration - Britanica World Cup

6

Exhibit 2 - to Gulati Declaration - 2010 MWC Television Audience Report

7

Exhibit 3 to Gulati Declaration - 2014 MWC Television Audience Report

Alex Morgan et al v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Docket No. 2_19-cv-01717 (C.D. Cal. Mar 08, 2019), Court Docket
8 Exhibit 4 to Gulati Declaration - 2018 MWC Television Audience Report 9 Exhibit 5 to Gulati Declaration - 2011 WWC TElevision Audience Report 10 Exhibit 6 to Gulati Declaration - 2015 WWC Television Audience Report 11 Exhibit 7 to Gulati Declaration - 2019 WWC Television Audience Report 12 Exhibit 8 to Gulati Declaration - 2010 Prize Money Memorandum 13 Exhibit 9 to Gulati Declaration - 2011 Prize Money Memorandum 14 Exhibit 10 to Gulati Declaration - 2014 Prize Money Memorandum 15 Exhibit 11 to Gulati Declaration - 2015 Prize Money Memorandum 16 Exhibit 12 to Gulati Declaration - 2019 Prize Money Memorandum 17 Exhibit 13 to Gulati Declaration - 3-19-13 MOU 18 Exhibit 14 to Gulati Declaration - 11-1-12 WNTPA Proposal 19 Exhibit 15 to Gulati Declaration - 12-4-12 Gleason Email Financial Proposal 20 Exhibit 15a to Gulati Declaration - 12-3-12 USSF Proposed financial Terms 21 Exhibit 16 to Gulati Declaration - Gleason 2005-2011 Revenue 22 Declaration Tom King Declaration 23 Exhibit 1 to King Declaration - Men's CBA 24 Exhibit 2 to King Declaration - Stolzenbach to Levinstein Email 25 Exhibit 3 to King Declaration - 2005 WNT CBA

Alex Morgan et al v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Docket No. 2_19-cv-01717 (C.D. Cal. Mar 08, 2019), Court Docket
26 Exhibit 4 to King Declaration - 3-19-13 WNTPA Executed MOU and Correspondence 27 Exhibit 5 to King Declaration - 2017 CBA 28 Exhibit 6 to King Declaration - 1-4-16 Nichols Email and Proposal 29 Exhibit 7 to King Declaration - 5-9-16 AGM Budget File 30 Exhibit 8 to King Declaration - 6-1-16 WNTPA MAG Memo 31 Exhibit 9 to King Declaration - 7-6-16 US Soccer Proposal on Minimum Number of G 32 Exhibit 10 to King Declaration - USSF Produced Version of WNTPA 2-8-17 Compensat 33 Exhibit 11 to King Declaration - USSFs 2-9 Comp Proposal 34 Exhibit 12 to King Declaration - Proposed Partnership Bnus 35 Exhibit 13 to King Declaration - WNTPA 2-14 Comp Proposal 36 Exhibit 14 to King Declaration - WNTPA 2-15 Comp Proposal 37 Exhibit 15 to King Declaration - WNTPA 3-9 Comp Proposal 38 Exhibit 16 to King Declaration - 3-16 USSF Financial Proposal 39 Exhibit 17 to King Declaration - 3-29 WNTPA Financial Proposal 40 Exhibit 18 to King Declaration - WNT Rankings and Results 41 Exhibit 19 to King Declaration - MNT Rankings and Results 42 Exhibit 20 to King Declaration - WNT Surface and Flights 43 Exhibit 21 to King Declaration - MNT Surface and Flights 44 Declaration Carlyn Irwn Declaration 45 Exhibit 1 to Irwin Declaration - Expert Report 46 Declaration Changelle Egan Declaration 47 Exhibit 1 - EEOC Charges 48 Declaration Praptika Raina Declaration 49 Exhibit Lloyd Transcript Excerpts 50 Exhibit Lloyd Exhibit 15 - 8-31-15 Lloyd Email to JWeil 51 Exhibit Rapinoe Transcript Excerpts 52 Exhibit Rapinoe Exhibit 29 - Transcript of Video 53 Exhibit Rapinoe Exhibit 32 - Caitlin Murray Tweet 54 Exhibit Klingenberg Transcript Excerpts 55 Exhibit Klingenberg Exhibit 7 - American Voices Article 56 Exhibit Langel 2016 Transcript Excerpts 57 Exhibit Roux Transcript Excerpts 58 Exhibit Roux Exhibit 5 - Constitution and Bylaws 59 Exhibit Roux Exhibit 18 - 10-8-19 Roux Declaration 60 Exhibit Roux Exhibit 37 - 3-29-17 Proposed WNT CBA Financial Terms 61 Exhibit Nichols Transcript Excerpts

Alex Morgan et al v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., Docket No. 2_19-cv-01717 (C.D. Cal. Mar 08, 2019), Court Docket
62 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 4 - 7-15-16 Judgment and 6-3-16 Opinion and Order 63 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 17 - 12-24-15 Nichols Emaiul to Levine 64 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 19 - 1-4-16 Nichols Email to Levine 65 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 31 - 6-20-16 - Nichols Email to Levine 66 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 33 - 7-22-16 Nichols Email to Levine 67 Exhibit Langel Transcript Excerpts 68 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 1 - Langel Bio 69 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 4 - 11-1-12 Langel Memo 70 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 6 - 11-24-14 Langel Email to Gulati, Flynn and Levine 71 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 14 - 12-6-12 - Langel Email to Gulati and Levine 72 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 15 - 12-10-12 Levine Letter to Langel 73 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 19 - 2-20-13 Levine Email to Langel and Uselton 74 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 20 - 2-19-13 Levine Letter to Lange 75 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 21 - 2-28-13 - Langel MEmo to Levine 76 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 23 - 3-5-13 Levine Email to Langel and Gulati 77 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 25 - 3-8-13 Gulati Email to Langel 78 Exhibit Supplemental Interrogatory Responses 79 Proposed Order Proposed Order

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2893

1 Ellen E. McLaughlin (Pro Hac Vice) Email: emclaughlin@seyfarth.com
2 Noah Finkel (Pro Hac Vice) Email: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
3 Brian Stolzenbach (Pro Hac Vice) Email: bstolzenbach@seyfarth.com
4 Sharilee Smentek (Pro Hac Vice) Email: ssmentek@seyfarth.com
5 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448
6 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
7 Kristen M. Peters (SBN 252296)
8 Email: kmpeters@seyfarth.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2500
9 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200
10 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219

11 Chantelle C. Egan (SBN 257938) Email: cegan@seyfarth.com
12 Giovanna A. Ferrari (SBN 229871) Email: gferrari@seyfarth.com
13 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, California 94105
14 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-5849
15 Kyllan Kershaw (Pro Hac Vice)
16 Email: kkershaw@seyfarth.com 1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2500
17 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500
18 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056

19 Counsel for Defendant U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.
20

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

24

Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26 U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.,

27

Defendant.

28

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

Date Time Judge Crtrm.

: March 30, 2020 : 9:00 a.m. : Hon. R. Gary Klausner : 850

61889735v.1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2894

1

[Filed concurrently with Memorandum of

Points and Authorities; Statement of

2

Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of

Law; Declarations of Chantelle Egan,

3

Sunil Gulati, Tom King, Carlyn Irwin,

Praptika Raina; Deposition Excerpts of

4

Megan Rapinoe, Meghan Klingenberg,

Rebecca Roux, John Langel, Kelley

5

O’Hara, Carli Lloyd, ;Rich Nichols and

[Proposed] Judgment]]

6

Complaint Filed : March 8, 2019

7

Trial Date

: May 5, 2020

8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

9 TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

10

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 30, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon

11 thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 850 of the United States District

12 Court, Central District of California, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles,

13 California, the Honorable R. Gary Klausner presiding, Defendant U.S. SOCCER

14 FEDERATION, INC. (“U.S. Soccer”) will and hereby does move this Court for summary

15 judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

16 Procedure and Central District Local Rule 56.

17 This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local

18 Rule 7-3 which took place on February 11, 2020.

19 U.S. Soccer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims is made on the

20 following grounds:

21 Pay Discrimination - Equal Pay Act and Title VII

22 1. U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims of pay

23 discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

24 because (i) U.S. Soccer did not pay higher wages to the Men’s National Team (MNT)

25 players than to Plaintiffs; (ii) Plaintiffs do not work in the same establishment as the

26 MNT players; (iii) Plaintiffs and the MNT players do not perform equal work requiring

27

28 1

61889735v.1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2895

1 equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions; and (iv) any pay

2 differential is based on factors other than sex.

3 Discrimination in Other Terms and Conditions of Employment (Title VII)
4 2. U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims for
5 discrimination in other terms and conditions of employment because Plaintiffs failed to
6 exhaust their administrative remedies and because there is no evidence to support
7 Plaintiffs’ claim that any differences between how often they and MNT players flew
8 charter flights or played on artificial turf was because of sex.
9 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
10 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and
11 Conclusions of Law, the Declarations of Chantelle Egan, Sunil Gulati, Tom King,
12 Praptika Raina, Carlyn Irwin; Deposition Excerpts of Megan Rapinoe, Meghan
13 Klingenberg, Rebecca Roux, John Langel, Kelley O’Hara, Carli Lloyd, and Rich Nichols;
14 and all pleadings and papers on file in this action to which the Court may take judicial
15 notice, and such other matters as may be presented to the Court prior to or at the hearing.
16 WHEREFORE, U.S. Soccer respectfully moves the Court for an order granting its
17 motion for summary judgment and dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims in this matter, with
18 prejudice.
19

20 21 DATED: February 20, 2020

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

22

23

By: /s/ Brian Stolzenbach Brian Stolzenbach

24

25

26

27

28

2

61889735v.1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:2896

1 Ellen E. McLaughlin (Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: emclaughlin@seyfarth.com
2 Noah Finkel (Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
3 Brian Stolzenbach (Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: bstolzenbach@seyfarth.com
4 Sharilee Smentek (Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: ssmentek@seyfarth.com
5 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448
6 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
7 Kristen M. Peters (SBN 252296)
8 E-mail: kmpeters@seyfarth.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
9 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200
10 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219

11 Chantelle C. Egan (SBN 257938) cegan@seyfarth.com
12 Giovanna A. Ferrari (SBN 229871) gferrari@seyfarth.com
13 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, California 94105
14 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
15 Kyllan Kershaw (Pro Hac Vice)
16 kkershaw@seyfarth.com 1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2500
17 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500
18 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056

19 Counsel for Defendant

U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,
23 Plaintiffs,
24 v.
25 U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.,
26 Defendant.
27

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner Hearing: March 30, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.

28

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:2897

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

3 II. U.S. SOCCER HAS NOT ENGAGED IN PAY DISCRIMINATION. ................... 5

4

A. Plaintiffs Have Not Been Paid Lower Wages Than MNT Players................. 5

5

B. Plaintiffs Do Not Work in the Same Establishment as the MNT. .................. 9

6

C. Plaintiffs and MNT Players Do Not Perform Equal Work on Jobs

7

Requiring Equal Skill, Effort, and Responsibility Under Similar Working Conditions. ..................................................................................... 10

8

D. Any Pay Differential Results From Factors Other Than Sex. ...................... 14

9

1. Plaintiffs’ Pay Resulted from Compromises in Bargaining. ................. 15

10

2. Revenue Differentials Are a Legitimate Factor Other than Sex............ 20

11 III. PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE VII CLAIMS RELATED TO ARTIFICIAL TURF

12

AND AIR TRAVEL ALSO SHOULD BE DISMISSED....................................... 22

13

A. Plaintiffs Failed To Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies. ..................... 22

14

B. Plaintiffs Cannot Point To Any Evidence of Sex Discrimination. ............... 22

15 IV. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 24

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:2898

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page(s)

3 Federal Cases

4 A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling,

324 U.S. 490 (1945)...................................................................................................... 10

5

AFSCME v. State of Washington,

6

770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................... 11

7 Bartges v. UNC Charlotte,

908 F. Supp. 1312 (W.D.N.C.), aff’d, 94 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 1996) ............................. 20

8

Bence v. Detroit Health Corp.,

9

712 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................ 9

10 Bertotti v. Philbeck, Inc.,

827 F. Supp. 1005 (S.D. Ga. 1993) ................................................................................ 8

11

Byrd v. Ronayne,

12

61 F.3d 1026 (1st Cir. 1995)......................................................................................... 20

13 Diamond v. T. Rowe Price Assocs., Inc.,

852 F. Supp. 372 (D. Md. 1994)................................................................................... 15

14

Ebbert v. Nassau Cnty.,

15

No. 05-CV-5445 (FB)(AKT), 2009 WL 935812 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31,

2009) ............................................................................................................................... 9

16

EEOC v. Kettler Bros. Inc.,

17

846 F.2d 70, 1988 WL 41053 (4th Cir. 1988) (unpub.) ................................................. 9

18 Foster v. Arcata Assocs., Inc.,

772 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................... 10

19

Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist.,

20

291 F.3d 632 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................ 22

21 Gallagher v. Kleinwort Benson Gov’t Sec., Inc.,

698 F. Supp. 1401 (N.D. Ill. 1988) ................................................................................. 8

22

Griffin v. Boeing Co.,

23

678 F. App’x 588 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................... 9

24 Grosz v. Boeing Co.,

455 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2006) .................................................................... 9, 15

25

Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc.,

26

615 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 22, 23

27 Hodgson v. Robert Hall Clothiers, 473 F.2d 589 (3rd Cir. 1973) ........................................................................................ 20
28

ii DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:2899

1 Huebner v. ESEC, Inc.,

No. CV 01-0157-PHX-PGR, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28289 (D. Ariz.

2

March 26, 2003).............................................................................................................. 8

3 Kob v. Cty. of Marin,

425 F. App’x 634 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 12

4

Lemons v. City & Cty. of Denver,

5

620 F.2d 228 (10th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................... 11

6 Marting v. Crawford & Co.,

203 F. Supp. 2d 958 (N.D. Ill. 2002) .............................................................................. 8

7

Maxwell v. City of Tuscon,

8

803 F.2d 444 (9th Cir. 1986) .......................................................................................... 5

9 Mitchell v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp.,

No. 4:09-CV-224, 2010 WL 3855547 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2010) .................................. 9

10

Perkins v. Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc.,

11

700 F. App’x 452 (6th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 15

12 Renstrom v. Nash Finch Co.,

787 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Minn. 2011)........................................................................... 10

13

Ruffin v. Los Angeles Cty.,

14

607 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1979) ...................................................................................... 13

15 Sims-Fingers v. City of Indianapolis,

493 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................. 11, 14

16

Spaulding v. Univ. of Washington,

17

740 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1984) ........................................................................................ 12

18 Spencer v. Virginia State Univ.,

919 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................ 11

19

Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal.,

20

13 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................ 13

21 Vasquez v. Cty. of Los Angeles,

349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended (Jan. 2, 2004) ............................................ 24

22

Weaver v. Ohio State University,

23

71 F. Supp. 2d 789 (S.D. Ohio 1998), aff’d, 191 F.3d 1315 (6th Cir.

1999) ............................................................................................................................. 13

24

Wheatley v. Wicomico Cty., Maryland,

25

390 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 13

26 Federal Statutes

27 29 U.S.C. § 158(d) ............................................................................................................. 16

28 29 U.S.C. § 159(a) ............................................................................................................. 16

iii

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:2900
1 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) ............................................................................................................... 7 2 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)....................................................................................................... 5, 9 3 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).................................................................................................. 22 4 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).................................................................................................. 13 5 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h) ........................................................................................................ 5 6 Regulations 7 29 C.F.R. § 531.40(c)....................................................................................................... 6, 8 8 29 C.F.R. § 1620.10 ......................................................................................................... 6, 8 9 29 C.F.R. § 1620.12 ............................................................................................................. 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
iv

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:2901

1 I. INTRODUCTION

2

U.S. Soccer is aware of the public narrative surrounding this lawsuit, but the

3 undisputed facts tell a much different story, and the Court sits to render judgment based

4 on the actual facts in the record and the governing law. On those grounds, the Court

5 should grant summary judgment for U.S. Soccer and dismiss this lawsuit in its entirety.

6

U.S. Soccer is proud to be associated with the players on its Senior Women’s National

7 Team (WNT), of the success they have achieved, and of its own role in championing

8 women’s soccer within the United States and on the world stage. As Plaintiff Megan

9 Rapinoe acknowledges, U.S. Soccer “deserves a tremendous amount of credit” for

10 “back[ing] the team in a very strong way” and “push[ing] the game . . . in our country

11 [and] around the world.” (Rapinoe Ex. 32.) One way U.S. Soccer supports the WNT is by

12 providing its players with substantial compensation and other valuable benefits. This

13 compensation and benefits package is determined through the collective bargaining

14 process, during which the players are represented by the Women’s National Team

15 Players Association (WNTPA), a union the players organized to represent themselves

16 (and only themselves). (King Dec. ¶ 12-14, Ex. 3-4.) During the contract negotiations

17 relevant to this case, the WNTPA consistently demanded a very different collective

18 bargaining agreement from the one covering players on the Senior Men’s National Team

19 (MNT) (which is negotiated by a different union representing only the MNT players).

20 (Gulati Dec. ¶ 66, 68, 73, Ex. 14, 15; Langel Dep. 71-77, 163-64, 188-89, 201-02, Ex. 14,

21 21, 25; King Dec. ¶ 7-8, 17, 23-24, 33, 38-40, 43, Ex. 1, 6, 8, 10, 13-15, 17.) As a result

22 of the collective bargaining process, the WNT players obtained many contract terms the

23 MNT players do not enjoy in their contract. (King Dec. Ex. 1, 3-5.) Among other things,

24 this includes six-figure salaries paid to WNT players independent of whether they

25 actually play, including guaranteed salary continuation during periods of injury; free

26 medical insurance; paid child care assistance; paid pregnancy and parental leave;

27 severance benefits; access to a retirement plan; three “partnership” bonuses (tied to

28 television ratings, sponsorship revenue, and ticket sales); more than $1 million annually

1 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:2902

1 to cover players’ salaries while playing in the National Women’s Soccer League

2 (NWSL); a $230,000 signing bonus paid directly to 23 players; and an annual $350,000

3 payment to the union in exchange for certain rights to use the players’ likenesses. (King

4 Ex. 1, Ex. 5 at 5, 14-15, 19, 23-24, 29-35.)

5

The end result is this: U.S. Soccer paid the WNT far more than the MNT over the past

6 five calendar years. Between the beginning of 2015 (the year encompassing the start of

7 the Title VII class period) and the end of 2019, U.S. Soccer paid the WNT players and

8 their union more than $37 million. (Irwin Dec. Ex. 1 at 13.) The corresponding figure for

9 the MNT is just north of $21 million. (Id.) Even setting aside (i) all the money paid to

10 players in the form of NWSL salaries and bonuses and (ii) all the money the players have

11 directed to their union instead of themselves, U.S. Soccer still has paid the WNT

12 $6 million more than the MNT over that same period. (Id. at 17.) Even controlling for the

13 number of games each team has played, U.S. Soccer still has paid the WNT more than

14 the MNT on a per-game basis. (Id. at 17-21.)

15

Plaintiffs nevertheless claim that U.S. Soccer has engaged in sex-based pay

16 discrimination against them. They contend that if a few provisions in their last two

17 collective bargaining agreements had been different, and had matched certain provisions

18 in the MNT’s collective bargaining agreement, then they would have been paid even

19 more money over the last five years. This is neither evidence of sex discrimination nor

20 consistent with the way collective bargaining is designed by federal labor law to work.

21 The WNTPA never asked U.S. Soccer for terms identical to those found in the MNT’s

22 contract; instead, the union asked for a very different contract containing valuable terms

23 not found in the MNT’s agreement. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 66, 68, 73, Ex. 14, 15; Langel Dep.

24 71-77, 163-64, 188-89, 201-02, Ex. 14, 21, 25; King Dec. ¶ 7-8, 17, 23-24, 33, 38-40, 43,

25 Ex. 1, 6, 8, 10, 13-15, 17.) U.S. Soccer responded by bargaining with the union, the

26 parties each made compromises, and the two sides ended up with a deal, just as the

27 federal labor laws envision. (King Dec. Ex. 4-5, 11, 12, 14-18; Langel Ex. 15, 19-21, 23;

28 Gulati Dec. Ex. 15; Rapinoe Dep. 223.)

2 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:2903

1

While the two deals are different, neither is better than the other. In simplest terms, the

2 MNT has a high-risk, high-reward agreement whereas the WNTPA negotiated for a deal

3 more heavily focused on stability and security for the players it represents. It would

4 contravene the law to let a jury retroactively and selectively rewrite Plaintiffs’ collective

5 bargaining agreement to give them the benefit of the high reward (while also keeping all

6 the other unique advantages of their agreement) when they never took the higher risk.

7

In any case, the law does not guarantee identical pay to men and women who perform

8 different work in different jobs. Plaintiffs would have the Court conclude that soccer is

9 soccer, so their jobs and the MNT players’ jobs must be the same, but even Plaintiffs do

10 not believe this. As Plaintiff Kelley O’Hara admits, it is not sex discrimination for U.S.

11 Soccer to pay her more than it pays men who compete in the Olympics “because it’s a

12 completely different tournament for the men and the women.” (O’Hara Dep. 113-14.)

13 Similarly, when asked if it is fair for U.S. Soccer to pay her more than it pays members

14 of the men’s national team that competed in the Paralympics, she simply answered that

15 she “would encourage them to bargain differently.” (Id. at. 177-78.)

16

In direct contravention of these very same principles, Plaintiffs ask the Court to

17 conclude that U.S. Soccer is required to pay them the same amount of money for winning

18 the Women’s World Cup that the MNT would have been paid if they had won the World

19 Cup for men. The undisputed facts, however, show that the two events are “completely

20 different tournaments” and that U.S. Soccer legitimately “bargained differently” to

21 determine the compensation for players competing in these two different competitions.

22 The qualifying process for the men’s tournament requires three times as many games and

23 requires the MNT to travel to Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean over the

24 course of several months, whereas the WNT participates in a two-week qualifying

25 tournament entirely on home turf. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 56-61.) Upon qualification, there are

26 25% more teams in the men’s tournament, over a billion more people watch it on

27 television, and there is a vast difference in the potential prize money the tournament

28 organizer (FIFA) pays to participants in the two different tournaments. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 21-

3 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:2904

1 22, Ex. 1-12.) If the MNT had won the 2018 World Cup, U.S. Soccer would have

2 received $38 million in prize money from FIFA, from which to pay the MNT their

3 contractually-negotiated bonuses. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 54.) In contrast, FIFA paid U.S. Soccer

4 $6 million, combined, in total prize money for the WNT’s two victories in the 2015 and

5 2019 Women’s World Cups. (Gulati Dec.¶ 53, 55, Ex. 11-12.) Most fundamentally, these

6 are two separate sports teams who play against entirely different sets of opponents in

7 different competitions, (Gulati Dec. ¶ 19-20, 23-43), and no one contends that Plaintiffs

8 would have achieved the same success had they been required to compete in the MNT’s

9 world. The law does not ensure equal pay between men and women who perform such

10 different jobs. To hold otherwise would be to adopt the “comparable worth” theory flatly

11 rejected by the courts, including the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs did not win the men’s World

12 Cup, and the law does not require U.S. Soccer to pay them as though they did.

13

U.S. Soccer did nothing wrong by agreeing with two different unions to two very

14 different pay structures for the two different teams to recognize their different situations,

15 their different demands in bargaining, and the large differential in potential revenue

16 streams generated by the two teams’ separate competitions. The law makes this clear, and

17 to hold otherwise would interfere with U.S. Soccer’s obligation to engage in the give-

18 and-take of good-faith bargaining required by federal labor law while honoring the

19 players’ choice to organize into two separate unions representing the unique interests of

20 each set of players. In fact, accepting Plaintiffs’ legal argument essentially would require

21 U.S. Soccer to insist on identical contracts with the two unions—a notion fundamentally

22 inconsistent with its duty to bargain in good faith with each union independently.

23

U.S. Soccer also did nothing wrong by making independent decisions about the

24 venues for the two teams’ games and the means of team travel to reach those venues. The

25 WNT has not played a game on artificial turf for more than two years, and they have

26 consistently used charter flights for team travel since the fall of 2018, but they complain

27 about having to play on artificial turf more often and having to fly on commercial airlines

28 more often than the MNT during a discrete period of time in the past. These claims

4 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:2905

1 should be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies on

2 those issues, but regardless, there is no evidence that U.S. Soccer made its decisions

3 about venues and air travel because of Plaintiffs’ sex. Rather, the two teams are different

4 in many ways other than sex, and it is these other differences, including differences in

5 schedules and playing locations, that drove U.S. Soccer’s choices in terms of venue

6 selection and method of travel; therefore, U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment.

7 II. U.S. SOCCER HAS NOT ENGAGED IN PAY DISCRIMINATION.

8

Plaintiffs cannot establish sex-based pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act

9 (EPA) or Title VII. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs contend that U.S. Soccer has

10 discriminated against them in violation of both statutes by “paying them less than

11 members of the MNT for substantially equal work.” (Dkt. 1 ¶ 4.) In such circumstances,

12 courts evaluate the claims under both statutes using the EPA’s statutory framework.

13 Maxwell v. City of Tuscon, 803 F.2d 444, 446 (9th Cir. 1986) (“When a Title VII

14 claimant contends that she has been denied equal pay for substantially equal work, as

15 here, Equal Pay Act standards apply.”). Specifically, Plaintiffs must prove that U.S.

16 Soccer paid them less than MNT players and also prove that they and the players on the

17 MNT perform equal work in jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under

18 similar working conditions within the same establishment. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). Even if

19 Plaintiffs could prove all this, which they cannot, U.S. Soccer still would prevail by

20 showing that any pay differential results from a “factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C.

21 § 206(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h). U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment

22 because: (i) it did not pay the MNT more than the WNT; (ii) Plaintiffs do not work in the

23 same establishment as the MNT; (iii) Plaintiffs and the MNT do not perform equal work

24 requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions; and (iv)

25 any pay differential is based on factors other than sex.

26

A. Plaintiffs Have Not Been Paid Lower Wages Than MNT Players.

27

Over the last five complete calendar years (dating back to the beginning of the

28 calendar year encompassing the Title VII class period), U.S. Soccer has paid the four

5 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:2906

1 Class Representatives more than $1 million each.1 (Irwin Dec. Ex. 1 at 18.) During that

2 same five-year period, the highest-paid MNT player earned less than $650,000. (Id. at

3 19.) In fact, between 2015 and 2019, U.S. Soccer paid $16 million more to the WNT

4 players and their union than it paid to the MNT players and their union. (Id. at 14.) Even

5 setting aside all the money paid to the teams’ respective unions and all the money paid to

6 WNT players as “NWSL salary” and NWSL playoff bonuses, U.S. Soccer still paid the

7 WNT players $6 million more than it has paid the MNT players. (Id. at 16.) These facts

8 alone should result in the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ pay discrimination claims.

9

Plaintiffs, however, contend that these facts should be ignored because, they allege,

10 U.S. Soccer pays WNT players less than MNT players “on a per game basis.” (Dkt. 1 ¶

11 64.) Along these lines, Plaintiffs have argued that an employer may not pay a man twice

12 as much per hour to do the same job as a woman, just because the woman earns more

13 money overall by working twice as much, (Dkt. 70 at 2, 4), but the undisputed facts show

14 that this is not the situation before the Court. As discussed in Section II.C., infra,

15 Plaintiffs and the MNT players have very different jobs, but beyond that, the undisputed

16 facts demonstrate that U.S. Soccer has paid the WNT more than the MNT on a per

17 game basis, as well. (Irwin Dec. Ex. 1 at 16-21.)

18 1 Each Class Representative earned more than $1 million, regardless of whether or not
19 one includes (i) the value of benefits such as free medical insurance, (ii) the value of 20 salaries and bonuses paid to WNT players by U.S. Soccer in connection with their play in
the NWSL, or (iii) any of the money U.S. Soccer paid the WNTPA. (Irwin Dec. Ex. 1 at 21 18-21.) In reality, all this should be included when calculating Plaintiffs’ wages under 22 relevant law. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.10 (“‘wages’ generally includes all payments made to [or
on behalf of] an employee as remuneration for employment”) (brackets in original 23 regulation). It is undisputed that all the money U.S. Soccer pays to Plaintiffs as “NWSL 24 salary” or NWSL playoff bonuses is paid to them as remuneration for their employment
with U.S. Soccer, and the payments U.S. Soccer makes to the WNTPA are no less 25 Plaintiffs’ wages than more traditional union dues withheld from an employee’s 26 paycheck and sent directly to their union. 29 C.F.R. § 531.40(c) (union dues paid by
employer directly to a union are properly considered wages under the Fair Labor 27 Standards Act).
28

6 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:2907

1

Given these facts, Plaintiffs undoubtedly will shift the focus away from their “per

2 game” theory and instead rely entirely on the argument that they would have earned more

3 money than they actually did, if only they had been covered by the MNT’s collective

4 bargaining agreement. This argument, however, is contrary to law and should be rejected

5 based on the undisputed facts of this case. The law addresses an employer who pays an

6 employee of one sex “at a rate less than the rate [it] pays wages to employees of the

7 opposite sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). “The term wage ‘rate’ . . . refers to the standard or

8 measure by which an employee’s wage is determined.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.12 (emphasis

9 added). Although Plaintiffs seek to compare themselves to a woman who earns $10 per

10 hour while her male counterpart earns $20 per hour, (Dkt. 70 at 2), the compensation

11 structures of the WNT and the MNT cannot be compared this way because they are

12 fundamentally different, as a result of separate collective bargaining by each team.

13

U.S. Soccer pays fixed salaries to the Class Representatives and other WNT players,

14 independent of how often they play for the team (even when they do not play at all), and

15 it also pays the players certain bonuses for succeeding in various competitions. (King

16 Dec. Ex. 5 at 14-15, 19, 23-24.) MNT players, in contrast, receive a series of varying flat

17 fees and performance bonuses, if and only when they actually play soccer for the team.

18 (King Dec. Ex. 1 at Ex. A.) This important difference exists regardless of why players on

19 either team end up missing games (e.g., injury, coach’s decision, or personal reasons).

20 (King Dec. Ex. 1 at Ex. A, Ex. 5 at 14-15, 19, 23-24.) The WNTPA also negotiated a

21 signing bonus that U.S. Soccer paid directly to the WNT players in 2017, something

22 MNT players did not receive. (King Dec. ¶ 8.)

23

In addition, U.S. Soccer provides health insurance benefits to the Class

24 Representatives and other WNT players and pays them salaries and playoff bonuses

25 associated with their play in the NWSL. (King Dec. Ex. 4, 5.) The NWSL salaries and

26 bonuses are paid to WNT players in their capacity as U.S. Soccer employees, and this is

27 required by the same collective bargaining agreement establishing all their other

28 compensation from U.S. Soccer. (Id.) Moreover, U.S. Soccer has always agreed that

7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:2908

1 Plaintiffs’ “WNT salaries” would automatically increase (up to 50%) if the NWSL ceases

2 to exist. (Id.) MNT players receive none of these things from U.S. Soccer.2 (King Dec. ¶

3 8, Ex. 1.)

4

Furthermore, WNT players and MNT players receive their compensation for doing

5 different work. Even setting aside their compensation for play in the NWSL, during the

6 class period WNT players have been compensated for playing in friendly games, the

7 Olympics and its associated qualifying tournament, two FIFA Women’s World Cups, and

8 one World Cup qualifying tournament. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 23, 30, 33, 41-42; King Dec. Ex.

9 18.) During the same time, MNT players have been compensated for playing in friendly

10 games, one FIFA World Cup qualifying tournament, three Gold Cups, the CONCACAF

11 Cup, the Concacaf Nations League, and Copa America Centenario. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 24-28,

12 31-32, 34-35, 40; King Dec. Ex. 19.)

13

Given the two teams’ fundamentally different pay structures, which apply to different

14 competitions, the two teams do not have a parallel standard or measure of pay (i.e.,

15 “wage rate”) that can be directly compared for purposes of the anti-discrimination laws,

16 so the Court must look at their comparative total compensation. Huebner v. ESEC, Inc.,

17 No. CV 01-0157-PHX-PGR, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28289, *7-8 (D. Ariz. March 26,

18 2003) (plaintiff could not establish pay discrimination because “her total compensation

19 for the relevant time period was greater than that of any male”); Marting v. Crawford &

20 Co., 203 F. Supp. 2d 958, 996 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (plaintiff could not establish pay

21 discrimination even though her base salary was lower than her male comparator because

22 her total compensation was higher); Bertotti v. Philbeck, Inc., 827 F. Supp. 1005, 1009-

23 10 (S.D. Ga. 1993) (comparing total compensation paid to plaintiff and male comparator

24 and concluding: “Bertotti’s actual wages received were, therefore, greater than either

25 comparator, and her EPA claim must fail”); Gallagher v. Kleinwort Benson Gov’t Sec.,

26

27 2 Again, this is to say nothing of all the money U.S. Soccer has paid to the WNTPA oer

28

the past five years, which also constitute Plaintiffs’ “wages.” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.10; 29 C.F.R. § 531.40(c).

8

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:2909

1 Inc., 698 F. Supp. 1401, 1404 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (female trader at securities firm could not

2 sue over her lower base salary because her total compensation was higher than any male

3 comparator); Mitchell v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., No. 4:09-CV-224, 2010

4 WL 3855547, *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2010) (the EPA “requires that Plaintiff receive total

5 compensation at least equal to male employees with equal performance”).3

6

Because Plaintiffs and their alleged comparators (the MNT) receive compensation that

7 includes different components for different work that do not correlate to a common

8 denominator, the law requires the Court to compare their total compensation for purposes

9 of determining whether Plaintiffs can clear the most basic hurdle in a pay discrimination

10 lawsuit—showing that they are paid less than male employees. U.S. Soccer has paid the

11 WNT more than the MNT in both total compensation and on a per-game basis, (Irwin

12 Dec. Ex. 1 at 13-21), and this fact alone is fatal to Plaintiffs’ pay discrimination claims.

13

B. Plaintiffs Do Not Work in the Same Establishment as the MNT.

14

The EPA applies only to employees working in the same “establishment,” 29 U.S.C. §

15 206(d)(1), and while Title VII does not contain the same language, it is well established

16 that discrimination generally may be inferred only from disparate treatment of similarly-

17 situated individuals. See Griffin v. Boeing Co., 678 F. App’x 588, 589 (9th Cir. 2017) (a

18 motion for summary judgment hinges on the relative treatment of similarly situated

19 employees of different genders). In this regard, a materially distinguishing factor between

20 Plaintiffs and MNT players for Title VII purposes, as well as EPA purposes, is the

21 separation of their workplaces. Grosz v. Boeing Co., 455 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1041 (C.D.

22 Cal. 2006) (employees’ locations of business are material facts when determining

23 whether male and female employees are similarly situated). Because Plaintiffs and the

24 MNT work in separate establishments, U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment.

25

26 3 On the facts presented here, cases such as Bence v. Detroit Health Corp., 712 F.2d 27 1024, 1027-28 (6th Cir. 1983), EEOC v. Kettler Bros. Inc., 846 F.2d 70, 1988 WL 41053,
*3 (4th Cir. 1988) (unpub.), and Ebbert v. Nassau Cnty., No. 05-CV-5445 (FB)(AKT), 28 2009 WL 935812, *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009), ultimately cannot aid Plaintiffs.
9 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:2910

1

The term “establishment” refers to a “distinct physical place of business as opposed to

2 an entire business or enterprise.” A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 496 (1945).

3 On rare occasions, courts have expanded the term to encompass multiple physical

4 locations, but they “have consistently rejected the extension of the statutory establishment

5 requirement to separate offices of an employer that are geographically and operationally

6 distinct.” Foster v. Arcata Assocs., Inc., 772 F.2d 1453, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985).

7

The undisputed facts show that the WNT and MNT are both geographically and

8 operationally distinct. They play in different venues in different cities (and often different

9 countries), competing in separate competitions against completely different pools of

10 opponents. (King Dec. Ex. 18-21.) The day-to-day functions of the team are overseen by

11 separate Head Coaches, coaching staffs, and Team Administrators. (King Dec. ¶ 3-4.)

12 The Head Coach of each team determines who plays on the team, and (obviously) the

13 players do not interchange between the teams or play with each other. (King Dec. ¶ 3;

14 Gulati Dec. ¶ 62.) Plaintiffs cannot counteract all these facts merely by noting that their

15 compensation was set by a common decision-maker. See Renstrom v. Nash Finch Co.,

16 787 F. Supp. 2d 961, 965 (D. Minn. 2011) (fact that same person determined plaintiff’s

17 and alleged comparator’s compensation could not overcome “the ordinary and well

18 settled rule that physically distinct locations are different establishments for purposes of

19 the EPA”; otherwise, “just about any corporation with a hierarchical management

20 structure and a functioning human-resources department would find itself defined as a

21 single establishment”) (internal quotations omitted). Because Plaintiffs and MNT players

22 work in physically separate, operationally distinct workplaces, the Court should enter

23 summary judgment for U.S. Soccer on Plaintiffs’ pay discrimination claims.

24

C. Plaintiffs and MNT Players Do Not Perform Equal Work on Jobs

25

Requiring Equal Skill, Effort, and Responsibility Under Similar

26

Working Conditions.

27

Comparing the MNT and WNT, Plaintiff Rapinoe acknowledged: “Our pay structure

28 is different. We play different games. We’re different rankings in the world. Like, it’s just

10 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:2911

1 apples and oranges.” (Rapinoe Ex. 29.) Indeed it is, and this is one reason why it is lawful

2 to pay the two teams differently. Plaintiffs argue that the law requires U.S. Soccer to pay

3 them the same amount of money it would have paid the MNT if the MNT had won two

4 FIFA World Cups and 80% of its friendlies against the most elite male soccer players in

5 the world (a feat neither the MNT nor the WNT has achieved). (King Dec. Ex. 18, 19.) At

6 the same time, Plaintiffs do not argue that they must give up their pay for the Olympics,

7 even though U.S. Soccer does not pay its male athletes for Olympic competition. (King

8 Dec. ¶ 10-11.) There is no precedent for what Plaintiffs are seeking, for it is not the law.

9 The WNT and the MNT play in fundamentally different worlds, and the WNT has been

10 paid more than the MNT based on the results of their own contract negotiations and their

11 own on-field play within their own separate realm of competition. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs

12 do not contend that they would have had the same on-field success if they had played in

13 the MNT’s world instead of their own. U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment

14 because the WNT and the MNT perform substantially different work.

15

Title VII and the EPA are not “comparable worth” statutes. AFSCME v. State of

16 Washington, 770 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1985) (rejecting comparable worth theory

17 under Title VII); Spencer v. Virginia State Univ., 919 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2019) (EPA

18 “does not provide courts with a way of evaluating whether distinct work might have

19 ‘comparable’ value to the work the plaintiff performed”); Sims-Fingers v. City of

20 Indianapolis, 493 F.3d 768, 771 (7th Cir. 2007) (“comparable pay” for “comparable

21 worth” is not a cognizable theory under Title VII); Lemons v. City & Cty. of Denver, 620

22 F.2d 228, 229 (10th Cir. 1980) (rejecting “comparable worth” theory and holding that an

23 employer may set compensation differently across genuinely different work

24 classifications in good faith). “The comparable worth theory . . . postulates that sex-based

25 wage discrimination exists if employees in job classifications occupied primarily by

26 women are paid less than employees in job classifications filled primarily by men, if the

27 jobs are of equal value to the employer, though otherwise dissimilar.” AFSCME, 770

28 F.2d at 1404. Because the undisputed facts show that the MNT and WNT perform

11 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:2912

1 substantially different work, Plaintiffs are effectively presenting the Court with a

2 “comparable worth” argument that has long been rejected by the Ninth Circuit and other

3 circuits as inconsistent with the governing statutes Congress has passed.

4

The Ninth Circuit instructs that courts must analyze “[a]ctual job performance and

5 content, rather than job descriptions, titles or classifications,” to determine if the

6 performance requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Spaulding v. Univ. of

7 Washington, 740 F.2d 686, 699 (9th Cir. 1984) (female faculty members did not perform

8 work substantially equal to male faculty). Consequently, Plaintiffs’ prima facie case

9 cannot rest on the fact that the WNT and MNT are both the senior level national teams in

10 their respective spheres of competition. Kob v. Cty. of Marin, 425 F. App’x 634, 635 (9th

11 Cir. 2011) (“The mere fact that the two positions may be at the same level in the

12 organizational hierarchy is not sufficient to make out an Equal Pay Act claim.”)

13

The WNT and MNT play in completely separate universes of international

14 competition. During the class period, the WNT has competed in friendlies, the Olympics,

15 and the FIFA Women’s World Cup against other senior women’s national teams, and all

16 those matches took place in Europe, Brazil, Canada, and the United States. (King Dec.

17 Ex. 18, 20.) By contrast, the MNT has competed in the FIFA World Cup qualifying

18 process, three Gold Cups, the CONCACAF Cup, the Concacaf Nations League, Copa

19 America Centenario, and friendlies against different teams than the WNT faces, and the

20 team played those games in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, in addition to

21 Europe, Canada, and the United States. (King Dec. Ex. 19, 21.) Not only do they play

22 against different opponents in different competitions in different locations, but the FIFA

23 World Cup is considered to be the most watched sporting event in the world, with over a

24 billion more people watching it than the FIFA Women’s World Cup. (Gulati Dec. ¶21-

25 22, Ex. 2-7.) Meanwhile, the MNT’s participation in the FIFA World Cup has the

26 potential to generate tens of millions more in prize money revenue for U.S. Soccer than

27 the WNT’s participation in the FIFA Women’s World Cup. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 50-55, Ex. 7-

28 11.) This alone prevents the two jobs from being compared for pay discrimination

12 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:2913

1 purposes. Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We are also

2 of the view that the relative amount of revenue generated should be considered in

3 determining whether responsibilities and working conditions are substantially equal.”);

4 Weaver v. Ohio State University, 71 F. Supp. 2d 789, 800 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (plaintiff’s

5 coaching job was not equal to male coach’s job because his sport was more popular and

6 generated more revenue), aff’d, 191 F.3d 1315 (6th Cir. 1999). Additionally, the

7 qualifying process for the men’s tournament requires more games over a substantially

8 longer period of time, 50% of the men’s qualifying process occurs outside the United

9 States (compared to the entirely domestic women’s qualifying tournament), and 25%

10 more teams qualify for the men’s tournament. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 56-61.) In short, as a matter

11 of undisputed fact, the two teams play in different worlds, which is not the province of

12 the pay discrimination laws. Wheatley v. Wicomico Cty., Maryland, 390 F.3d 328, 333-34

13 (4th Cir. 2004) (even though directors employed at defendant bear the same type of job

14 responsibilities, “on a day-to-day basis, they work in ‘different world[s]’”).

15

It must also be acknowledged that senior men’s and women’s international soccer

16 require different levels of certain fundamental physical skills central to the game (e.g.,

17 speed and strength), which is why FIFA requires separate-sex teams in the first place,

18 (Lloyd Ex. 15; Rapinoe Ex. 29; Gulati Dec. ¶ 62 ), and no one is arguing that this sex-

19 based separation, which is designed to ensure women a fair opportunity to play and

20 compete, is unlawful (which it would be in almost any other circumstance). 42 U.S.C. §

21 2000e-2(a)(2) (making it unlawful for an employer to “segregate . . . employees . . . in

22 any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment

23 opportunities . . . because of such individual’s ... sex”). The Ninth Circuit has recognized

24 that requirements for different physical skills matter when considering allegations of sex-

25 based pay discrimination. In Ruffin v. Los Angeles Cty., 607 F.2d 1276, 1278 (9th Cir.

26 1979), the court held that the different physical requirements of deputy sheriff and

27 corrections officer positions and different upper age limits were some of the

28 “uncontroverted factual differences” between the positions precluding the EPA from

13 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:2914

1 applying. So too, here, the substantially different physical requirements of playing soccer

2 for the WNT versus MNT—which Plaintiffs do not dispute—defeat Plaintiffs’ claims

3 that they are engaged in equal work requiring equal skill under the law. As Plaintiff Carli

4 Lloyd concedes, “It’s a different game” because “men are bigger, stronger, faster,” and

5 “[w]e often play against U[nder] 16 boys teams and that is about as old as we can go.”

6 (Lloyd Ex. 15.) Because of these physical differences, men are prohibited from playing

7 in women’s international competitions. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 62.) Given the different physical

8 skills required to compete against the MNT’s opponents, Plaintiffs’ pay discrimination

9 claim must fail. To ignore these real differences between the two jobs would be to

10 analyze whether the jobs are “proportional” in “skill level,” which the law does not

11 permit. Sims-Fingers, 493 F.3d at 771-72.

12

The fact that playing for the MNT requires a different level of speed and strength, the

13 fact that the WNT and MNT never play against the same opponents, and the fact that they

14 play in a completely separate set of competitions are not merely technical differences.

15 Rather, these undisputed facts go to the core of Plaintiffs’ claim. This is not a case in

16 which the employer paid women less than men for performing the same work. Rather,

17 U.S. Soccer paid the WNT more than it paid the MNT, in total compensation and on a

18 per-game basis, pursuant to a unique compensation structure negotiated with them in

19 good faith to fit their particular circumstances. It would be improper as a matter of law to

20 modify the parties’ collective bargaining agreement to retroactively increase certain

21 aspects of Plaintiffs’ compensation to match the money a different team hypothetically

22 could have earned for succeeding against different opponents in different competitions

23 that generate significantly more revenue.

24

D. Any Pay Differential Results From Factors Other Than Sex.

25

Even if Plaintiffs could show that they were paid less than the MNT for performing

26 equal work under the law, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ compensation arrangement with

27 U.S. Soccer is driven by at least two factors other than sex: (1) the various trade-offs

28 negotiated by Plaintiffs in the course of collective bargaining and (2) the significant

14 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:2915

1 differential in revenue-generation potential between the separate games in which the two

2 teams play. U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment based on these undisputed facts.

3

1. Plaintiffs’ Pay Resulted from Compromises in Bargaining.

4

In the course of collective bargaining between the WNTPA and U.S. Soccer, the union

5 insisted on a different pay structure from the one found in the MNT’s collective

6 bargaining agreement, and both parties made compromises in bargaining. As a result, the

7 union obtained multiple compensation terms and other contract provisions that (i) do not

8 appear in the MNT’s agreement, (ii) are valuable to WNT players, and (iii) represent a

9 clear monetary cost to U.S. Soccer. This negotiation process, which led to the WNT

10 having a different overall compensation structure from the MNT, is a legitimate “factor

11 other than sex” requiring the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ pay discrimination claims.

12

“There is no question that the decisions made as a result of negotiations between

13 union and employer are made for legitimate business purposes; thus, a wage differential

14 resulting from status as a union member constitutes an acceptable ‘factor other than sex’

15 for purposes of the Equal Pay Act.” Perkins v. Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc., 700 F. App’x 452,

16 457 (6th Cir. 2017) (affirming summary judgment for employer); Grosz, 455 F. Supp. 2d

17 at 1045 (plaintiff subject to a CBA cannot be compared to non-union employees with

18 separate pay scales); Diamond v. T. Rowe Price Assocs., Inc., 852 F. Supp. 372, 396 (D.

19 Md. 1994) (employee who separately negotiated to be paid a salary with “little or no

20 annual bonus” did not later have a pay discrimination claim when she did not receive

21 incentive compensation that male employees received).

22

The same principle applies in this case, where Plaintiffs are, by their choice, the only

23 employees represented by their union, the MNT is represented by a different union, and

24 Plaintiffs’ unique compensation structure results from a collective bargaining process

25 during which Plaintiffs insisted on a different compensation structure than the one

26 contained in the MNT’s collective bargaining agreement. (Gulati Ex. 14; King Dec. Ex.

27 6, 8, 13; Langel Dep. 73-77; King Dec. ¶ 7, 12, 29-30.) To hold otherwise would be

28 contrary to foundational principles of labor law, which permit employees to organize into

15 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:2916

1 a bargaining unit of their own choosing (here, a separate unit for the WNT alone) and

2 then require their employer to bargain with that union in good faith in an effort to reach

3 an overall agreement covering wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for

4 the employees in that bargaining unit. 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(d), 159(a). Allowing Plaintiffs to

5 organize into a union exclusive unto themselves, to negotiate a comprehensive

6 employment arrangement through that union, to thereby achieve various compensation

7 terms and other terms more favorable than those enjoyed by the MNT players, and then

8 to claim that any provisions less favorable than the MNT’s contract constitute sex

9 discrimination would upend federal labor law.

10

To be clear, during negotiations for the 2013-2016 collective bargaining agreement,

11 the WNTPA never asked for the compensation terms it now wants the Court to impose on

12 U.S. Soccer. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 73; Langel Dep. 71-73.) The union, however, did seek

13 various contract terms not afforded to MNT players, such as: (1) fixed WNT salaries, to

14 be paid regardless of how often the player plays; (2) an additional salary for playing in

15 the women’s professional league; (3) salary continuation during periods of injury; (4)

16 severance benefits; (6) insurance benefits; and (7) childcare assistance. (King Dec. Ex. 1,

17 8.) The union achieved each of those objectives, and those terms remained in effect

18 during 2015 and 2016, covering the first portion of the class period in this case. (Langel

19 Dep. 73-77; King Dec. ¶ 14, Ex. 4.) The resulting inability to compare wage “rates”

20 between the two teams, and any pay differential between them, is indisputably the result

21 of the collective bargaining process, not sex discrimination.

22

Moreover, the 2013-2016 contract included the following provision, suggested by the

23 union’s Executive Director: “If in any calendar year, the ratio of aggregate compensation

24 of women’s national team players to the aggregate revenue from all women’s national

25 team games . . . is less than the ratio of the aggregate revenue from all men’s national

26 team games . . . then U.S. Soccer will make a lump sum payment to the women’s national

27 team player pool to make the ratios equal.” (Langel Ex. 25.) No such provision exists in

28 the MNT agreement. (King Dec. Ex. 1.) Unlike Plaintiffs’ various fiction-based legal

16 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:2917

1 theories, this contract language actually provided a “wage rate” with a common

2 denominator that could be compared between the two teams (a compensation-to-revenue

3 ratio), it was requested by the WNTPA, and it provided that the WNT would receive at

4 least equal pay by this measure. This collectively bargained contract provision, alone,

5 should result in the dismissal of all Plaintiffs’ pay discrimination claims pertaining to the

6 period covered by the 2013-2016 collective bargaining agreement.

7

In contrast to the 2012-2013 negotiations, during the 2016 negotiations for a new

8 agreement, the union’s new Executive Director explicitly demanded what he termed

9 “equal pay.” (Nichols Ex. 33.) His contract proposals, however, show that this meant

10 something much different (and far more expensive) than “the same contract terms as the

11 MNT.” His initial contract demand sought the same bonuses for friendly matches found

12 in the MNT’s agreement and the same bonus structure for the Women’s World Cup that

13 the MNT had for their World Cup, but it also sought the following additional items not

14 found in the MNT’s agreement: (1) a $4.2 million payment for certain rights to use player

15 likenesses; (2) $150,000 annual WNT salaries and $100,000 annual NWSL salaries for

16 24 players, regardless of whether or how often they played; (3) contributions to a 401(k)

17 retirement account; (4) lifetime long-term disability insurance; (5) retiree health

18 insurance; (6) an additional $3 million payment for playing a three-game “Victory Tour”

19 after winning the Women’s World Cup; (7) another $3 million payment for a three-game

20 post-Olympics Victory Tour; and (8) the annual salary, benefits, and travel

21 accommodations for a full-time paid childcare professional for every player with a child.

22 (King Dec. Ex. 6.) He later lowered his salary demand from $150,000 to $100,000 but

23 simultaneously demanded that the number of players receiving this guaranteed salary

24 should be 30, rather than 24. (King Dec. Ex. 8.)

25

U.S. Soccer countered these proposals with a “pay-to-play” proposal in the same

26 general structure as the MNT agreement. (King Dec. ¶ 22, Ex. 7.) In other words, there

27 would be no salary, and players would be paid only when they played for the team. (King

28 Dec. Ex. 7.) U.S. Soccer’s opening proposal included the same basic per-game

17 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:2918

1 appearance fee for friendlies as the one found in the MNT agreement, but it contained

2 lower bonuses for winning and drawing friendlies and lower bonuses associated with

3 World Cup play. (King Dec. Ex. 7.) This proposal included lower bonuses for friendlies

4 and World Cup play because (i) it was an opening offer, and U.S. Soccer anticipated

5 needing to increase its offer over the course of negotiations to achieve compromise with

6 the union over its demands, (ii) WNT friendlies historically generated lower per-game

7 revenue than MNT friendlies, and (iii) FIFA pays much higher prize money for the men’s

8 World Cup. (King Dec. 21, Ex. 7; Gulati ¶ 70, 77.)

9

No one can say what an eventual “pay-to-play” contract may have looked like because

10 the union refused to negotiate one; instead, it responded to U.S. Soccer’s opening

11 proposal by reiterating the demand for a completely different structure, with “at least 30

12 WNT Players be signed to annual Player Contracts,” ensuring them at least $100,000 in

13 base compensation per year, regardless of how much they played, along with the same

14 bonus structure as the MNT for friendlies. (King Dec. Ex. 8; Gulati Dec. ¶ 79-80;

15 Rapinoe Dep. 223.) At the same time, the union did not drop its other initial demands.

16 (King Dec. ¶ 28, 30, Ex. 8.)

17

The WNT players replaced the union’s Executive Director while these competing

18 proposals were on the bargaining table, and with new union leadership in place, the

19 parties promptly moved down a path of negotiations that involved a hybrid of annual

20 salaries for some players, flat fee game appearances for others, and performance bonuses

21 for both categories. (King Dec. ¶ 31, 33, Ex. 13-17.) In addition, U.S. Soccer proposed

22 three new “partnership” bonuses that would pay out additional money based on achieving

23 certain targets in sponsorship revenue, television ratings, and enhanced attendance—three

24 items not found in the MNT agreement at all. (King Dec. ¶ 8, 37, Ex. 1, 12.) From there,

25 the parties traded proposals and made compromises within this overall structure. (Roux

26 Dep. 46-49, Ex. 29; Langel Ex. 14-15, 19-21, 23; Gulati Dec. ¶ 79-80, Ex. 15; Rapinoe

27 Dep. 223; King Dec. ¶ 33-44, Ex. 11, 12, 14-18.) Notably, when the salary commitments

28 being proposed by the parties went down, the friendly bonuses climbed. (King Dec. Ex.

18 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:2919

1 14-17.) No one can say how high they would have climbed if the union had foregone

2 salaries altogether. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 79-80; Rapinoe Dep. 223.) Ultimately, the parties

3 reached a final agreement within this basic structure, including annual $100,000 WNT

4 salaries, but also including a $230,000 lump sum signing bonus paid to the players, a

5 separate annual payment of $350,000 paid to the WNTPA in exchange for certain rights

6 to players’ likenesses, and additional annual salaries paid to players for play in the

7 NWSL—three more financial expenditures not included in the MNT agreement. (Roux

8 Dep. 145; King Dec. ¶ 8, 10, 11, Ex. 5, pp. 5, 14-15, 19, 23-24; 29-35.) All told, this new

9 agreement has paid the WNT and its union more than 2.5 times as much as the MNT and

10 its union during its first three years. (Irwin Dec. Ex. 1 at 14.)

11

It is undisputed that U.S. Soccer bargained with an eye towards the overall cost of the

12 collective bargaining agreement. (King Dec. ¶ 42; Gulati Dec. ¶ 79.) Not only did certain

13 line items of compensation move upward when other items moved downward, but U.S.

14 Soccer informed the union that the cost of certain items unique to the WNT’s contract

15 (e.g., single-occupancy hotel rooms, NWSL salaries, and the annual payment for likeness

16 rights) affected how much U.S. Soccer was willing to pay in salaries and bonuses directly

17 tied to on-field play for the WNT. (King Dec. ¶ 44, Ex. 14-17.) Furthermore, the

18 collective bargaining agreement states that the union may unilaterally instruct U.S.

19 Soccer at any time to pay any or all payments owed to the union to the players instead, as

20 direct compensation. (King Dec. Ex. 5 at Art. 21.C.) The players have the authority under

21 the union’s constitution to do this, but they have not done so. (Roux Dep. 40, 143, Ex. 5.)

22

Having made all these choices in contract negotiations, and having achieved a contract

23 that paid them, their teammates, and their union more than $25 million over the first

24 three years of the contract, compared to the $11 million paid to the MNT over that same

25 time, (Irwin Dec. Ex. 1 at 14), Plaintiffs cannot plausibly contend that their compensation

26 arrangement reflects sex discrimination rather than the result of compromises made

27 during collective bargaining—a legitimate factor other than sex.

28

19 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:2920

1

2. Revenue Differentials Are a Legitimate Factor Other than Sex.

2

Not only is the bargaining process itself a legitimate and undisputed factor other than

3 sex that led to the different compensation arrangements at issue in this case, but U.S.

4 Soccer repeatedly cited an independent factor other than sex during those negotiations—

5 the difference in revenue (and potential revenue) generated by U.S. Soccer from the two

6 teams’ matches. Courts have held that revenue generation is a legitimate factor other than

7 sex justifying pay differentials between male and female employees. Byrd v. Ronayne, 61

8 F.3d 1026, 1034 (1st Cir. 1995) (employer had defense to pay discrimination claim where

9 male attorney generated substantially greater revenues for the employer law firm than the

10 female plaintiff); Hodgson v. Robert Hall Clothiers, 473 F.2d 589, 597 (3rd Cir. 1973)

11 (even where male and female employees performed equal work and are legitimately

12 separated by sex owing to the nature of the work, the employer lawfully paid the male

13 employees more because the employer derived greater economic benefit from their

14 work); Bartges v. UNC Charlotte, 908 F. Supp. 1312, 1327 (W.D.N.C.), aff’d, 94 F.3d

15 641 (4th Cir. 1996) (no pay discrimination against softball coach because other sports

16 generated more revenue for the university).

17

The most significant differential in this instance (and the only one that certainly would

18 not have been overcome in collective bargaining, no matter what the WNTPA had

19 offered as a compromise) arises from the difference in prize money potential between the

20 World Cup for men and the Women’s World Cup. In 2010, FIFA paid $8 million in prize

21 money to every soccer federation that qualified for the men’s World Cup and $30 million

22 to the winner. (Gulati Dec. Ex. 8.) In contrast, the winner of the 2011 Women’s World

23 Cup received only $1 million from FIFA. (Gulati Dec. Ex. 9.) These facts were known to

24 U.S. Soccer when it negotiated the collective bargaining agreement establishing

25 performance bonuses related to the 2015 Women’s World Cup. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 71.) In

26 2014, FIFA paid $8 million to every soccer federation that qualified for the men’s World

27 Cup and $35 million to the winner. (Gulati Dec. Ex. 10.) In contrast, U.S. Soccer

28 received only $2 million from FIFA for winning the 2015 Women’s World Cup. (Gulati

20 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:2921

1 Dec. Ex. 11.) These facts were known to U.S. Soccer when it negotiated the collective

2 bargaining agreement establishing performance bonuses related to the 2019 Women’s

3 World Cup. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 76.) In 2018, FIFA paid $38 million to the winner of the

4 men’s World Cup whereas the prize money for winning the 2019 Women’s World Cup

5 was only $4 million. (Gulati Dec.¶ 54, Ex. 12.) U.S. Soccer did not violate the law by

6 agreeing to pay MNT players substantially higher bonuses if it could win a tournament

7 that would pay U.S. Soccer exponentially more prize money, which in turn would cover

8 the bonuses promised to the MNT players.

9

The revenue differentials are not limited to the two different World Cups, either.

10 When U.S. Soccer executed the 2013 collective bargaining agreement, the WNT had just

11 finished a four-year cycle (international soccer operates in four-year cycles) during which

12 U.S. Soccer had generated less than $15 million, in total, from all 78 WNT games. (Irwin

13 Dec. Ex. 1 at 13.) During that same period, it had generated almost $64 million from 69

14 MNT games. (Irwin Dec. Ex. 1 at 13.) Similarly, when U.S. Soccer finished negotiating

15 the 2017 contract, it had just finished a four-year cycle during which it generated $55

16 million from 91 WNT games while generating $80 million from 77 MNT games. (Irwin

17 Dec. Ex. 1 at 13.) It was not unlawful for U.S. Soccer to take these differentials into

18 account. To be sure, the WNT’s games have ended up generating more revenue during

19 the last five years than the MNT’s games, but this includes only one World Cup cycle for

20 the MNT, compared to two for the WNT, and regardless, the WNT has been paid far

21 more than the MNT during that time frame. (Irwin Dec. Ex. 1.) If the MNT had won two

22 World Cups in that same time frame, U.S. Soccer would have received more than $60

23 million in additional FIFA prize money alone. (Gulati Dec. ¶ 54, Ex. 10.)

24

Fundamentally, U.S. Soccer agreed with the MNT to pay them more money if they

25 could achieve success on the field that, in turn, would generate substantial revenues for

26 U.S. Soccer, from which the payments to the MNT could be made. Although the WNT

27 has achieved wonderful successes on the field, and U.S. Soccer is proud of those

28 successes, it is undisputed that those successes have not generated the same revenue that

21 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:2922

1 the same level of success by the MNT would have generated, and U.S. Soccer is not

2 obligated by the anti-discrimination laws to “make up the difference” in the varying

3 revenue streams. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ pay discrimination claims should be dismissed.

4 III. PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE VII CLAIMS RELATED TO ARTIFICIAL TURF

5

AND AIR TRAVEL ALSO SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

6

Aside from allegations surrounding compensation, the only concrete allegations of

7 employment discrimination found in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are allegations about playing

8 on artificial turf instead of grass and flying commercial airplanes instead of charter

9 aircraft. These claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their

10 administrative remedies, and the claims have no merit in any event.

11

A. Plaintiffs Failed To Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies.

12

U.S. Soccer is entitled to judgment on Plaintiffs’ non-compensation claims because

13 they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The EEOC charges filed by the four

14 Class Representatives contain no allegations of discrimination in any respect other than

15 compensation. (Egan Dec. Ex. 1.) A plaintiff does not “sufficiently exhaust[ ] . . .

16 administrative remedies under Title VII by merely mentioning the word ‘discrimination’

17 in his or her EEOC administrative charge.” Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 291

18 F.3d 632, 637 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he inquiry into whether a claim has been sufficiently

19 exhausted must focus on the factual allegations made in the charge itself, describing the

20 discriminatory conduct about which a plaintiff is grieving.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

21 non-compensation claims should be dismissed. Id. at 636.

22

B. Plaintiffs Cannot Point To Any Evidence of Sex Discrimination.

23

Even setting aside Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies,

24 judgment should be entered for U.S. Soccer because Plaintiffs cannot establish that they

25 suffered an adverse employment action because of their sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

26 The mere fact that Plaintiffs flew fewer charters or played more often on artificial turf

27 does not give rise to an inference of sex discrimination because the two teams are not

28 similarly situated. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (a

22 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:2923

1 prima facie case of sex discrimination requires “a plaintiff [to] show an inference of

2 discrimination…through comparison to similarly situated individuals”).

3

To begin with, the WNT has flown charter flights for all team travel, including travel

4 to friendly matches, ever since World Cup qualifying in October 2018. (King Dec. ¶ 46.)

5 It also flew charters for team travel during the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup, Olympic

6 qualifying in 2016, and the 2016 Olympic Games, with the exception of the initial flight

7 to Brazil in 2016 because U.S. Soccer did not believe a charter flight to Brazil would

8 have been a prudent expenditure of money at the time. (King Dec. ¶ 47.) Similarly, the

9 MNT has taken charter flights to non-friendly games during the class period. (Id. ¶ 48.)

10

The remainder of the WNT’s schedule during the class period involved playing in

11 friendlies, for which they did not fly charters until fall 2018. (Id. ¶ 49.) The MNT, in

12 contrast, did fly a grand total of six charter flights to friendly matches during the class

13 period. (Id.) Two of those flights were to and from Cuba (a country with limited

14 commercial airline routes) in October 2016 for two matches four days apart, in between

15 World Cup qualifiers (Id. ¶ 50.) One was a flight in June 2017 to a friendly in Utah five

16 days before a World Cup qualifier in Colorado. (Id. ¶ 51.) One was a flight from pre-

17 Gold Cup training camp in Nashville to East Hartford for a friendly to prepare for the

18 Gold Cup. (Id. ¶ 52.) One was for a friendly in France against soon-to-be world champion

19 France, a week after a friendly in Ireland, in June 2018. (Id. ¶ 53.) The last was a flight to

20 a friendly against chief rival Mexico in Nashville in September 2018, just four days after

21 a match against Brazil in the New York area and just a month before the WNT also began

22 flying charters consistently. (Id. ¶ 54.) Each of these six charters was reserved owing to

23 competitive need (preparing for an upcoming World Cup qualifier or Gold Cup match),

24 an unusual location with limited commercial flights (Cuba), or the high-profile nature of

25 the opponent (France and Mexico). (Id. ¶ 50-54.) These factors have nothing to do with

26 sex and are legitimate, undisputed, non-discriminatory factors explaining any difference

27 in flight accommodations that preclude Plaintiffs from succeeding on their Title VII

28 claim, and Plaintiffs have offered no evidence to suggest that they are mere pretext for

23 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:2924

1 sex discrimination. Vasquez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2003), as

2 amended (Jan. 2, 2004) (“To show pretext using circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must

3 put forward specific and substantial evidence challenging the credibility of the

4 employer’s motives.”).

5

When it comes to playing surfaces, neither team has played on artificial turf in a venue

6 selected by U.S. Soccer since October 2017. (King Dec. Ex. 20-21, Def. Supp. Int. Ans.

7 2.) Between January 1, 2016, and July 26, 2017, each team played on artificial turf one

8 time when U.S. Soccer chose the venue for the game. (Id.) In addition, the WNT played

9 on artificial turf seven times during the second half of 2015 and three times during the

10 second half of 2017 in venues chosen by U.S. Soccer. (Id.) U.S. Soccer scheduled those

11 games in venues with artificial turf fields for reasons that have nothing to do with sex, but

12 with venue availability and the desire for the national team to play in different parts of the

13 country. (Id.) To be sure, U.S. Soccer did pay to have temporary grass installed for an

14 MNT match in one of these same stadiums in 2019, but again, neither team has played on

15 artificial turf since 2017. (Id.) Furthermore, that match was the last preparatory match for

16 the 2019 Gold Cup, which was played on grass. (Id.) As with their complaints about

17 commercial flights, Plaintiffs cannot present any evidence calling into question the

18 legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons U.S. Soccer has offered for playing on artificial

19 turf more often with the WNT during late 2015 and 2017. Vasquez, 349 F.3d at 642.

20 Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims should be dismissed.

21 IV. CONCLUSION

22

Plaintiffs, through their self-selected and highly capable collective bargaining

23 representatives, negotiated labor agreements that hedge against risk and provide more

24 stability and security than the MNT’s labor agreement does, while also containing

25 various other favorable terms not found anywhere in the MNT’s agreement (e.g., medical

26 insurance, a $350,000 annual payment for intellectual property rights; three separate

27 bonuses based on television ratings, attendance, and sponsorship revenue; a guaranteed

28 number of single-occupancy hotel rooms while on the road; and payment of the players’

24 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:2925

1 salaries while playing in their professional league). Now, in hindsight, knowing that they

2 have made it through several years of the risk of career-ending injury, falling out of favor

3 with the coach, being passed over for a younger and better player, or simply losing more

4 games than they had hoped, Plaintiffs want the Court to let a jury selectively turn back

5 the clock and rewrite their contract by forcing U.S. Soccer to pay them more money

6 without having to take the risks presented by the MNT agreement—risks the MNT

7 took—or having to forego any of the more favorable contract terms they achieved in

8 collective bargaining. This, even though their contractual arrangement caused them to

9 earn far more money than the MNT players, who put their compensation on the line

10 against these risks and earned less as a result. Ultimately, Plaintiffs want the Court to

11 force U.S. Soccer into paying them as though they negotiated a different contract, won

12 competitions they did not play in, defeated opponents they never faced, and generated

13 over $60 million more in FIFA prize money for U.S. Soccer than they actually did. This

14 is not the purpose of the anti-discrimination laws, which are designed to prevent

15 employers from paying women less than men in exchange for virtually identical work,

16 just because they are women. That did not happen here.

17

U.S. Soccer values all its athletes, including its WNT players, and it also values the

18 collective bargaining process, during which U.S. Soccer and the players created an

19 overall package of compensation, benefits, and other terms designed to meet the players’

20 needs while enabling U.S. Soccer to fulfill its overall mission. Following ratification of

21 the contract, one player (a union representative at the time and Plaintiff now) hailed the

22 deal as “exactly what we thought was fair and what we thought should be in the CBA.”

23 (Klingenberg Ex. 7.) Plaintiffs should not be allowed to use this lawsuit as a vehicle to

24 selectively revise portions of that agreement. The lawsuit should be dismissed.

25

Respectfully submitted,

26

U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.

27

By: /s/ Brian Stolzenbach

28

25 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 89 Page ID #:2926

1 Ellen E. McLaughlin (Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: emclaughlin@seyfarth.com
2 Noah Finkel (Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
3 Brian Stolzenbach (Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: bstolzenbach@seyfarth.com
4 Sharilee Smentek (Pro Hac Vice) E-mail: ssmentek@seyfarth.com
5 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448
6 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
7 Kristen M. Peters (SBN 252296)
8 E-mail: kmpeters@seyfarth.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
9 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200
10 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219

11 Chantelle C. Egan (SBN 257938) cegan@seyfarth.com
12 Giovanna A. Ferrari (SBN 229871) gferrari@seyfarth.com
13 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, California 94105
14 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
15 Kyllan Kershaw (Pro Hac Vice)
16 kkershaw@seyfarth.com 1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2500
17 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500
18 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056

19 Counsel for Defendant U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.
20

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23 ALEX MORGAN, et al.,

Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

24

Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26 U.S. SOCCER FEDERATION, INC.,

27 Defendant.

28

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Hearing: March 30, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 89 Page ID #:2927

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 56-1, Defendant U.S. Soccer Federation, Inc., submits the

2 following Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law in Support of Its

3 Motion for Summary Judgment.

4 I. Uncontroverted Facts

5

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

6

1. The United States Soccer Federation, Inc. Declaration of Sunil Gulati in

7

(“U.S. Soccer”) is, and has been at all Support of Defendant’s Motion

8

relevant times, a not-for-profit

for Summary Judgement (“Gulati

9

corporation that has been granted tax- Dec.”) ¶ 8.

10

exempt status by the Internal Revenue

11

Service under Section 501(c)(3) of the

12

Internal Revenue Code.

13

2. According to its by-laws in effect from Gulati Dec. ¶ 9.

14

September 1, 2012, until April 30, 2017,

15

the purposes of U.S. Soccer during that

16

period were: (1) to promote soccer in the

17

United States, including national and

18

international games and tournaments,

19

soccer for women and men, indoor soccer

20

and beach soccer; (2) to govern,

21

coordinate, and administer the sport of

22

soccer in the United States; (3) to provide

23

for the continuing development of soccer

24

players, coaches, referees, and

25

administrators; (4) to provide for national

26

cup competitions; and (5) to provide for

27

the prompt and equitable resolution of

28

grievances.

1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 89 Page ID #:2928

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 3. According to its current by-laws, in effect Gulati Dec. ¶ 10.
3 since May 1, 2017, the purposes of U.S.

4 Soccer are: (1) to promote, govern,

5 coordinate, and administer the growth

6 and development of soccer in all its

7 recognized forms in the United States for

8 all persons of all ages and abilities,

9 including national teams and international

10 games and tournaments; (2) to provide

11 for the continuing development of soccer

12 players, coaches, referees and

13 administrators; (3) to provide for national

14 cup competitions; and (4) to provide for

15 the prompt and equitable resolution of

16 grievances.

17

4. On July 6, 2019, Yahoo Sports soccer

Deposition of Megan Rapinoe

18

reporter Caitlin Murray accurately quoted taken on January 16, 2020

19 Plaintiff Megan Rapinoe saying: “Our (“Rapinoe Dep.”) 297:2-18,

20 federation is case in point for funding the Rapinoe Dep. Ex. 32.

21 team very well. Obviously I’m the first to

22 step up and fight with them and nudge

23 them a little more but they have backed

24 us tremendously. Compared to every

25 other federation in the world, I don’t

26 think it’s close. I think that’s a big reason

27 we’ve been able to be as successful and

28

2

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 89 Page ID #:2929

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 as dominant as long as we have. We don’t

3 often give them kudos but that’s

4 definitely one I’m willing to give. They

5 back the team in a very strong way and

6 have pushed the game, not only in our

7 country but around the world, to a level

8 where, without that, we wouldn’t be here

9 in the world game. So I think they do

10 deserve a tremendous amount of credit

11 for that and we will continue to nudge

12 them forward.”

13 5. U.S. Soccer fields more than 20 national Gulati Dec. ¶ 11.
14 teams, including youth national teams at

15 varying age levels, Para-7-a-side and

16 extended national teams in the beach,

17 futsal, and para-athlete categories, and the

18 Senior Men’s National Team (MNT) and

19 the Senior Women’s National Team

20 (WNT).

21 6. U.S. Soccer (1) selects, funds, trains, and Gulati Dec. ¶ 12.
22 manages the various United States

23 national soccer teams; (2) supports a

24 national development program for

25 talented youth participants over the age of

26 14; (3) trains and licenses both coaches

27

and referees at all levels of soccer; (4)

28

3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 89 Page ID #:2930

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 supports a national training center in

3 Carson, California; and (5) seeks to

4 resolve disputes between and among its

5 members.

6 7. U.S. Soccer has been recognized by the Gulati Dec. ¶ 13.
7 United States Olympic and Paralympic

8 Committee (“USOPC”) as the national

9 governing body and paralympic sports

10 organization (“NGB”) for the sport of

11 soccer under the Ted Stevens Olympic

12 and Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C.

13 220521.

14

15

8. U.S. Soccer has fielded a women’s soccer Gulati Dec. ¶ 19.

team for purposes of trying to qualify for

16 and ultimately win the Gold Medal in

17 Olympic competition ever since the sport

18 of women’s soccer was added to the

19 Olympic Games for the 1996 Olympic

20 Games in Atlanta. In fact, the team has

21 qualified for the Olympic Games in

22 Tokyo in 2020.

23

24

9. U.S. Soccer has fielded a men’s soccer Gulati Dec. ¶ 20.

team for purposes of trying to qualify for 25

and ultimately win the Gold Medal in

26

Olympic competition ever since then, as 27

well, and for even longer because men’s 28

4

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 89 Page ID #:2931

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 soccer has been an Olympic sport for a

3 longer period of time. The team will

4 compete in Olympic qualifiers later this

5 year, in the hope of qualifying for the

6 Olympic Games in Tokyo this summer.

7 10. U.S. Soccer is the national association Gulati Dec. ¶ 14.
8 member of the Federation Internationale

9 de Football Association (“FIFA”) for the

10 United States. There are 210 other

11 national association members of FIFA,

12 each representing a different nation or

13 autonomous region of the world. Each

14 national association member, as a

15 condition of continuing membership,

16 must, among other things, comply fully

17 with the FIFA statutes, regulations,

18 directives and decisions and ensure that

19 their own members do the same.

20

11. U.S. Soccer is also a member of the

Gulati Dec. ¶ 15.

21

Confederation of North, Central America

22 and Caribbean Association Football

23 (“Concacaf”). There are 40 other

24 members of Concacaf, each representing

25 a different nation or autonomous region

26 in North America, Central America, or

27

the Caribbean.

28

5

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 89 Page ID #:2932

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 12. As a member of FIFA and Concacaf, the Gulati Dec. ¶ 17.
3 Federation is, to the extent permitted by

4 governing law, obliged to respect the

5 statutes, regulations, directives, and

6 decisions of FIFA and of Concacaf.

7 13. Among their other activities, FIFA and Gulati Dec. ¶ 18.
8 Concacaf sponsor and organize soccer

9 tournaments and other official

10 competitions among their respective

11 members.

12 14. FIFA sponsors and organizes the FIFA Gulati Dec. ¶ 21.
13 World Cup, a tournament for senior

14 men’s national teams, and has done so

15 every four years since 1930, with the

16 exception of 1942 and 1946.

17

18

15. Today, the FIFA World Cup is often

Gulati Dec. ¶ 21; Gulati Dec. Ex.

described as the most popular sporting 1.

19

event in the world, based on the number

20

of people in the world who watch it.

21

22

16. FIFA sponsors and organizes the FIFA Gulati Dec. ¶ 22.

Women’s World Cup, a tournament for 23

senior women’s national teams, and has 24

done so every four years since 1991. 25

26

17. Billions more people across the globe

Gulati Dec. ¶¶ 21, 22, Gulati Dec.

watched the 2010 FIFA World Cup than Exs. 2-7. 27

watched the 2011 FIFA Women’s World 28

6

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 89 Page ID #:2933

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Cup, billions more people across the

3 globe watched the 2014 FIFA World Cup

4 than watched the 2015 FIFA Women’s

5 World Cup, and billions more people

6 watched the 2018 FIFA World Cup than

7 watched the 2019 FIFA Women’s World

8 Cup.

9 18. U.S. Soccer has fielded a women’s soccer Gulati Dec. ¶ 23.
10 team for purposes of trying to qualify for

11 and ultimately win the FIFA Women’s

12 World Cup ever since the first such event

13 in 1991.

14

15

19. U.S. Soccer has fielded a men’s soccer Gulati Dec. ¶ 24.

team for purposes of trying to qualify for

16 and ultimately win the FIFA World Cup

17 ever since then, as well, and for even

18 longer because the World Cup for men

19 has been played for a longer period of

20 time.

21

22

20. Concacaf sponsors and organizes the

Gulati Dec. ¶ 25.

Gold Cup, which is a competition for 23
senior men’s national teams fielded by 24

the members of Concacaf. It has done so 25

every two years since 2003. Before that,

26

the cadence of Gold Cup competitions 27

was not as uniform. 28

7

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 89 Page ID #:2934

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 21. U.S. Soccer has fielded a men’s soccer Gulati Dec. ¶ 26.
3 team for purposes of trying to win the

4 Gold Cup in each year since 2003 and

5 prior to that, as well.

6 22. Between 2005 and 2017, FIFA sponsored Gulati Dec. ¶ 27.
7 and organized the FIFA Confederations

8 Cup, which was a competition for senior

9 men’s national teams, every four years.

10 Before that, the cadence of

11 Confederations Cup competitions was not

12 as uniform. During the 2005-2017 period,

13 the Confederations Cup was an eight-

14 team tournament contested the year

15 before the FIFA World Cup, held in the

16 country that would be hosting the FIFA

17 World Cup the following year. The

18 participants typically were the reigning

19 FIFA World Cup champion, the six

20 reigning continental champions (e.g., in

21 Concacaf, typically the reigning Gold

22 Cup champion), and the host of the next

23 year’s FIFA World Cup.

24

25

23. In 2015, Concacaf organized the

Gulati Dec. ¶ 28.

CONCACAF Cup, which was a single

26 match contested by the United States and

27

Mexico (winners of the 2013 and 2015

28

8

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 89 Page ID #:2935

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Gold Cups, respectively) for the right to

3 play in the 2017 FIFA Confederations

4 Cup.

5

24. Concacaf sponsors and organizes a

Gulati Dec. ¶ 29.

6

tournament for senior women’s national

7 teams. Since 2002, this tournament has

8 also doubled as the Concacaf region’s

9 qualifying tournament for either the FIFA

10 Women’s World Cup or the Olympic

11 Games. In contrast, the qualifying

12 processes for the men’s FIFA World Cup

13 and Olympic Games soccer tournament

14 are separate and apart from the men’s

15 Gold Cup.

16 25. U.S. Soccer has fielded a women’s soccer Gulati Dec. ¶ 30.
17 team for purposes of trying to win

18 Concacaf’s regional women’s

19 championship (described in the preceding

20 paragraph) every year since 2002 and

21 prior to that, as well.

22

23

26. La Confederación Sudamericana de

Fútbol (“CONMEBOL”) is the

24

Gulati Dec. ¶ 31.

continental governing body for the sport 25

of soccer in South America. U.S. Soccer

26

is not a member of CONMEBOL, but it 27

has been invited by CONMEBOL to 28

9

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 89 Page ID #:2936

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 participate in its championship for its

3 senior men’s national teams, the Copa

4 America, on some occasions in the past.

5 In recent years CONMEBOL has invited

6 teams from outside CONMEBOL to

7 participate.

8 27. In 2017, Concacaf announced the first Gulati Dec. ¶ 32.
9 ever Concacaf Nations League, a

10 competition for men’s national teams to

11 be contested from 2018-2020. U.S.

12 Soccer has fielded a men’s soccer team in

13 this Nations League competition. The

14 MNT has participated in this competition,

15 advancing to the semifinals to be played

16 later this year.

17

28. For purposes of all the foregoing

Gulati Dec. ¶ 33.

18

women’s competitions, including the

19 Olympics, U.S. Soccer fields the WNT.

20

21

29. For purposes of all the foregoing men’s Gulati Dec. ¶¶ 34, 35.

competitions, except the Olympics, U.S. 22

Soccer fields the MNT. 23

24

30. For the men’s Olympic qualifying

Gulati Dec. ¶ 36.

tournament, U.S. Soccer is required to 25

field its Under 23 Men’s National Team 26

(U-23 MNT), i.e., the team may not 27

include any players over the age of 23 (as 28

10

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 89 Page ID #:2937

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 measured by a certain date) for Olympic

3 qualifying matches. U.S. Soccer also

4 must use its U-23 MNT for matches in

5 the Olympic Games if it qualifies, with

6 the exception that the rules of the

7 competition allow the teams that qualify

8 for the Olympic Games to add three

9 players over the age of 23 to their

10 Olympic Games rosters.

11

31. In 2015 and 2016, the MNT included

Gulati Dec. ¶ 37.

12

some players who were under the age of

13 23 and therefore eligible to play for the

14 U-23 MNT in Olympic qualifiers during

15 those years. For example, Jordan Morris

16 played for the U-23 MNT in Olympic

17 qualifiers in those years even though he

18 had previously played in games for the

19 MNT.

20 32. In prior years when the U-23 MNT has Gulati Dec. ¶ 38.
21 qualified for the Olympic Games, U.S.

22 Soccer has used players under the age of

23 23 who had previously played for the

24 MNT and also added players over the age

25 of 23 who had previously played for the

26 MNT. For example, the men’s roster for

27

the 2008 Olympic Games included 36-

28

11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 89 Page ID #:2938

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 year-old Brian McBride, who had by then

3 played nearly 100 games with the MNT,

4 and Benny Feilhaber, who qualified as a

5 U-23 player but had played for the MNT

6 in past, even scoring the game-winning

7 goal for the MNT in the 2007 Gold Cup

8 Final.

9 33. In 2020, the MNT includes some players Gulati Dec. ¶ 39.
10 who are also eligible to play for the U-23

11 MNT in its Olympic qualifiers scheduled

12 for March and April 2020. In addition, all

13 MNT players will be eligible to play for

14 U.S. Soccer at the Olympic Games if the

15 team qualifies (because any of the

16 individuals over the age of 23 could be

17 named as one of the three over-age

18 players).

19

20

34. In addition to playing in the previously Gulati Dec. ¶ 40.

described competitions, the MNT also

21 plays senior men’s national teams from

22 other nations in international friendlies.

23

24

35. In addition to playing in Olympics and Gulati Dec. ¶ 41.

the FIFA Women’s World Cup (and their 25

associated qualifying tournaments), the

26

WNT also plays senior women’s national 27

28

12

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 89 Page ID #:2939

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 teams from other nations in international

3 friendlies.

4 36. Some of the friendly matches in which Gulati Dec. ¶ 42; Deposition of
5 the WNT plays have been organized into Meghan Klingenberg taken on

6 a round-robin tournament format (e.g., February 7, 2020 (“Klingenberg

7 the She Believes Cup, the Algarve Cup, Dep.”) 56:7-15; Deposition of

8 and Tournament of Nations), but they are Rebecca Roux taken on

9 still considered international friendlies. December 19, 2019 (“Roux

10 Dep.”) 157:17-158:14; Roux

11 Dep. Ex. 18; Roux Dep. 295:12-

12 22; Roux Dep. Ex. 37

13

14

37. International soccer at the senior men’s Gulati Dec. ¶ 43; Deposition of

and women’s national team level is

John Langel taken on November

15 organized around four-year cycles known 21, 2019 (“Langel Dep.”) 19:10-

16 as “quads.” The men’s cycle runs from 20:16.

17 January 1 in the year after the FIFA

18 World Cup through December 31 of the

19 year of the next FIFA World Cup. The

20 women’s cycle runs from the January 1

21 after the Olympics through December 31

22 of the year of the next Olympics. The last

23 two quads for the men were 2011-2015

24 and 2015-2018. The current quad runs

25 from 2019-2022. The last two quads for

26 the women were 2009-2012 and 2013-

27

28

13

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 89 Page ID #:2940

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 2016. The current quad runs from 2017-

3 2020.

4 38. U.S. Soccer receives no funding from the Gulati Dec. ¶ 44.
5 federal government.

6

39. Although U.S. Soccer receives some

Gulati Dec. ¶ 45.

7

revenue from other sources, more than

8 half of its annual revenue typically comes

9 from a combination of the following

10 sources: (1) hosting soccer matches

11 against other senior men’s and women’s

12 national teams and generating revenue

13 from ticket sales and other activities

14 associated with putting on the event or

15 receiving money from other soccer

16 federations in exchange for agreeing to

17 play in their countries, (2) money

18 received for participating in tournaments

19 organized or sponsored by FIFA,

20 Concacaf, and CONMEBOL, and (3)

21 agreements with Soccer United

22 Marketing (SUM) and Nike according to

23 which SUM pays U.S. Soccer for certain

24 television broadcasting rights and both

25 SUM and Nike pay U.S. Soccer for

26 different bundles of intellectual property

27

rights.

28

14

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 89 Page ID #:2941

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 40. During the 2009-2012 WNT quad, U.S. Declaration of Carlyn Irwin in
3 Soccer earned less than $15 million in Support of Defendant’s Motion

4

revenue from 78 WNT games.

for Summary Judgment (“Irwin

5 Dec.”) ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

6 see also Declaration of Praptika

7 Raina in Support of Defendant’s

8 Motion for Summary Judgment

9 (“Raina Dec.”).

10 41. During the same time period, U.S. Soccer Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;
11 earned more than $60 million in revenue see also Raina Dec.

12 from 69 MNT games.

13

14

42. During the 2013-2016 WNT quad, U.S. Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

Soccer earned less than $60 million from see also Raina Dec.

15 91 WNT games.

16

17

43. During the same time period, U.S. Soccer Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

earned more than $80 million from 77 Raina Dec. 18
MNT games. 19

20

44. In addition, in 2016 a subsidiary of U.S. Gulati Dec. ¶ 46.

Soccer organized and hosted the Copa 21

America Centenario, a special 100th 22

anniversary edition of the Copa America, 23

co-sponsored by CONMEBOL and 24

Concacaf. The subsidiary generated more 25

than $70 million in net income from this 26

activity and contributed that money to 27

U.S. Soccer. U.S. Soccer’s Board of 28

15

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 89 Page ID #:2942

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Directors has approved a plan to spend

3 those funds on various activities designed

4 to further the mission of U.S. Soccer.

5 45. The MNT played in the Copa America Gulati Dec. ¶ 47.
6 Centenario and advanced to the

7 semifinals. The unique opportunity to

8 form a subsidiary to organize and host

9 that tournament would not have existed if

10 U.S. Soccer did not field a senior men’s

11 international soccer team.

12 46. FIFA owns and monetizes all commercial Gulati Dec. ¶ 48.
13 rights associated with the FIFA World

14 Cup and the FIFA Women’s World Cup

15 tournaments, such as television broadcast

16 rights and the right to sell tickets to attend

17 the games. The only revenue U.S. Soccer

18 receives from such tournaments is in the

19 form of money paid to U.S. Soccer by

20 FIFA as a reward for qualifying for or

21 succeeding in the tournament.

22

23

47. U.S. Soccer, however, does own the

broadcast rights and the right to sell

24

Gulati Dec. ¶ 49.

tickets to certain FIFA World Cup 25

qualifiers involving the MNT. It does not

26

own the broadcast rights to the FIFA 27

Women’s World Cup qualifiers or the 28

16

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 89 Page ID #:2943

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 right to sell tickets to those games

3 because the WNT qualifies through

4 Concacaf’s regional championship

5 tournament, and Concacaf owns those

6 rights.

7

48. For the 2010 FIFA World Cup, FIFA

Gulati Dec. ¶ 50, Gulati Dec. Ex.

8

paid $8 million in prize money to every 8.

9 soccer federation that qualified for the

10 tournament and $30 million to the

11 tournament champion. The total amount

12 of prize money available was $348

13 million. U.S. Soccer received $9 million

14 because the MNT advanced to the Round

15 of 16 that year.

16 49. For the 2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup, Defendant’s Supplemental
17 FIFA awarded $1 million in prize money Answers to Plaintiffs’

18 to the winner. The total amount of prize Interrogatories served on January

19 money available in that tournament was 31, 2020 (“Def. Supp. Int. Ans.”),

20 $6.4 million, and U.S. Soccer received No. 5; Gulati Dec. ¶ 51, Gulati

21 $800,000 because the WNT finished 2nd Dec. Ex. 9.

22 in the tournament.

23

24

50. For the 2014 FIFA World Cup, FIFA

Def. Supp. Int. Ans., No. 5;

paid $8 million in prize money to every Gulati Dec. ¶ 52; Gulati Dec. Ex. 25

soccer federation that qualified for the 10.

26

tournament and $35 million to the 27

tournament champion. The total amount 28

17

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 89 Page ID #:2944

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 of prize money available was $358

3 million. U.S. Soccer received $9 million

4 because the MNT advanced to the Round

5 of 16 that year.

6

51. In 2015, the WNT won the FIFA

Def. Supp. Int. Ans. No. 5; Gulati

7

Women’s World Cup, and U.S. Soccer Dec. ¶ 53, Gulati Dec. Ex. 11.

8 received $2 million in prize money from

9 FIFA as a result. The total amount of

10 prize money available in 2015 was $15

11 million.

12 52. In 2018, FIFA awarded $38 million to the Gulati Dec. ¶ 54.
13 French Football Federation because

14 France won the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

15

16

53. In 2019, the WNT won the FIFA

Gulati Dec. ¶ 54, Gulati Dec. Ex.

Women’s World Cup, and U.S. Soccer 12; Def. Supp. Int. Ans. No. 5.

17

will receive $4 million in prize money 18
from FIFA as a result. 19

20

54. The 2014 FIFA World Cup was held in Gulati Dec. ¶ 56.

Brazil. The 2018 FIFA World Cup was 21

held in Russia. Thirty-two senior men’s 22

national teams participated in each 23

tournament. 24

25

55. To qualify for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Gulati Dec. ¶ 57.

the MNT first had to play two games 26

each (home-and-away) against Jamaica, 27

Guatemala, and Antigua & Barbuda over 28

18

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 89 Page ID #:2945

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 the course of four months in 2012 and

3 then another two games each (home-and-

4 away) against Mexico, Costa Rica,

5 Honduras, Panama, and Jamaica over the

6 course of eight months in 2013. The

7 MNT finished in first place in each round

8 and qualified for the 2014 FIFA World

9 Cup.

10

56. To try to qualify for the 2018 FIFA

Gulati Dec. ¶ 58.

11

World Cup, the MNT first had to play

12 two games each (home-and-away) against

13 Trinidad & Tobago, Guatemala, and St.

14 Vincent & the Grenandines over the

15 course of almost 10 months in 2015 and

16 2016 and then another two games each

17 (home-and-away) against Mexico, Costa

18 Rica, Panama, Honduras, and Trinidad &

19 Tobago over the course of almost a year

20 in 2016 and 2017. The MNT finished in

21 first place in the initial round but in fifth

22 place in the final round and, as a result,

23 did not qualify for the 2018 FIFA World

24 Cup. This was the first time since the

25 mid-1980s that the MNT failed to qualify

26 for the FIFA World Cup.

27

28

19

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 89 Page ID #:2946

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

57. The 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup

Gulati Dec. ¶ 59.

3

was held in Canada. The 2019 FIFA

4 Women’s World Cup was held in France.

5 Twenty-four senior women’s national

6 teams participated in each tournament.

7 58. To qualify for the 2015 FIFA Women’s Gulati Dec. ¶ 60.
8 World Cup, the WNT had to play five

9 games over the course of 12 days in

10 October 2014, all in the United States.

11 59. To qualify for the 2019 Women’s World Gulati Dec. ¶ 61.
12 Cup, the WNT had to play five games

13 over the course of 14 days in October

14 2018, all in the United States.

15

16

60. Plaintiff Kelley O’Hara testified that one Deposition of Kelley O’Hara

reason it makes sense to pay her more for taken on January 17, 2020

17

playing in the FIFA Women’s World Cup (“O’Hara Dep.”) 172:24-173:15. 18
than for playing in the She Believes 19
Tournament is the fact that there are more 20

teams participating in the FIFA Women’s

21

World Cup. 22

23

61. O’Hara also testified that one reason it O’Hara Dep. 173:16-174:1.

makes sense to pay her more for playing 24

in the FIFA Women’s World Cup is 25

because it is the most prestigious 26

tournament in which she plays and that 27

28

20

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 89 Page ID #:2947

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 this prestige comes in part from the

3 number of teams involved.

4 62. O’Hara testified as follows at her
5 deposition:

O’Hara Dep. 113:15-20; 113:23114:1; 114:4-10; 114:12-15.

6 Q: “If the Men’s National Team

7 qualifies for the Olympics and [Deandre]

8 Yedlin is named to the team and he is

9 paid less for participating in the Olympics

10 in 2020, will you be okay with that?”

11 A: “Yeah.”

12 Q: “Okay. You will not consider that

13 to be sex discrimination against Mr.

14 Yedlin, will you?”

15 A: “No, because again this is our full

16 team. This is their full team. He is

17 choosing to play for the U-23 team. He

18 doesn’t have to go play in the Olympics

19 for no money. He’s choosing to do that.”

20 Q: “So he will be playing under

21 difference circumstances than you will

22 be.”

23 A: “Yes, because it’s a completely

24 different tournament for the men and the

25 women. One is the U-23 tournament for

26 the men; one is a full-team tournament

27 for the women.”

28

21

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 89 Page ID #:2948

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 63. At all levels of its national team program, Gulati Dec. ¶ 62.
3 including its senior national teams, U.S.

4 Soccer fields separate teams for males

5 and females. This is required by FIFA’s

6 rules and regulations.

7

64. The soccer played by the WNT is “a

Deposition of Carli Lloyd taken

8

different game” from the soccer played on December 20, 2019 (“Lloyd

9 by the MNT “in the sense that men are Dep.”) 103:19-105:5, Lloyd Dep.

10 bigger, stronger, faster” and “there’s no Ex. 15.

11 denying the science in that regard.”

12

65. In a written interview with a soccer

Lloyd Dep. 103:18-104:5,

13

reporter after Germany’s senior men’s 106:16-107:8, Lloyd Dep. Ex. 15.

14 national team won the 2014 FIFA World

15 Cup and the WNT won the 2015 FIFA

16 Women’s World Cup, the reporter and

17 Plaintiff Lloyd had the following

18 exchange:

19 Q. The men’s world champions are

20 Germany. If an exhibition game was to be

21 held between the USA women’s team and

22 the Germany men’s team, what would the

23 score be like, in your opinion? Is there a

24 monumental difference between women’s

25 and men’s soccer or would you be able to

26 compete well with them?

27

28

22

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 89 Page ID #:2949

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 A. It would be extremely hard to play

3 against Germany. Men are faster and

4 stronger. We often play against U16 boys

5 teams and that is about as old as we can

6 go.

7

66. In comparing the MNT and WNT,

Rapinoe Dep. 284:15-286:16;

8

Plaintiff Rapinoe stated in an interview Rapinoe Ex. 29

9 with Pod Save America: “Our pay

10 structure is different. We play different

11 games. We’re different rankings in the

12 world. Like, it’s just apples and oranges.”

13

14

67. The WNT and MNT have different Head King Dec. ¶ 3.

Coaches and separate coaching staffs

15 reporting to each Head Coach.

16

17

68. The WNT and MNT have separate Team King Dec. ¶ 4.

Administrators. Each Team 18
Administrator manages all aspects of his 19
or her team’s operations and logistics, 20

such as team travel, hotels, meals,

21

security, training fields, and stadium 22

requirements. They also manage team 23
operational expenditures, including but 24

not limited to expenditures on hotels and 25

ground and air transportation. Each Team

26

Administrator is also responsible for 27

overseeing the administration of 28

23

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 89 Page ID #:2950

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 compensation to the team’s players under

3 the relevant collective bargaining

4 agreement.

5 69. The Head Coach of the WNT determines King Dec. ¶ 3.
6 which individuals play for the WNT.

7 70. The Head Coach of the MNT determines King Dec. ¶ 3.
8 which individuals play for the MNT.

9

10

71. Since 2013, almost all MNT players have King Dec. ¶ 5.

not only played for U.S. Soccer, but also 11

have played for a club team in a

12

professional soccer league, such as Major 13
League Soccer in the United States, 14
LigaMX in Mexico, the Eredivisie in the 15

Netherlands, the Premier League in

16

England, the Bundesliga in Germany, or

17

one of several others leagues in Europe. 18
There has been only one exception: 19
Jordan Morris still was playing for 20

Stanford University when he was first

21

called in to play with the team in 2014. 22

23

72. Since 2013, most WNT players have not King Dec. ¶ 6.

only played for U.S. Soccer, but also 24

have played for a club team in a 25

professional soccer league. A number of 26

them, however, have been collegiate 27

athletes like Jordan Morris was in 2014 28

24

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 89 Page ID #:2951

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 when he was first called in to play with

3 the MNT in 2014. The vast majority of

4 those who were not collegiate athletes

5 have played their club soccer between

6 2014 and the present in the National

7 Women’s Soccer League (NWSL), the

8 top-tier professional women’s soccer

9 league in the United States. During that

10 same time period, a much higher

11 percentage of the MNT players

12 (compared to the WNT players) have

13 played their club soccer outside for teams

14 in Europe.

15 73. Since 2015, the WNT has competed in King Dec. ¶ 58-67; King Dec.
16 friendlies, the Olympics (and associated Ex. 18.

17 qualifying matches), and the FIFA

18 Women’s World Cup (and associated

19 qualifying matches) against other senior

20 women’s national teams, and all their

21 matches took place in Europe, Canada,

22 and the United States.

23

24

74. During the same period, the MNT did not King Dec. ¶ 58-67; King Dec.

compete in the Olympics at all but did Ex. 19.

25 compete in the Gold Cup, CONCACAF

26 Cup, Copa America Centenario, FIFA

27

World Cup qualifying matches, the

28

25

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 89 Page ID #:2952

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Concacaf Nations League, and friendlies

3 against other senior men’s national teams

4 and played those games in Central

5 America, the Caribbean, Mexico, Europe,

6 Canada, and the United States.

7 75. In the mid-1990s, U.S. Soccer voluntarily King Dec. ¶ 7.
8 recognized the United States National

9 Soccer Team Players Association

10 (USNSTPA) as the exclusive

11 representative of all MNT players for the

12 purposes of collective bargaining under

13 the National Labor Relations Act.

14

15

76. Mark Levinstein, a partner at the law firm King Dec. ¶ 7.

of Williams & Connolly, has been the

16 Acting Executive Director and General

17 Counsel of the USNSTPA since its

18 creation and has represented the

19 USNSTPA during collective bargaining

20 negotiations for each of its collective

21 bargaining agreements with U.S. Soccer.

22

23

77. The USNSTPA and U.S. Soccer have

King Dec. ¶ 8, King Dec. Ex. 1.

executed a series of collective bargaining

24

agreements since the 1990s covering the 25

players on the MNT. The most recent

26

collective bargaining agreement between 27

the USNSTPA and U.S. Soccer was 28

26

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 89 Page ID #:2953

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 executed on November 20, 2011. It

3 remained in effect through December 31,

4 2018.

5 78. U.S. Soccer did not pay members of the King Dec. ¶ 8.
6 MNT a signing bonus in conjunction with

7 the negotiation of this agreement.

8 79. U.S. Soccer has continued to compensate King Dec. ¶ 9, King Dec. Ex. 2.
9 its MNT players according to the terms of

10 the 2011-2018 collective bargaining

11 agreement ever since it expired, except

12 that U.S. Soccer needed to determine,

13 during 2019, how to compensate MNT

14 players for playing in the 2019-2020

15 Concacaf Nations League. That

16 competition did not exist when the 2011-

17 2018 collective bargaining agreement

18 went into effect, and the MNT did not

19 begin playing in Concacaf Nations

20 League matches until 2019.

21

22

80. Over the years, some individuals who

King Dec. ¶ 10.

have played on the MNT have also 23
played on U.S. Soccer’s Under-23 Men’s 24

National Team (“U-23 MNT”) in 25

Olympic qualifiers and the Olympic

26

Games even after making it to the MNT, 27

but those individuals have not been 28

27

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 89 Page ID #:2954

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 covered by the collective bargaining

3 agreement between the USNSTPA and

4 U.S. Soccer while playing for the U-23

5 MNT. Aside from per diems, U-23 MNT

6 players were not compensated for their

7 play in Olympic qualifiers in 2015 and

8 2016, even if the player had previously

9 played for the MNT. Aside from per

10 diems, U.S. Soccer also has no plans to

11 compensate U-23 MNT players for

12 playing in Olympic qualifiers in 2020 or

13 for playing in the Olympic Games in

14 2020, should they qualify, even if those

15 players have also previously played for

16 the MNT.

17

81. At times in the past, Levinstein has

King Dec. ¶ 11.

18

attempted to negotiate an agreement with

19 U.S. Soccer that would require U.S.

20 Soccer to pay substantial additional

21 compensation to U-23 MNT players,

22 beyond per diems, for Olympic qualifiers

23 and Olympic play, but U.S. Soccer has

24 not agreed.

25

82. The 2011-2018 collective bargaining

King Dec. ¶ 8, Ex. 1.

26

agreement (“CBA”) between U.S. Soccer

27

and the USNSTPA provides that MNT

28

28

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 89 Page ID #:2955

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 players earn no compensation from U.S.

3 Soccer unless they actually participate in

4 a training camp or make a particular

5 roster, and the payments for different

6 rosters vary. According to the CBA, U.S.

7 Soccer also has “no obligation to hold

8 any matches, tournaments, or events or to

9 field a team for any match, tournament,

10 or event.”

11

83. The 2011-2018 CBA between U.S.

King Dec. ¶ 8, Ex. 1.

12

Soccer and the USNSTPA also provides

13 for various bonuses payable to the MNT

14 players based on the team’s performance

15 in different games and tournaments.

16 84. U.S. Soccer does not pay MNT players King Dec. ¶ 5
17 any money for playing with their

18 professional clubs; the clubs pay them.

19

20

85. In the early 2000s, U.S. Soccer

King Dec. ¶ 12.

voluntarily recognized the United States

21

Women’s National Soccer Team Players 22

Association (WNTPA) as the exclusive 23
representative of all WNT players for the 24

purposes of collective bargaining. 25

26

86. Until late 2014, the Executive Director Langel Dep. 7:22-13:13; 13:24-

and General Counsel of the WNTPA was 14, Langel Dep. Ex. 1. 27

John Langel, a partner at Ballard Spahr 28

29

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 89 Page ID #:2956

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 with experience in labor relations and

3 sports law. Langel represented the

4 WNTPA in its negotiations for its first

5 three collective bargaining agreements

6 with U.S. Soccer, including the one that

7 covered the period from January 1, 2013

8 through December 31, 2016.

9 87. The first collective bargaining agreement King Dec. ¶ 13, King Dec. Ex. 3.
10 between the WNTPA and U.S. Soccer

11 expired at the end of 2004, and the

12 second one covered the period from 2005

13 through 2012. A true and correct copy of

14 the 2005-2012 collective bargaining

15 agreement is attached to Tom King’s

16 Declaration as Exhibit 3.

17 88. In 2012, the WNTPA and U.S. Soccer Langel Dep. 31:16-32:8; Gulati
18 commenced negotiations for a successor Dec. ¶ 63.

19 CBA to the 2005-2012 agreement.

20

21

89. Langel possessed a copy of the 2011-

Langel Dep. 68:1-68:6.

2018 CBA between the USNSTPA and 22

U.S. Soccer as of the commencement of 23
those negotiations. 24

25

90. During those negotiations, U.S. Soccer Gulati Dec. ¶ 70, Gulati Dec. Ex.

Chief Financial Officer Eric Gleason

16.

26

prepared a document for Gulati showing 27

that from 2005 through 2011, U.S. Soccer 28

30

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 89 Page ID #:2957

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 earned more than $95 million from MNT

3 game revenue and less than $15 million

4 from WNT game revenue.

5

91. During the 2009-2012 WNT quad, U.S. Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

6

Soccer had generated less than $15

see also Raina Dec.

7 million from all WNT games, including

8 the 2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup.

9 During that same period U.S. Soccer

10 generated nearly $64 million from MNT

11 games.

12 92. On November 1, 2012, the WNTPA
13 presented U.S. Soccer with a

Langel Dep. 34:9-18, Langel Dep. Ex. 4; Gulati Dec. ¶ 66,

14

memorandum entitled, “WNT 2012

Gulati Dec. Ex. 14.

15 Negotiations with US Soccer.” The

16 memorandum began: “This memorandum

17 sets forth the issues to be addressed

18 during the negotiations between [the

19 WNTPA] and US Soccer for a collective

20 bargaining agreement for the 2013 season

21 and beyond. This list is without prejudice

22 to identify additional issues and submit

23 additional proposals.” This document

24 contained the first written proposal for a

25 new contract submitted by the WNTPA

26 during the negotiations for a new CBA.

27

28

31

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 89 Page ID #:2958

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

93. Among other things, the memorandum Gulati Dec. ¶ 66, Gulati Dec. Ex.

3

presented the following contract

14; Langel Dep. 73:9-74:2; 74:4-

4 demands: “At all times, there must be at 12; 74:14-21; 75:4-76:4; 76:5-

5 least 27 players under contract. . . .” “An 17; 76:25-77:16; 76:5-14.

6 injury protection that protects the player

7 for the shorter of the length of the injury

8 or one year from the date of the injury”

9 “Severance for all players . . . .” “Add

10 dental insurance” “Agreed upon number

11 of games” “Salaried players will receive a

12 set amount of break time.” “Day care for

13 matches . . . “ None of these items were

14 provided to the MNT in their CBA.

15

94. The memorandum also stated that per

Gulati Dec. ¶ 66, Gulati Dec. Ex.

16

diem payments “should at least be equal 14.

17 to Men’s current contract.” Although the

18 memorandum also requested various

19 improvements in compensation tied to the

20 FIFA Women’s World Cup and

21 friendlies, it did not request that this

22 compensation be the same as that paid to

23 the MNT for the FIFA World Cup or

24 friendlies.

25

95. The memorandum also contained a

Gulati Dec. ¶ 66; Gulati Dec. Ex.

26

section bearing the heading “League,” 14.

27

which posed a number of questions about

28

32

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 89 Page ID #:2959

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 the NWSL and also requested “[h]ealth

3 insurance and injury protection for all

4 players in the League” and “housing

5 expenses for all WNT Players while

6 playing in the League.”

7

96. At the time, there was no top-tier

Gulati Dec. ¶ 64.

8

women’s professional soccer league in

9 the United States. The prior two attempts

10 at such a league had failed, with the most

11 recent iteration ceasing operations after

12 three seasons in 2011.

13

14

97. Sunil Gulati, President of U.S. Soccer at Gulati Dec. ¶¶ 63, 65.

the time and lead negotiator for U.S.

15 Soccer in the 2012-2013 negotiations

16 with the WNTPA, had previously

17 informed Langel that U.S. Soccer wanted

18 to assist in starting a new top-tier

19 women’s professional soccer league in

20 2013.

21

22

98. On November 5, 2012, representatives of Gulati Dec. ¶ 67.

the WNTPA and U.S. Soccer met in 23
Philadelphia to discuss the WNTPA’s 24

proposals. WNT player Lauren Cheney 25

communicated to the U.S. Soccer

26

representatives during that meeting that 27

“the players are grateful for what they get 28

33

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 89 Page ID #:2960

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 paid and understand that they are among

3 the highest compensated teams in the

4 world.”

5 99. On December 4, 2012, Gleason emailed Gulati Dec. ¶ 68, Gulati Dec. Ex.
6 Langel a summary of U.S. Soccer’s initial 15; King Dec. ¶ 8, Ex. 1.

7 financial proposal for the new CBA.

8 Among other things, the document

9 proposed that there be 24 players under

10 contract receiving an annual salary, per

11 diems equal to the MNT as requested by

12 the WNTPA, a $1.8 million payment to

13 the players for Victory Tours after both

14 the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup and

15 2016 Olympic Games, and various

16 bonuses for success in the Olympics. The

17 proposal also included annual housing

18 allowances for players in the NWSL.

19 Other than the per diems, the 2011-2018

20 CBA between the USNSTPA and U.S.

21 Soccer did not include any of these items.

22 100. In addition to the terms reflected in the Gulati Dec. ¶ 69.
23 attachment to Gleason’s email, Gulati had

24 orally offered an additional $200,000 to

25 be applied to bonuses associated with the

26 FIFA Women’s World Cup or the

27

28

34

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 89 Page ID #:2961

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Olympics or some combination, as

3 determined by the WNTPA.

4 101. On December 6, 2012, Langel emailed a Langel Dep. 163:11-164:6;
5 memorandum to Gulati and U.S. Soccer Langel Dep. Ex. 14.

6 General Counsel Lisa Levine,

7 summarizing where the parties stood in

8 negotiations, from his perspective.

9

10

102. Langel wrote: “I have spoken with the

Langel Dep. 163:11-164:6;

Players and the financial proposal

Langel Dep. Ex. 14.

11 (including the $200,000 to be added

12 to/split between the WWC/Olympic

13 Qualifying and Roster bonus) will be

14 acceptable (with the exception of your

15 proposal on Floater salaries) depending

16 upon our resolution of the following

17 outstanding items we have to address.”

18 Langel proceeded to list 25 numbered

19 “Outstanding Items.”

20

21

103. The first outstanding item was a proposal Langel Dep. 163:11-164:6,

by the WNTPA to distribute a total of 173:16-174:5; Langel Dep. Ex. 22

$400,000 among the players if they did 14, 15; King Dec. ¶ 14; King 23
not “win Gold at the WWC/Olympics” or Dec. Ex. 4. 24

“give the players an opportunity like a 25

ranking bonus or the ticket bonus you

26

have given the Men.” Although U.S. 27

Soccer initially declined to agree to “put 28

35

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 89 Page ID #:2962

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 more money” into the agreement, it

3 ultimately agreed to the last of those

4 options: “Payment of $1.20 per/ticket

5 [sic] sold to US Soccer-promoted home

6 friendlies--under the same terms as the

7 agreement with the men.”

8 104. The fifth item was a proposal by the
9 WNTPA for three months’ severance

Langel Dep. 163:11-164:6, 173:16-174:5; Langel Dep. Ex.

10 benefits should U.S. Soccer terminate the 14, 15; King Dec. ¶ 13; King

11 contract of any salaried player. Although Dec. Ex. 4.

12 U.S. Soccer initially rejected this

13 proposal, it ultimately agreed to it.

14

15

105. The fifteenth item was a proposal by the Langel Dep. 163:11-164:6,

WNTPA for one year of salary

173:16-174:5; Langel Dep. Ex.

16 continuation during periods of injury and 14, 15; King Dec. ¶ 13; King

17 three months of salary continuation upon Dec. Ex. 4.

18 return from injury, the latter also applying

19 to return from maternity leave. Although

20 U.S. Soccer ultimately declined to accept

21 this proposal, it ultimately agreed to it.

22

23

106. On February 20, 2013, U.S. Soccer

Langel Dep. 184:2-185:14;

emailed a proposal to the WNTPA, (dated Langel Dep. Ex. 19, 20.

24

February 19, 2013). The proposal 25

categorized the outstanding issues in

26

negotiations as (1) financial; (2) 27

lifestyles; (3) league; and (4) marketing. 28

36

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 38 of 89 Page ID #:2963

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

107. In the February 20 proposal, U.S. Soccer Langel Dep. 184:2-185:14;

3

stated “we have revised our financial

Langel Dep. Ex. 19, 20.

4 proposal to reflect the priorities as

5 expressed by the PA, namely to increase

6 the guaranteed compensation at the

7 expense of the non-guaranteed

8 compensation (the bonus payments).”

9 The proposal included increasing the base

10 compensation for contracted players by

11 15% and proposed “ticket revenue of

12 $1.20 per paid ticket for all U.S. Soccer

13 promoted WNT home games.” The

14 proposal also stated “the Federation has

15 agreed to include an additional $200,000

16 in order to help close the deal, to be

17 allocated to non-guaranteed

18 compensation.”

19 108. In the February 20 proposal U.S. Soccer Langel Dep. 184:2-185:14;
20 stated “despite the minimum number of Langel Dep. Ex. 19, 20.

21 contracted players being 20, the

22 Federation has agreed to increase this to

23 24 going forward” and “three (3) months’

24 severance will be applied at any time

25 going forward with the current contracted

26 players.”

27

28

37

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 39 of 89 Page ID #:2964

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 109. In its February 20 proposal, U.S. Soccer Langel Dep. 184:2-185:14;
3 stated “as discussed, the Federation has Langel Dep. Ex. 19, 20.

4 many reservations about the PA’s

5 proposal of one contract (with the

6 Federation) encompassing both the

7 players’ National Team and league

8 commitments. However, we are working

9 to see if this can be accomplished.”

10 110. U.S. Soccer also countered the WNTPA Langel Dep. 184:2-185:14;
11 proposals on other items, including injury Langel Dep. Ex. 19, 20.

12 protection, pregnancy, day care/nanny

13 service, and travel and agreed that “the

14 Federation will make commercially

15 reasonable efforts to have two (2) trainers

16 and two (2) massage therapists at all

17 National Team camps; at least one (1) of

18 the trainers will be a registered Physical

19 Therapist (PT).”

20 111. On February 28, 2013, the WNTPA
21 emailed U.S. Soccer a proposal

Langel Dep. 188:16-189:5; Langel Dep. Ex. 21.

22 responding to U.S. Soccer’s February 20,

23 2013 proposal. In the proposal the

24 WNTPA stated that “we need to reach

25 agreement on the WNT compensation if

26 at any time under the contract there is no

27

League,” and “the WNT players need to

28

38

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 40 of 89 Page ID #:2965

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 have only one contract (covering both the

3 WNT and the NWSL) with U.S. Soccer.”

4 112. On March 5, 2013, U.S. Soccer emailed a Langel Dep. 192:21-194:15;
5 proposal to the WNTPA. In its proposal Langel Dep. Ex. 23.

6 U.S. Soccer stated: “[O]ur proposals have

7 increased the minimum number of

8 players under contract from 20 to 24.

9 That is a significant and expensive

10 change. If the players want to accept a

11 minimum number of 20 players under

12 contract then we would be willing to look

13 at some other issues in a different light.

14 We cannot, however, advance the process

15 without some understanding that the

16 increase of the minimum to 24 costs the

17 Federation significant dollars per year

18 and over the quad.”

19

20

113. On March 8, 2013, Langel e-mailed

Langel Dep. 201:9-202:12;

Gulati, stating in part that “terms from the Langel Dep. Ex. 25; King Dec. ¶

21

old CBA that we have not addressed

8; King Dec. Ex. 1.

22 remain unchanged unless inconsistent

23 with the memo we will sign” and

24 identifying a partial “list of items that

25 carry over.” Gulati responded that “the

26 general principle that stuff we have not

27

specifically covered would remain the

28

39

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 41 of 89 Page ID #:2966

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 same (or be appropriately adjusted) as in

3 the previous CBA seems sensible.”

4 Langel’s e-mail mentioned incorporating

5 from the 2005 agreement the language

6 that provided for “additional payment if

7 compensation ratio changes (if ratio of

8 aggregate compensation of WNT players

9 to aggregate revenue from all WNT

10 games is less than the ratio of aggregate

11 compensation of MNT compensation to

12 aggregate revenue from all MNT games,

13 then US Soccer makes a lump sum

14 payment to WNT player pool to make the

15 ratios equal).” No such provision exists in

16 the MNT agreement.

17

114. On March 19, 2013, the WNTPA and

Langel Dep. 212:21-213:5;

18

U.S. Soccer executed a Memorandum of Nichols Dep. 16:6-19:3; Gulati

19 Understanding (MOU) setting forth their Dec. ¶ 63; Gulati Dec. Ex. 13.

20 agreement on a new 2013-2016 CBA.

21 That CBA consisted of the 2005-2012

22 CBA, as modified by the MOU.

23

24

115. During the entire course of the

Gulati Dec. ¶ 73; Langel Dep.

negotiations that led to the 2013 MOU, 71:16-73:7.

25 the WNTPA never asked U.S. Soccer for

26 the same exact compensation terms found

27

in the USNSTPA’s CBA. The WNTPA

28

40

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 42 of 89 Page ID #:2967

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 never asked for the same bonuses for play

3 in the FIFA Women’s World Cup or its

4 associated qualifiers that the USNSTPA

5 CBA contained for the FIFA World Cup

6 or its qualifiers. Nor did the WNTPA ask

7 for win and draw bonuses for playing in

8 friendlies that were found in the

9 USNSTPA CBA pertaining to the MNT’s

10 friendlies.

11 116. The WNT players voted unanimously to Deposition of John Langel taken
12 approve all compensation provisions in in U.S. Soccer Federation, Inc. v.

13 the MOU.

U.S. Women’s National Soccer

14 Team Players Association, Case

15 No. 1:16-cv-01923 (N.D. Illinois)

16 at 196:1-196:14.

17 117. In the 2013 MOU, U.S. Soccer agreed to Langel Dep. 73:9-77:16; King
18 provide members of the WNT with items Dec. ¶¶ 8, 14; King Dec. Ex. 1, 4.

19 that were not in the USNSTPA CBA,

20 including a minimum number of players

21 on contract, annual salaries for 24

22 players, a 15% increase in salaries if there

23 is no professional league or if U.S. Soccer

24 pulls support from the league, severance

25 benefits, salary continuation during

26 periods of injury, medical, dental, and

27

vision insurance, and child care

28

41

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 43 of 89 Page ID #:2968

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 assistance, including pay for the

3 individual providing child care, as well as

4 airfare and hotel accommodations for the

5 child care providers.

6

118. On November 4, 2014, Langel emailed Langel Dep. 47:7-48:1, Langel

7

representatives of U.S. Soccer to

Dep. Ex. 6.

8 introduce his replacement as the new

9 Executive Director and General Counsel

10 of the WNTPA, Rich Nichols.

11 119. Upon becoming Executive Director,
12 Nichols received a copy of the MNT

Nichols Dep. 19:5-19:21.

13 CBA and had it during subsequent

14 negotiations for a new CBA covering the

15 WNT.

16

17

120. On December 24, 2015, Nichols sent a Nichols Dep. 52:5-52:16; Nichols

letter (dated December 23, 2015) to U.S. Dep. Ex. 17. 18
Soccer stating that the WNTPA was 19
giving notice of its intent to terminate the 20

2013-2016 CBA pursuant to Section 8(d)

21

of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 22

U.S.C. 158(d). The letter went on to state 23
that the WNTPA also “reserve[d] its 24

inherent right to challenge [U.S. 25

Soccer’s] claim of the existence of a

26

collective bargaining agreement between 27

the Parties.” 28

42

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 44 of 89 Page ID #:2969

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

121. On January 4, 2016, Nichols emailed

Nichols Dep. 52:22-63:4, Nichols

3

Levine a proposal for a new collective Dep. Ex. 19; King Dec. ¶ 8; King

4 bargaining agreement. In the proposal the Dec. Ex. 1.

5 WNTPA asked U.S. Soccer to agree to

6 pay $4.2 million for the exclusive rights

7 to market the WNT and asked for a

8 minimum of thirty players on contract,

9 with each player receiving a $150,000

10 WNT salary and a $100,000 NWSL

11 salary; 401(k) retirement contributions;

12 lifetime, long-term disability insurance

13 and a post-retirement healthcare fund; a

14 $3 million payment for a three-game

15 Victory Tour following the FIFA

16 Women’s World Cup and the Olympics;

17 and an individual child care professional

18 for each player with a child, with U.S.

19 Soccer responsible for an annual salary,

20 benefits, and travel and accommodation

21 expenses for the child care service

22 provider. The USNSTPA CBA did not

23 include any of these things.

24

122. In addition, the proposal demanded “[t]he Nichols Dep. 52:22-53:14;

25

comprehensive bonus compensation

Nichols Ex. 19.

26 structure and bonus compensation to-be-

27 paid [sic] to the MNT as currently exists

28

43

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 45 of 89 Page ID #:2970

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 in the MNT’s CBA,” such that “the

3 various bonus payments to-be-paid [sic]

4 to the WNT Players shall EQUAL the

5 bonuses to-be-paid [sic] the MNT as

6 provided in the current CBA/UPA

7 between USSF and the MNT.”

8

123. The parties met for CBA negotiations on King Dec. ¶ 18; Nichols Dep.

9

March 15, 2016. By that time, U.S.

16:6-16:15; Nichols Dep. Ex. 4.

10 Soccer had filed a lawsuit in the U.S.

11 District Court for the Northern District of

12 Illinois against the WNTPA, seeking a

13 declaratory judgment that the parties did

14 have a CBA in place through the end of

15 2016, containing a binding no-strike

16 provision.

17 124. During the March 15 bargaining session, King Dec. ¶ 18.
18 Nichols stated that the WNTPA wanted a

19 new collective bargaining agreement to

20 take effect in 2016. Members of U.S.

21 Soccer’s negotiating committee informed

22 him during that meeting that U.S. Soccer

23 was interested only in negotiating a new

24 contract to commence in 2017, after the

25 expiration of the 2013-2016 agreement.

26

27

125. Members of U.S. Soccer’s negotiating

King Dec. ¶¶ 18, 19.

team also stated during the March 15 28

44

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 46 of 89 Page ID #:2971

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 meeting that if the WNTPA wanted the

3 lawsuit to go away, U.S. Soccer needed

4 assurances that the WNT players would

5 not go on strike. David Feher, a partner at

6 Winston & Strawn and counsel to the

7 WNTPA, said the WNTPA was not going

8 to agree to such assurances and also

9 explained that the WNT players believed

10 they deserved more money now (without

11 having to wait until 2017).

12 126. The parties also discussed the WNTPA’s King Dec. ¶ 20.
13 January 4, 2016, proposal. U.S. Soccer

14 still had not made a counterproposal by

15 that point. In addition to other things the

16 parties discussed, Ms. Levine asked for

17 clarification of the section of the

18 WNTPA’s January 4 proposal entitled

19 “Various Bonuses.” Mr. Nichols

20 explained that the WNTPA wanted all the

21 same bonuses for participating in the

22 Women’s World Cup and the Olympics

23 that the MNT received for participating in

24 the men’s World Cup and the Olympics.

25 Mr. Sauer explained that the U-23 MNT

26 does not receive bonuses for the

27 Olympics, and Ms. Levine explained that

28

45

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 47 of 89 Page ID #:2972

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 if FIFA would increase the amount it

3 pays to soccer federations in connection

4 with the FIFA Women’s World Cup, then

5 U.S. Soccer could look at increasing the

6 amount paid to the WNT for participating

7 in that event.

8 127. In April 2016, Carli Lloyd, Alex Morgan, Declaration of Chantelle Egan ¶
9 Megan Rapinoe, and Becky Sauerbrunn 2, Ex. 1.

10 filed charges of discrimination with the

11 EEOC against U.S. Soccer, alleging sex-

12 based pay discrimination. None of the

13 charges include allegations of

14 discrimination in any respect other than

15 compensation.

16

128. On May 9, 2016, the WNTPA and U.S. King Dec. ¶¶ 21-22; King Dec.

17

Soccer met again, and U.S. Soccer’s

Ex. 7.

18 bargaining team orally presented U.S.

19 Soccer’s first contract proposal on

20 compensation matters. On May 13,

21 Levine e-mailed a written summary of

22 that oral proposal to Nichols, noting in

23 her e-mail, however, that the written

24 proposal added a “camp fee, which

25 represents payment to a player who is

26 called into camp but who does not make

27

the roster of a game associated with the

28

46

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 48 of 89 Page ID #:2973

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 camp,” and correcting the proposed

3 bonuses for the Women’s World Cup and

4 Olympics, explaining that they had been

5 mistakenly reversed in the oral

6 presentation on May 9.

7 129. The May 13 proposal was structured as a King Dec. ¶¶ 22; King Dec. Ex.
8 “pay-to-play” proposal. The 2013-2016 7.

9 collective bargaining agreement was not a

10 pay-to-play compensation structure

11 because WNT players earned annual

12 salaries that were paid to them even when

13 they did not play. Under a “pay-to-play”

14 compensation structure, such as the one

15 in the MNT’s 2011-2018 collective

16 bargaining agreement, players receive a

17 specific payment associated with a

18 specific training camp, game, or

19 tournament, but only if the player makes

20 the roster for the particular camp, game,

21 or tournament.

22 130. U.S. Soccer’s proposal included the same King Dec. ¶ 21, King Dec. Ex. 7.
23 per diem, camp fee, ticket revenue share

24 payment, and friendly appearance fee as

25 the USNSTPA agreement. It also

26 included bonuses for winning or tying

27

friendlies, which varied based on the

28

47

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 49 of 89 Page ID #:2974

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 FIFA ranking of the opponent. In this

3 regard, opponents were divided into three

4 tiers, as they were in the USNSTPA

5 agreement. The bonus amounts, however,

6 were lower than those found in the

7 USNSTPA agreement for friendlies. The

8 proposal also included payments

9 associated with playing in the FIFA

10 Women’s World Cup and associated

11 qualifiers. These payments were lower

12 than those found in the USNSTPA

13 agreement associated with the FIFA

14 World Cup and associated qualifiers. The

15 proposal also included an additional

16 bonus for winning the She Believes

17 Tournament and various bonuses

18 associated with the Olympics

19 131. On May 16, the parties’ negotiating teams King Dec. ¶ 23.
20 met again and discussed U.S. Soccer’s

21 May 13 pay-to-play compensation

22 proposal. During this meeting, Mr.

23 Nichols stated that U.S. Soccer’s proposal

24 was a great start and that the players liked

25 the structure, but he also said the

26 WNTPA needed a minimum guaranteed

27 payment of $100,000 per player per year.

28

48

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 50 of 89 Page ID #:2975

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Ms. Levine responded that there are no

3 guarantees with pay-to-play. Mr. Feher

4 replied that the MNT players work in a

5 different environment than the WNT

6 players, which makes pay-to-play more

7 difficult for the latter. The parties

8 continued to discuss and debate whether

9 and how the concept of a minimum

10 guarantee would work in the context of a

11 pay-to-play compensation structure, and

12 Mr. Feher stated more than once that the

13 “devil is in the details.”

14

132. On June 1, 2016, Nichols e-mailed

King Dec. ¶ 24; King Dec. Ex. 8.

15

Levine a memorandum providing, as he

16 described it in his cover e-mail, “the

17 ‘details’ with regard to the operation of

18 the Minimum Annual Guaranteed

19 Compensation system we discussed

20 during our last negotiation session.” The

21 memorandum stated that “like the MNT,

22 the WNT want minimum compensation

23 of $5,000 per game. However, in the

24 event that a minimum of twenty (20)

25 games are not scheduled...the players on

26 the WNT propose that they shall each be

27

28

49

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 51 of 89 Page ID #:2976

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 paid a minimum annual guaranteed

3 compensation (MAG) of $100,000.”

4 133. The memorandum also stated that “the King Dec. ¶ 24; King Dec. Ex. 9.
5 WNT players want the same ‘pay per

6 play’ compensation and bonus system

7 currently deployed by the USSF to, and

8 functioning with the MNT.”

9

10

134. The memorandum went on to state: “[T]o King Dec. ¶ 24, King Dec. Ex. 9.

be clear, the MAG amount of $100,000

11 per Player is based upon the presumption

12 that the USSF continues to provide the

13 WNT Players compensation to play in the

14 NWSL. In the event that the USSF (a)

15 discontinues payment of WNT Players

16 NWSL compensation, and or (b) reduces

17 the USSF financial contribution to WNT

18 Players NWSL compensation, and or (c)

19 reduces the USSF financial support of the

20 NWSL, said USSF discontinued payment

21 of WNT Player NWSL compensation,

22 and or financial reductions in the NWSL,

23 may impact the amount of the WNT

24 Contract Player Minimum Annual

25 Guarantee Compensation to be paid to

26 each WNT Contract Player.”

27

28

50

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 52 of 89 Page ID #:2977

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

135. The memorandum also proposed a

King Dec. ¶¶ 8, 24; King Dec.

3

minimum of 30 contracted WNT players Ex. 1, 9.

4 per year (i.e., a minimum of 30 players

5 receiving the minimum annual

6 guaranteed compensation of $100,000), a

7 guarantee that the “MAG” would

8 continue during injuries, three months’

9 severance upon contract termination,

10 post-termination health insurance for 1

11 year, and other items not contained in the

12 USNSTPA collective bargaining

13 agreement.

14

136. On June 3, 2016, the United States

Nichols Dep. 16:6-19:3; Nichols

15

District Court for the Northern District of Dep. Ex. 4

16 Illinois issued an opinion and order

17 declaring that “the [March 19, 2013]

18 MOU incorporates the unmodified terms

19 of the 2015 CBA” and that “the Players

20 Association is therefore bound by the

21 terms of the MOU, including the 2005

22 CBA’s no-strike provision.”

23

24

137. On June 16, 2016, Levine emailed

Nichols about the WNTPA MAG

Nichols Dep. 122:7-122:11; Nichols Dep. Ex. 31.

25 proposal. In the email she wrote: “While

26 we certainly support the concepts of

27

equitable and fair pay, your proposal goes

28

51

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 53 of 89 Page ID #:2978

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 well beyond this. In addition to

3 demanding higher pay-outs—the “same

4 compensation and bonus system currently

5 deployed by the USSF to, and functioning

6 with the MNT,” you are demanding,

7 among other items: (1) guarantees

8 regarding minimum annual compensation

9 and minimum number of games per year

10 (which the MNT does not have); (2)

11 automatic increases in the WNT comp if

12 the MNT comp increases (which the

13 MNT does not have); (3) a guaranteed

14 number of players contracted each

15 calendar year (which the MNT does not

16 have); (4) injury guarantees (which the

17 MNT does not have); (5) pregnancy

18 guarantees (which the MNT does not

19 have); (6) severance (which the MNT

20 does not have); (7) post-termination

21 health insurance (which the MNT does

22 not have); (8) retirement benefits (which

23 the MNT does not have); and (9)

24 significant financial support of a

25 professional league (which the MNT does

26 not have).”

27

28

52

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 54 of 89 Page ID #:2979

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

138. The parties met again for contract

King Dec. ¶ 25.

3

negotiations on June 27. At this meeting,

4 Levine described the WNTPA’s proposal

5 as being the MNT’s collective bargaining

6 agreement, “plus, plus, plus,” and she

7 reviewed nine broad categories of items

8 the WNTPA had proposed that the MNT

9 players do not receive. She also stated

10 that U.S. Soccer could add a guarantee of

11 70 games per quad to its pay-to-play

12 proposal, as well as a guaranteed

13 minimum of 18 players in each training

14 camp, but that the guarantees would not

15 be player-specific. In other words, she

16 explained that no particular player would

17 have a guarantee of being paid anything

18 at all, just like under the MNT’s contract.

19 Levine also observed that the expiring

20 2013-2016 WNT agreement contained a

21 contract provision concerning a

22 compensation-to-revenue ratio, and she

23 said that U.S. Soccer would work to

24 create a ratio with FIFA prize money, as

25 well.

26

139. The compensation-to-revenue ratio

King Dec. ¶ 26.

27

provision Levine referenced is found at

28

53

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 55 of 89 Page ID #:2980

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Exhibit A, Page 9, Section VIX [sic] of

3 the 2005-2012 collective bargaining

4 agreement between the WNTPA and U.S.

5 Soccer.

6 140. After Levine referenced the
7 compensation-to-revenue ratio, Tom

King Dec. ¶¶ 27-28.

8 King (another member of U.S. Soccer’s

9 bargaining team) then reviewed with the

10 WNTPA representatives the terms in the

11 MNT’s agreement pertaining to travel

12 and hotel accommodations and

13 committed that U.S. Soccer would agree

14 to the same provisions for the WNT. No

15 other proposals were presented by either

16 party at this meeting.

17 141. On July 6, Levine sent Nichols written King Dec. ¶ 29; King Dec. Ex. 9.
18 confirmation of U.S. Soccer’s proposal to

19 guarantee a minimum number of games

20 per quad and players per camp. She also

21 reiterated U.S. Soccer’s willingness to

22 look into a “prize money equity ratio.”

23

24

142. On July 22, 2016, Nichols emailed

Nichols Dep. 130:9-131:6;

Levine in response to the 25

Nichols Dep. Ex. 33.

counterproposal. Among other things,

26

Nichols wrote: “[W]e want the SAME 27

PAY PER GAME compensation as the 28

54

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 56 of 89 Page ID #:2981

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 MNT. This is a legal requirement and we

3 should not even have to bargain for the

4 USSF to comply with the law. However,

5 this does not mean we want every other

6 aspect of the MNT system or agreement,

7 which is independent of the equal pay for

8 equal work requirement.”

9

143. Nichols went on: “[O]ur demand for

Nichols Dep. 130:9-131:6,

10

‘equal pay’ is literal; we want at least the Nichols Ex. 33.

11 same per game WNT Player

12 compensation enjoyed by the MNT.

13 Specifically, top line per-game-played

14 compensation to the WNT should be paid

15 as follows to satisfy the USSF’s legal

16 equal pay obligation:

17 Rank Appearance Win Bonus Total

18

1-4 $5,000

$12,625 $17,625

19

5-8 $5,000

$7,500 $12,500

20

9+ $5,000

$4,375

$9,375

21 Please refer to the MNT pay-per-game

22 matrix to review the remainder of the pay

23 structure.”

24

25

144. Nichols also wrote: “We demand an

Nichols Dep. 130:9-131:6,

annual minimum guarantee of 20 friendly Nichols Ex. 33.

26 games per year or, if the USSF decides to

27

have fewer than 20 games per year, it

28

55

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 57 of 89 Page ID #:2982

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 may do so by paying the players an

3 equivalence payment equal to $5,000 per

4 game per player for the number of games

5 less than 20 that the USSF chooses to

6 conduct.” He also demanded that this

7 apply to a minimum of 30 players.

8

145. In addition, he asked a question in the

Nichols Dep. 130:9-131:6,

9

email about Levine’s reference to a “prize Nichols Ex. 33.

10 money equity ratio” but made no

11 particular demand or proposal in the

12 email regarding payments for the FIFA

13 Women’s World Cup.

14

15

146. After this, neither the WNTPA nor U.S. King Dec. ¶ 30; Nichols Dep.

Soccer made another compensation

145:22-146:5.

16 proposal during 2016.

17

18

147. They did, however, meet again on

King Dec. ¶ 30.

October 26. During that meeting, Levine

19

reiterated U.S. Soccer’s view that the

20

WNTPA was demanding nine categories

21

of items the MNT players did not receive 22

and listed them as follows: (1) guarantees 23
regarding minimum annual compensation 24

and a minimum number of games per 25

year, (2) automatic increases in WNT

26

compensation if the MNT’s 27

compensation increases, (3) continued 28

56

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 58 of 89 Page ID #:2983

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 compensation during periods of injury,

3 (4) continued compensation during

4 periods of pregnancy, (5) severance, (6)

5 post-termination health insurance, (7)

6 retirement benefits, (8) significant

7 financial support of a professional league

8 and (9) a guaranteed number of players

9 “contracted” each year.

10 148. Feher explained that while the WNTPA King Dec. ¶ 30.
11 had asked for these things, it was a

12 negotiation.

13

14

149. Gulati, who was present for this meeting, King Dec. ¶ 30.

explained that U.S. Soccer was not

15 willing to consider the WNTPA’s

16 proposals on compensation without

17 factoring in the cost of these nine items.

18

19

150. Although the parties had some additional King Dec. ¶ 30.

discussion during the meeting regarding

20

their bargaining positions, no new

21

proposals were presented by either party. 22

During the discussion, Gulati said that 23
there was one item in the WNTPA’s 24

proposal that would “break” U.S. Soccer, 25

and that was the WNTPA’s proposal

26

related to World Cup bonuses. He 27

explained that the amount of prize money 28

57

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 59 of 89 Page ID #:2984

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 received from FIFA for the men’s World

3 Cup was vastly different from the prize

4 money received from FIFA for the

5 Women’s World Cup. He also noted that

6 the WNT players were paid more than $2

7 million for winning the 2015 Women’s

8 World Cup even though the total prize

9 money U.S. Soccer received was $2

10 million. (The winning players had

11 received bonuses totaling $1,725,000 for

12 winning the tournament and $345,000 for

13 making the tournament roster, for a total

14 of just over $2 million. This was in

15 addition to the $345,000 for qualifying

16 and the $1,800,000 payment for the post-

17 tournament Victory Tour.) After some

18 further discussion about the 2015 World

19 Cup bonus payments to the players,

20 Nichols said “this is a negotiation” and

21 suggested negotiating an additional

22 amount above $2 million.

23

151. The meeting ended shortly after Mr.

King Dec. ¶ 30.

24

Feher said the meeting had been useful

25 and Mr. Nichols asserted that Mr.

26 Gulati’s personal attendance at the

27 meeting had fostered progress.

28

58

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 60 of 89 Page ID #:2985

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

152. The WNTPA terminated Nichols as

Nichols Dep. 13:19-21.

3

Executive Director and General Counsel

4 on December 16, 2016.

5

153. At the beginning of 2017, U.S. Soccer Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

6

had just finished a WNT quad (2013-

see also Raina Dec.

7 2016) during which it had generated $55

8 million from all WNT games, including

9 those played in the 2015 FIFA Women’s

10 World Cup. During that same period,

11 U.S. Soccer had generated almost $80

12 million from MNT games.

13

14

154. Nichols was replaced as WNTPA

Roux Dep. 9:11-10:5, 19:7-11,

Executive Director by Becca Roux. Roux 21:11-18, 22:23-23:1, 61:9-15;

15

had a copy of the USNSTPA’s CBA

King Dec. ¶¶ 31, 32.

16 during the 2017 negotiations. Roux is still

17 the Executive Director today. The

18 WNTPA also retained the law firm of

19 Bredhoff & Kaiser, and specifically

20 Mady Gilson and Adam Bellotti from that

21 firm, to represent the WNTPA in the

22 contract negotiations for a new collective

23 bargaining agreement. The first

24 negotiating session involving both Ms.

25 Roux and the lawyers from Bredhoff &

26 Kaiser took place on February 4, 2017.

27

28

59

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 61 of 89 Page ID #:2986

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 155.
3

At the February 4, 2017 meeting, although the WNTPA did not present a

King Dec. ¶ 32.

4 written proposal at this meeting, Christen

5 Press, a WNT player and WNTPA Player

6 Representative, did communicate that the

7 WNTPA was focused on three guiding

8 principles in the negotiations. The three

9 guiding principles she identified were: (1)

10 guaranteed compensation for being a

11 contracted player with U.S. Soccer, (2) a

12 fair share of the financial upside that U.S.

13 Soccer gains from the WNT’s success,

14 and (3) respect through the players’

15 lifestyle and working conditions.

16 156. At the parties’ meeting on February 8, the King Dec. ¶ 33
17 WNTPA presented its first written

18 compensation proposal since Mr.

19 Nichols’ departure. It was a proposal that

20 would have required U.S. Soccer to pay

21 the WNT players, as a whole, at least

22 35% of the combined total of certain

23 revenue streams defined in the WNTPA’s

24 proposal. According to the proposal, the

25 combined total revenue from which the

26 35% would have been calculated would

27 have included 27% of the revenue U.S.

28

60

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 62 of 89 Page ID #:2987

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Soccer receives from Soccer United

3 Marketing and Nike. During the meeting,

4 Bellotti explained that the WNTPA

5 looked at overall television viewership

6 numbers and determined that 27% was a

7 fair proposal based on a 3:1 ratio in favor

8 of the MNT.

9 157. During the February 8 meeting, U.S.
10 Soccer rejected the WNTPA’s

King Dec. ¶ 34.

11 compensation proposal and its overall

12 structure and advised that U.S. Soccer

13 would present a different compensation

14 structure.

15

158. Prior to execution of the 2011-2018

King Dec. ¶ 35.

16

collective bargaining agreement between

17 the USNSTPA and U.S. Soccer, the

18 USNSTPA also had presented proposals

19 similar to this overall revenue-sharing

20 proposal, centered on a guarantee that the

21 MNT players would receive at least a

22 certain percentage of defined revenue

23 streams, but U.S. Soccer rejected that

24 concept when proposed by the

25 USNSTPA, as well.

26

27

159. On February 9, U.S. Soccer presented its King Dec. ¶ 36, King Dec. Ex.

first compensation proposal since July 11. 28

61

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 63 of 89 Page ID #:2988

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 2016. This proposal included a

3 commitment to have 15 players on

4 contract, with annual WNT salaries

5 ranging from $70,000 - $90,000 and

6 annual NWSL salaries ranging from

7 $56,000 - $66,000. The proposal also

8 provided for win and tie bonuses for

9 friendlies (including $9,000 per win and

10 $2,000 per tie for teams ranked 1-4), a 1st

11 place bonus for the She Believes Cup,

12 WWC qualifying and WWC match

13 bonuses, Olympic qualifying and

14 Olympic Games bonuses, and ticket

15 revenue share of $1.50 per ticket sold at

16 U.S. Soccer controlled matches.

17 160. At a bargaining session on February 11, King Dec. ¶¶ 8, 37, Ex. 1, 12.
18 2017, U.S. Soccer presented its first

19 proposal for new “Partnership” Bonus

20 Provisions in the parties’ contract. These

21 proposed bonuses would be paid to the

22 WNTPA based on achieving certain

23 targets in television ratings for WNT

24 matches, revenue received from SUM,

25 and attendance at WNT matches. None of

26 these bonuses are in the USNSTPA’s

27 CBA.

28

62

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 64 of 89 Page ID #:2989

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 161. On February 14, 2017, the WNTPA made King Dec. ¶ 38, King Dec. Ex.
3 a counterproposal on compensation. The 13.

4 proposal included a commitment to have

5 24 players on contract with annual WNT

6 salaries of $125,000 and annual NWSL

7 salaries of $70,000, with the latter

8 increasing $2,000 per year. The proposal

9 contained win and tie bonuses for

10 friendlies that were lower than U.S.

11 Soccer’s previous proposal (e.g., $5,000

12 per win and $1,000 per tie for teams

13 ranked 1-4), the same win and tie bonuses

14 U.S. Soccer proposed for Women’s

15 World Cup qualifying and Women’s

16 World Cup matches, the same Olympic

17 qualifying and Olympic Games bonuses

18 U.S. Soccer proposed, and the same 1st

19 place She Believes Cup bonus as the U.S.

20 Soccer proposal. In addition the WNTPA

21 proposed a ticket revenue share of $1.50

22 per ticket sold, regardless of whether the

23 match was controlled by U.S. Soccer,

24 along with a post-Women’s World Cup

25 tour bonus of $5,500 per game and a

26 post-Olympic tour bonus of $5,000 per

27 game. The WNTPA also proposed first

28

63

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 65 of 89 Page ID #:2990

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 place bonuses for the Four Nations

3 Tournament (in addition to the She

4 Believes Cup).

5

162. On February 15, 2017, the WNTPA made King Dec. ¶ 39, King Dec. Ex.

6

another counterproposal on

14.

7 compensation. The proposal

8 contemplated a reduced number of

9 players on contract (18 instead of the

10 prior 24), at guaranteed WNT salaries of

11 $100,000 and NWSL salaries for 20

12 players ranging from $60,000 - $70,000,

13 with annual increases of $2,000 per year.

14 The proposal increased the proposed

15 bonus amount for friendlies to $6,500 per

16 win and $1,000 per tie (for teams ranked

17 1-4), added Olympic qualifying bonuses

18 of $3,000 per win and $500 per tie, and

19 increased post-Women’s World Cup tour

20 bonuses to $11,500 per game and post-

21 Olympic tour bonuses to $11,000 per

22 game.

23

24

163. On March 9, 2017, the WNTPA made

King Dec. ¶ 40, King Dec. Ex.

another counterproposal on

15.

25 compensation. The proposal

26 contemplated 20 players with a WNT

27

salary of $105,000 (and a 5% increase per

28

64

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 66 of 89 Page ID #:2991

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 year) and 24 players with a $75,000

3 annual NWSL salary (with annual

4 increases of $2,500). The March 9

5 proposal increased the per game bonuses

6 for friendlies to $12,625 per win and

7 $3,125 per tie (for teams ranked 1-4) but

8 sought the same Women’s World Cup

9 and Olympic qualifying bonuses as the

10 prior proposal. The proposal eliminated

11 the post-World Cup and post-Olympic

12 tour bonuses but added a signing bonus of

13 $550,000 to be paid to the WNTPA. The

14 proposal also increased the ticket revenue

15 share being sought to $1.75 per ticket

16 sold.

17 164. On March 15, 2017, the WNTPA made a Roux Dep. 274:6-275:17; King
18 presentation on compensation and, among Dec. ¶ 41.

19 other things, explained the “benefits of

20 being a contracted player with the WNT,”

21 including: (1) cachet as a player; (2)

22 regular paycheck (financial stability); (3)

23 health insurance; (4) vision/dental

24 insurance; (5) downside risk protection

25 for injury with paid injury leave; and (6)

26 paid maternity/adoption leave.

27

28

65

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 67 of 89 Page ID #:2992

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

165. On March 16, 2017, U.S. Soccer made a King Dec. ¶ 42, King Dec. Ex.

3

new financial proposal. The proposal

16.

4 included 20 players with a WNT salary of

5 $100,000 and 24 players receiving an

6 NWSL salary ranging from $60,000-

7 $70,000 (with $2,000 annual increases).

8 The March 16 proposal included friendly

9 bonuses of $8,500 per win and $2,000 per

10 tie for teams ranked 1-4 and against

11 Canada. The proposal maintained the

12 same bonuses for the Women’s World

13 Cup and Olympics and proposed a post-

14 Women’s World Cup tour bonus of

15 $375,000 per game for gold, $325,000

16 per game for silver, and $250,000 per

17 game for bronze. It also proposed post-

18 Olympic tour per-game bonuses of

19 $325,000 for gold, $275,000 for silver,

20 and $200,00 for bronze. The proposal

21 also added a signing bonus of $200,000

22 and an annual payment of $350,000 for

23 group likeness rights to be paid to the

24 WNTPA. Gleason advised the WNTPA

25 that U.S. Soccer was factoring the group

26 likeness payment into the overall cost of

27 the proposal.

28

66

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 68 of 89 Page ID #:2993

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

166. On March 29, 2017, the WNTPA made King Dec. ¶ 43, King Dec. Ex.

3

another written proposal on

17.

4 compensation. The proposal included 20

5 players with WNT salaries of $100,000

6 (and annual increases of $2,500). For

7 NWSL play, the WNTPA proposed

8 having 24 players with annual salaries

9 ranging from $60,000 to $70,000. For

10 friendlies, the WNTPA proposed a

11 $10,000 bonus for wins against teams

12 ranked 1-4 plus Canada and a tie bonus of

13 $2,500 per game against those teams. The

14 WNTPA proposed that all these bonuses

15 would increase by 20% in 2021. For the

16 post-Women’s World Cup tour, the

17 WNTPA proposed payments to the player

18 pool of $500,000 per game (if 1st),

19 $400,000 (if 2nd), and $300,000 (if 3rd).

20 It also proposed post-Olympic tour player

21 pool payments of $400,000 per game for

22 gold, $300,000 for silver, and $200,000

23 for bronze. The proposed signing bonus

24 in this proposal was $300,000.

25 167. During an April 1, 2017, negotiations
26 meeting, Gulati was present, and he

King Dec. ¶ 44.

27 advised the WNTPA’s representatives

28

67

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 69 of 89 Page ID #:2994

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 that U.S. Soccer needed to understand

3 what the overall cost of the deal would be

4 and that items the players were asking

5 for, such as single-occupancy hotel rooms

6 and business class flights, all have costs

7 associated with them.

8 168. The parties’ final in-person bargaining King Dec. ¶ 45.
9 session before the players ratified the new

10 contract took place on April 2, 2017.

11 During that meeting, Gulati informed the

12 WNTPA representatives that the

13 WNTPA’s compensation proposal would

14 cost U.S. Soccer $1.6 million more in

15 total than U.S. Soccer’s proposal and said

16 the WNTPA would have to reduce the

17 total cost of its proposals by $500,000 to

18 reach a deal.

19

20

169. On April 4, 2017, 22 members of the

Roux Dep. 46:24-49:3.

WNTPA voted unanimously to ratify a

21 new CBA covering the period from

22 January 1, 2017 through December 31,

23 2021.

24

25

170. Following the ratification, WNTPA

Klingenberg Dep. 41:2-6, 46:12-

Player Representative Meghan

15; Klingenberg Ex. 7.

26

Klingenberg, a WNT contracted player at 27

the time, was interviewed by Sports 28

68

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 70 of 89 Page ID #:2995

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Illustrated reporter Grant Wahl. In an

3 April 17, 2017 article, Wahl reports that

4 he asked Klingenberg: “What’s your

5 reaction to having the CBA done?” Wahl

6 reports that Klingenberg responded: “I’m

7 just really proud of the commitment to

8 what we wanted and sticking together and

9 organizing ourselves in a way that we

10 were able to get exactly what we thought

11 was fair and what we thought should be

12 in a CBA.” Klingenberg has no reason to

13 believe that Wahl misrepresented what

14 she said to him.

15

171. No one can say how high the friendly

Gulati Dec. ¶ 79-80; Rapinoe

16

bonuses might have been under the 2017 Dep. 223:7-17.

17 collective bargaining agreement if the

18 WNTPA had been willing to negotiate a

19 true pay-to-play contract by foregoing

20 salaries altogether.

21 172. The WNTPA has never asked U.S.
22 Soccer to reopen the 2017 collective

Roux Dep. 103:4-104:7.

23 bargaining agreement to renegotiate its

24 terms.

25

26

173. Between January 1, 2015 and December Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Ex. 1; see also

31, 2019, pursuant to the requirements of Raina Dec.; King Dec. ¶ 55. 27

its CBAs with the respective Players 28

69

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 71 of 89 Page ID #:2996

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 Associations, U.S. Soccer has paid more

3 than $37 million to its WNT players and

4 the WNTPA whereas it has paid less than

5 $22 million to its MNT players and the

6 USNSTPA during that same time period.

7 174. At any point in time since the negotiation King Dec. ¶15, Ex. 5.
8 of the 2017-2021 collective bargaining

9 agreement, the WNTPA could have

10 instructed U.S. Soccer to pay any or all of

11 the money it has paid to the WNTPA

12 under that agreement to the players

13 directly, and U.S. Soccer would have

14 been obligated to do so.

15

175. The WNT players themselves have

Roux Dep. 40:4-24, 143:18-23,

16

always possessed the power to make the Roux Dep. Ex. 5.

17 WNTPA instruct U.S. Soccer to do that,

18 under the terms of the WNTPA

19 Constitution and By-laws.

20

21

176. Even when excluding the money paid by Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

U.S. Soccer to the WNTPA and

see also Raina Dec.; King Dec. ¶

22

USNSTPA, between January 1, 2015, and 55. 23
December 31, 2019, pursuant to the 24

requirements of the CBAs with the 25

respective Players Associations, U.S.

26

Soccer has paid more money to its WNT 27

28

70

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 72 of 89 Page ID #:2997

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 players (more than $31 million) than its

3 MNT players (less than $19 million).

4 177. During the first three years of the 2017 Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;
5 CBA, U.S. Soccer has paid members of see also Raina Dec.; King Dec. ¶

6 the WNT and the WNTPA more than 2.5 55.

7 times what it has paid to members of the

8 MNT and the USNSTPA.

9

10

178. Between January 1, 2015, and December Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

31, 2019, U.S. Soccer has paid more than see also Raina Dec.; King Dec. ¶

11

$1 million each to Carli Lloyd, Alex

55.

12 Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, and Becky

13 Sauerbrunn

14

15

179. Between January 1, 2015 and December Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

31, 2019, the highest-paid player on the see also Raina Dec.; King Dec. ¶

16

MNT was paid less than $650,000 in total 55.

17

by U.S. Soccer. 18

19

180. The 2013 CBA required U.S. Soccer to King Dec. ¶ 14, Ex. 4.

maintain at least 24 players on salary with 20

U.S. Soccer. It also required U.S. Soccer 21

to pay 27 WNT players a salary for 22

playing in the NWSL, during which those 23

players would still be U.S. Soccer 24

employees even while playing in the 25

NWSL. 26

27

181. Under both the 2013 and 2017 CBA, U.S. King Dec. ¶¶ 14, 15, King Dec.

Soccer committed to pay WNT

Exs. 4, 5.

28

71

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 73 of 89 Page ID #:2998

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 contracted players a higher WNT salary if

3 the NWSL ceases to exist. It was 15%

4 more under the 2013 CBA and up to 50%

5 more under the 2017 CBA.

6

182. According to the 2017 CBA, the job

King Dec. ¶ 15, King Dec. Ex. 5.

7

duties of all WNT players who are also

8 paid an NWSL salary by U.S. Soccer

9 (which includes Carli Lloyd, Alex

10 Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, and Becky

11 Sauerbrunn) include being available for

12 training and games with her NWSL club.

13 While playing in the NWSL, they are still

14 employed by U.S. Soccer.

15

183. Even when excluding the money paid by Irwin Dec. ¶ 1, Irwin Dec. Ex. 1;

16

U.S. Soccer to the WNTPA and

Raina Dec.; King Dec. ¶ 55.

17 USNSTPA and the money paid to WNT

18 players associated with play for clubs in

19 the NWSL, between January 1, 2015, and

20 December 31, 2019, pursuant to the

21 requirements of the CBAs with the

22 respective Players Associations, U.S.

23 Soccer has paid over $6 million more to

24 its WNT players than to its MNT players,

25 and that does not include the $1.8 million

26 Victory Tour payment made to the

27

28

72

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 74 of 89 Page ID #:2999

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 WNTPA in 2015 and passed through to

3 the WNT players.

4

184. U.S. Soccer paid a total of $760,818 to Roux Dep. 40:4-24, 143:18-23,

5

the WNTPA in 2018. The WNTPA’s

Roux Dep. Ex. 5 at p. 45.

6 voting members could have asked U.S.

7 Soccer to distribute all of those payments

8 (and any other payments made to the

9 WNTPA) directly to the players.

10

11

185. U.S. Soccer paid members of the WNT a Roux Dep. 145:3-11.

$230,000 signing bonus ($10,000 per

12 player to 23 players) pursuant to the 2017

13 collective bargaining agreement.

14

15

186. The 2017-2021 WNT CBA agreement

King Dec. ¶15, King Dec. Ex. 5.

provides that U.S. Soccer will pay a base

16

annual salary to each WNT contracted

17

player. The agreement sets a minimum 18
number of contracted players: 20 in 2017; 19
19 in 2018; 18 in 2019; 17 in 2020; and 20

16 in 2021. Contracted players who have

21

been on contract for a minimum amount 22

of time are entitled to up to four months’ 23
severance pay if their contract is 24

terminated. 25

26

187. The agreement also provides that

King Dec. ¶15, King Dec. Ex. 5.

contracted players who are injured will 27

28

73

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 75 of 89 Page ID #:3000

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 continue to receive salary for up to one

3 year.

4

188. The agreement also provides that

King Dec. ¶15, King Dec. Ex. 5.

5

contracted WNT players are paid a win or

6 tie bonus for any friendly in which they

7 appear on a game’s roster and tournament

8 bonuses for any tournament where they

9 appear on the tournament roster.

10

11

189. The agreement provides players who are King Dec. ¶15, King Dec. Ex. 5.

“allocated” to the NWSL by U.S. Soccer

12 with guaranteed health, dental, and vision

13 insurance coverage.

14

15

190. Under the agreement, pregnant WNT

King Dec. ¶15, King Dec. Ex. 5.

contracted players receive 75% of both

16

their WNT and NWSL salaries until

17

medically cleared to return, for up to one 18
year. A WNT contracted player who 19
adopts a child receives three months of 20

paid adoption leave, paid at the same rate.

21

Players also continue to receive insurance 22

benefits during this time. The agreement 23
also provides that U.S. Soccer will pay a 24

daily stipend of $50 per child for WNT 25

players during WNT training and play for

26

child care and travel and accommodation 27

costs for child care providers. 28

74

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 76 of 89 Page ID #:3001

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2

191. The also provides that players will be

King Dec. ¶ 8, 15, King Dec. Ex.

3

paid $4,000 for commercial appearance 1, 5.

4 fees, which is more than MNT players are

5 paid. The agreement also provides that

6 U.S. Soccer will make an annual payment

7 of $350,000 to the WNTPA in exchange

8 for U.S. Soccer’s commercial use of

9 player likenesses. No such payment is

10 made to the USNSTPA.

11

192. Neither the WNT nor the MNT has

King Dec. ¶¶ 68-80, King Dec.

12

played a game on artificial turf when U.S. Exs. 20-21; Def. Supp. Int. Ans.

13 Soccer has had control over the venue 2.

14 since October 2017.

15 193. Between January 1, 2016, and July 26, King Dec. ¶¶ 68-80, King Dec.
16 2017, both the WNT and the MNT played Exs. 20-21; Def. Supp. Int. Ans.

17

on turf only one time each when U.S.

2.

18 Soccer determined the venue for the

19 game.

20

21

194. The WNT played seven times on artificial King Dec. ¶¶ 68-80, King Dec.

turf during their contractually-required Ex. 20; Def. Supp. Int. Ans. 2. 22

10-game Victory Tour following the 2015 23
FIFA Women’s World Cup. U.S. Soccer 24

determined the venue for those games. 25

26

195. U.S. Soccer did not anticipate generating King Dec. ¶¶ 68-80, King Dec.

enough revenue from those games to

Ex. 20; Def. Supp. Int. Ans. 2.

27

make it financially prudent to install 28

75

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 77 of 89 Page ID #:3002

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 temporary grass surfaces for those games,

3 it did not believe doing so would be

4 necessary to attract opponents, and the

5 games were not played in preparation for

6 a competitive, non-friendly tournament.

7 In addition, the desire of U.S. Soccer to

8 spread its Senior National Team games

9 across various cities in various regions of

10 the country, the relatively large number

11 of games required to be played in a

12 relatively short period of time during fall

13 and winter, and the desire to prioritize

14 venues with grass fields for 2016 in

15 preparation for the Olympic Games all

16 played a role in the number and

17 concentration of games on artificial turf

18 in the second half of 2015.

19

196. The WNT played another three times on King Dec. ¶¶ 68-80, King Dec.

20

artificial turf between July 27 and

Ex. 20; Def. Supp. Int. Ans. 2.

21 October 19, 2017, when U.S. Soccer

22 determined the venue for the game. It did

23 not anticipate generating enough revenue

24 from the games to make it financially

25 prudent to pay for the installation of

26 temporary grass. Although the MNT

27 played in one of these venues in 2019,

28

76

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 78 of 89 Page ID #:3003

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 and U.S. Soccer paid to install grass for

3 that game, that was nearly two years after

4 the last time either team played on

5 artificial turf, it was the final preparation

6 game before the Gold Cup (which was

7 played on grass), and U.S. Soccer

8 determined that the combination of

9 anticipated revenue from the game and

10 the desire to play a preparatory match for

11 a major tournament on natural grass

12 warranted the decision.

13 197. The WNT has flown charter flights for all King Dec. ¶ 46.
14 team travel, including travel to friendly

15 matches, since October 2018. Like the

16 WNT, the MNT has only used charter

17 flights for team travel since October

18 2018. U.S. Soccer has planned to take

19 charter flights for team travel for both

20 teams in 2020 as well.

21 198. The WNT flew charter flights for all team King Dec. ¶ 47.
22 travel during the 2015 FIFA Women’s

23 World Cup, during Olympic qualifying in

24 2016, and during the 2016 Olympic

25 Games. The WNT did not reserve a

26 charter flight for its initial trip to Brazil

27

for the 2016 Olympic Games because it

28

77

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 79 of 89 Page ID #:3004

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 did not believe the significant additional

3 cost to take a charter flight from the

4 United States to Brazil, rather than flying

5 business class (which is how the team

6 traveled there) would have been a prudent

7 expenditure of money in light of my view

8 that business class travel would not cost

9 the team any competitive advantage,

10 given that international business class

11 travel from the United States to South

12 America is often at least as comfortable

13 as a charter airplane, if not more so. Also,

14 WNT Head Coach Jill Ellis did not

15 request a charter flight to Brazil. If she

16 had, U.S. Soccer would have considered

17 the request, just as it considered (and

18 ultimately acceded to) her request to

19 reserve hotel accommodations for the

20 team for the semifinals and finals of the

21 Olympic tournament at a resort outside

22 the Olympic Village, notwithstanding the

23 fact that doing so cost U.S. Soccer

24 hundreds of thousands of additional

25 dollars. Coach Ellis told U.S. Soccer that

26 she believed it was important to do so for

27 the team’s competitive advantage.

28

78

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 80 of 89 Page ID #:3005

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 199. The MNT flew charter flights for all team King Dec. ¶ 48
3 travel to non-friendly matches between

4 2015 and 2018.

5 200. Between June 11, 2015, and September King Dec. ¶ 49
6 2018, the WNT did not use charter flights

7 for any team travel to friendly matches.

8 The MNT flew a total of six charter

9 flights for team travel to friendly matches

10 between June 11, 2015, and September

11 2018.

12

201. Two of the six aforementioned MNT

King Dec. ¶ 50

13

charter flights to friendly matches were

14 flights to Cuba for a match against Cuba

15 and then from Cuba to another match in

16 Washington, D.C., in October 2016. The

17 team flew on charter airplanes because

18 there were very limited commercial flight

19 options to and from Cuba at the time.

20

21

202. One of the aforementioned MNT charter King Dec. ¶ 51

flights to a friendly was a flight the team 22

took in June 2017 to a friendly in Utah, 23
five days before a World Cup qualifier in 24

Colorado. At the time, the team was 25

struggling to try to qualify for the 2018

26

World Cup, and U.S. Soccer agreed with 27

the Head Coach’s request for a charter 28

79

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 81 of 89 Page ID #:3006

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 flight in an effort to provide the team

3 with every competitive advantage as it

4 attempted to qualify for the World Cup.

5 203. One of the aforementioned MNT charter King Dec. ¶ 52
6 flights to a friendly was a flight the team

7 took after arriving in Nashville for the

8 team’s pre-Gold Cup training camp in

9 2017. The flight took the team to East

10 Hartford for a friendly just days before its

11 Gold Cup opener back in Nashville.

12 Again, the team had been struggling in

13 World Cup qualifying, and the Gold Cup

14 was viewed by U.S. Soccer as a

15 significant opportunity to win a

16 meaningful tournament (which the team

17 did), to help provide the program with

18 momentum and a boost for its fans. U.S.

19 Soccer reserved the charter flight in an

20 effort to provide the team with every

21 competitive advantage heading into the

22 Gold Cup.

23

24

204. One of the six MNT charter flights

referenced above to a friendly was a

King Dec. ¶ 53

25 flight from Ireland to a friendly in France

26 against the soon-to-be world champion

27

French team, a week after a friendly

28

80

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 82 of 89 Page ID #:3007

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 against Ireland in June 2018. By this

3 time, the team had failed to qualify for

4 the 2018 World Cup, and U.S. Soccer

5 viewed the friendly against France as a

6 meaningful opportunity for the team to

7 compete against one of the World Cup

8 favorites. U.S. Soccer wanted the team to

9 have every competitive advantage for that

10 match because it believed a good result in

11 that match (which the team achieved)

12 could give the players and the program a

13 significant boost, compared to most

14 friendlies. In addition, charter flights

15 within Europe can be relatively

16 inexpensive. This one cost only €42,670

17 and avoided separate shipping costs

18 because all team equipment could be on

19 the plane. All in all, the cost-benefit

20 analysis led U.S. Soccer to believe a

21 charter flight was the best option for the

22 trip.

23 205. The last charter flight to a friendly before King Dec. ¶ 54
24 U.S. Soccer began routinely flying

25 charters for both teams in October 2018

26 was a flight to an MNT friendly against

27 Mexico in Nashville in September 2018.

28

81

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 83 of 89 Page ID #:3008

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 The match was only four days after the

3 team played a friendly match against

4 Brazil in the New York area, and Mexico

5 is the team’s main rival. Even a friendly

6 match against Mexico is seen by U.S.

7 Soccer as an important measuring stick

8 for the program. Accordingly, U.S.

9 Soccer reserved a charter flight to try to

10 ensure every competitive advantage for

11 the team.

12 206. Exhibit 18 to Tom King’s Declaration King Dec. ¶ 58, Ex. 18
13 reflects each match played by the WNT

14 between January 1, 2014, and December

15 31, 2019.

16 207. Exhibit 19 to Tom King’s Declaration King Dec. ¶ 59, Ex. 19
17 reflects each match played by the MNT

18 between January 1, 2014, and December

19 31, 2019.

20

21

208. Column A in Exhibits 18 and 19 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 60, Ex. 18, Ex. 19

King’s Declaration reflect the year in 22

which the match was played. 23

24

209. Column B in Exhibits 18 and 19 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 61, Ex. 18, Ex. 19

King’s Declaration reflects the date (day 25

and month) on which the match was 26

played. 27

28

82

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 84 of 89 Page ID #:3009

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 210. Column C in Exhibits 18 and 19 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 62, Ex. 18, Ex. 19
3 King’s Declaration reflects the opponent

4 for the match.

5 211. Column D in Exhibits 18 and 19 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 63, Ex. 18, Ex. 19
6 King’s Declaration reflects the

7 opponent’s FIFA ranking as of the date

8 the match was played.

9

10

212. Column E in Exhibits 18 and 19 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 64, Ex. 18, Ex. 19

King’s Declaration reflects the score

11 (WNT/MNT-opponent) of the match.

12

13

213. Column F in Exhibits 18 and 19 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 65, Ex. 18, Ex. 19

King’s Declaration reflects U.S. Soccer’s

14

result (W=win, L=loss, D=draw) for the

15

match.

16

17

214. Column G in Exhibits 18 and 19 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 66, Ex. 18, Ex. 19

King’s Declaration reflects the type of 18

match that was played. Matches in the 19

SheBelieves Cup, Tournament of 20

Nations, Algarve Cup, and International 21

Tournament de Brasilia are all friendly 22

matches that are organized into a round23

robin tournament format. 24

25

215. Column H in Exhibits 18 and 19 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 67, Ex. 18, Ex. 19

King’s Declaration reflects the country in 26

which the match was played. 27

28

83

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 85 of 89 Page ID #:3010

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 216. Exhibit 20 to Tom King’s Declaration King Dec. ¶ 68, Ex. 20
3 reflects each match played by the WNT

4 between June 11, 2015, and December

5 31, 2019.

6 217. Exhibit 21 to Tom King’s Declaration King Dec. ¶ 69, Ex. 21
7 reflects each match played by the MNT

8 between June 11, 2015, and December

9 31, 2019.

10

11

218. Column A in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 70, Ex. 20, Ex. 21

King’s Declaration reflects the year in

12 which the match was played.

13

14

219. Column B in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 71, Ex. 20, Ex. 21

King’s Declaration reflects the date (day

15

and month) on which the match was

16

played.

17

18

220. Column C in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 72, Ex. 20, Ex. 21

King’s Declaration reflects the opponent 19

for the match. 20

21

221. Column D in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 73, Ex. 20, Ex. 21

King’s Declaration reflects the type of 22

match that was played. Matches in the 23

SheBelieves Cup, Tournament of 24

Nations, Algarve Cup, and International 25

Tournament de Brasilia are all friendly 26

matches that are organized into a round27

robin tournament format. 28

84

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 86 of 89 Page ID #:3011

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 222. Column E in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 74, Ex. 20, Ex. 21
3 King’s Declaration reflects the venue in

4 which the match was played.

5 223. Column F in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 75, Ex. 20, Ex. 21
6 King’s Declaration reflects the city in

7 which the match was played.

8 224. Column G in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 76, Ex. 20, Ex. 21
9 King’s Declaration reflects the state in

10 which the match was played (where

11 applicable).

12

13

225. Column H in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 77, Ex. 20, Ex. 21

King’s Declaration reflects the country in

14

which the match was played.

15

16

226. Column I in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 78, Ex. 20, Ex. 21

King’s Declaration reflects the surface 17

upon which the match was played 18

(permanent natural grass, artificial turf, or 19

temporary grass installed over artificial 20

turf or concrete). No distinction is made 21

between a field that is completely 22

permanent natural grass and one that is 23

partially so (e.g., a match at a baseball 24

stadium such as Busch Stadium, in which 25

a portion of the field was temporary 26

natural grass installed over infield dirt). 27

28

85

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 87 of 89 Page ID #:3012

1

UNCONTROVERTED FACT

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 227. Column J in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 79, Ex. 20, Ex. 21
3 King’s Declaration reflects the hotel or

4 resort at which the team stayed the night

5 before the match.

6 228. Column K in Exhibits 20 and 21 to Tom King Dec. ¶ 80, Ex. 20, Ex. 21
7 King’s Declaration reflects the means by

8 which the players traveled to the city in

9 which the match was played.

10

11 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

12

A. U.S. Soccer did not engage in pay discrimination in violation of the

13

Equal Pay Act or Title VII.

14

1. Because Plaintiffs are claiming that they have been denied equal pay for

15 substantially equal work under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII, the Court should

16 analyze their claims under both statutes by applying the EPA framework. Maxwell v. City

17 of Tuscon, 803 F.2d 444, 446 (9th Cir. 1986).

18

2. To establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination under the EPA framework,

19 Plaintiffs must prove that U.S. Soccer pays the WNT less than the MNT for performing

20 equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working

21 conditions within the same establishment. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). If Plaintiffs can prove

22 all this, U.S. Soccer still can prevail by showing that the pay differential results from a

23 “factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h).

24

3. Plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination because U.S.

25 Soccer has paid the WNT more than it has paid the MNT, both overall and on a per-game

26 basis, during the relevant time period. Huebner v. ESEC, Inc., No. CV 01-0157-PHX-

27 PGR, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28289, *7-8 (D. Ariz. March 26, 2003); Marting v.

28 Crawford & Co., 203 F. Supp. 2d 958, 996 (N.D. Ill. 2002); Bertotti v. Philbeck, Inc., 827

86

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 88 of 89 Page ID #:3013

1 F. Supp. 1005, 1009-10 (S.D. Ga. 1993); Gallagher v. Kleinwort Benson Gov’t Sec., Inc.,

2 698 F. Supp. 1401, 1404 (N.D. Ill. 1988); Mitchell v. Developers Diversified Realty

3 Corp., No. 4:09-CV-224, 2010 WL 3855547, *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2010); 29 C.F.R. §§

4 1620.10, 1620.12.

5

4. Plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination because they do

6 not work in the same establishment as MNT players and are therefore also not similarly

7 situated. A.H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 496 (1945); Foster v. Arcata

8 Assocs., Inc., 772 F.2d 1453, 1464 (9th Cir. 1985); Renstrom v. Nash Finch Co., 787 F.

9 Supp. 2d 961, 965 (D. Minn. 2011).

10

5. Plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case of pay discrimination because

11 Plaintiffs and MNT players do not perform equal work in jobs requiring equal skill,

12 effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. AFSCME v. State of

13 Washington, 770 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1985); Spencer v. Virginia State Univ., 919

14 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2019); Sims-Fingers v. City of Indianapolis, 493 F.3d 768, 771

15 (7th Cir. 2007); Lemons v. City & Cty. of Denver, 620 F.2d 228, 229 (10th Cir. 1980);

16 Spaulding v. Univ. of Washington, 740 F.2d 686, 699 (9th Cir. 1984); Kob v. Cty. of

17 Marin, 425 F. App’x 634, 635 (9th Cir. 2011); Stanley v. USC, 13 F.3d 1313, 1321-23

18 (9th Cir. 1994); Wheatley v. Wicomico Cty., Maryland, 390 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir.

19 2004); Ruffin v. Los Angeles Cty., 607 F.2d 1276, 1278 (9th Cir. 1979); Weaver v. Ohio

20 State University, 71 F. Supp. 2d 789 (S.D. Ohio 1998), aff’d, 191 F.3d 1315 (6th Cir.

21 1999).

22

6. U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment because any pay differential between

23 Plaintiffs and MNT players results from factors other than sex, specifically: (1) the

24 collective bargaining process between U.S. Soccer and the WNTPA, which represents

25 only WNT players and is a separate union from the USNSTPA, which represents only

26 MNT players and (2) differentials in revenue, and potential revenue, derived from the

27 two teams’ completely separate games. Perkins v. Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc., 700 F. App’x

28 452, 457 (6th Cir. 2017); Grosz v. Boeing Co., 455 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1045 (C.D. Cal.

87

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-2 Filed 02/20/20 Page 89 of 89 Page ID #:3014

1 2006); Diamond v. T. Rowe Price Assocs., Inc., 852 F. Supp. 372, 394 (D. Md. 1994);

2 Byrd v. Ronayne, 61 F.3d 1026, 1034 (1st Cir. 1995); Hodgson v. Robert Hall Clothiers,

3 473 F.2d 589, 597 (3rd Cir. 1973); Bartges v. UNC Charlotte, 908 F. Supp. 1312, 1327

4 (W.D.N.C.), aff’d, 94 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 1996).

5

B. Alleged Discrimination in Other Terms and Conditions of Employment

6

7. U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust

7 their administrative remedies. Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 291 F.3d 632, 637

8 (9th Cir. 2002).

9

8. U.S. Soccer is entitled to summary judgment because there are legitimate, non-

10 discriminatory reasons, having nothing to do with sex, for the difference in the number of

11 times the WNT and the MNT played on artificial turf and flew on charter airplanes

12 during discrete periods of time in prior years. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d

13 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010); Vasquez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir.

14 2003), as amended (Jan. 2, 2004).

15 //

16 //

17 //

18 DATED: February 20, 2020

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

19

20

By: /s/ Brian Stolzenbach

21

Brian Stolzenbach

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

88

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:3015

1

Declaration of Sunil Gulati

2

1. My name is Sunil Gulati. I graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in

3 economics from Bucknell University in 1981 and received an M.A. in 1983 and an

4 M. Phil. in 1986 in economics from Columbia University. I served on the Columbia

5 University economics faculty full-time from 1986 until 1990, where I taught multiple

6 courses. In 1991, I went to work for the World Bank in Washington, D.C. where I served

7 as a country economist for the emerging country of Moldova. I returned to the Columbia

8 University economics faculty in 1995 where I served as an adjunct professor until 2003.

9 In 2003, I resumed my position as a full-time member of the Columbia University

10 economics faculty and have continued as a full-time member of the faculty to this day. I

11 have also been involved with the United States Soccer Federation (“U.S. Soccer”) in

12 various capacities for more than 35 years, all as a volunteer.

13

2. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, I was appointed by the President of U.S.

14 Soccer then in office—Werner Fricker (1984-1990), Alan Rothenberg (1990-1998), and

15 Dr. Robert Contiguglia (1998-2006)—to serve on and sometimes chair a number of

16 different USSF Committees and Task Forces. Among other things, I was the Managing

17 Director of National Teams, responsible for the development of the U.S. Soccer’s senior

18 men’s and women’s national teams; member and Chair of the International Games

19 Committee, responsible for international exhibition matches involving FIFA-affiliated

20 teams and clubs as well as matches played by the senior men’s and women’s national

21 teams; Chairman of the Technical Committee, responsible for overall player

22 development; Chairman of both the U.S. Cup ’92 and U.S. Cup ’93, an international

23 round-robin tournament leading to up to the 1994 FIFA World Cup; and a member of the

24 World Cup Bid Committee from 1986-1988 which secured for the United States the right

25 to host the 1994 FIFA World Cup.

26

3. I also served as a delegate to U.S. Soccer’s National Council (see below) and

27 as a member of the U.S. Soccer Board of Directors as a representative of the Professional

28

1 of 16
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI

1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:3016

1 Council (see below) from 1995 until 2000. Moreover, from 2000 until February 10, 2018,

2 I served as an elected officer of U.S. Soccer.

3

4. I was elected Executive Vice President of U.S. Soccer in 2000 and served in

4 that capacity until 2006 when I was elected President. I was re-elected to additional four-

5 year terms as President in 2010 and again in 2014. I chose not to seek a fourth term, and

6 Carlos Cordeiro succeeded me as President of U.S. Soccer on February 10, 2018. I

7 remain a member of the USSF Board of Directors to this day.

8

5. I was also appointed to the Board of Directors of the FIFA Women’s World

9 Cup USA in 1999 and again in 2003.

10

6. I have been and still am a member of the Concacaf (defined below) Council

11 (formerly called the Concacaf Executive Committee) and have served on numerous

12 Concacaf committees.

13

7. I was elected in 2013 to the FIFA (defined below) Executive Committee,

14 now known as the FIFA Council. I remain a member of the FIFA Council and have also

15 served on, among other committees, the FIFA Confederations Cup Committee, the

16 Strategic Committee, the Youth Competitions Committee, the FIFA Task Force Football

17 2014, and the Independent Governance Committee, which provided recommendations for

18 governance changes within the FIFA structure.

19

8. USSF is, and at all times during my association with U.S. Soccer has been, a

20 not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of New York that has been granted

21 tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal

22 Revenue Code.

23

9. According to its by-laws in effect from September 1, 2012, until April 30,

24 2017, the purposes of U.S. Soccer during that period were: (1) to promote soccer in the

25 United States, including national and international games and tournaments, soccer for

26 women and men, indoor soccer and beach soccer; (2) to govern, coordinate, and

27 administer the sport of soccer in the United States; (3) to provide for the continuing

28 development of soccer players, coaches, referees, and administrators; (4) to provide for

2
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3017

1 national cup competitions; and (5) to provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of

2 grievances.

3

10. According to its by-laws in effect since May 1, 2017, the purposes of U.S.

4 Soccer are: (1) to promote, govern, coordinate, and administer the growth and

5 development of soccer in all its recognized forms in the United States for all persons of

6 all ages and abilities, including national teams and international games and tournaments;

7 (2) to provide for the continuing development of soccer players, coaches, referees and

8 administrators; (3) to provide for national cup competitions; and (4) to provide for the

9 prompt and equitable resolution of grievances.

10

11. U.S. Soccer fields more than 20 national teams, including youth national

11 teams at varying age levels, Para-7-a-side and extended national teams in the beach,

12 futsal, and para-athlete categories, and the Senior Men’s National Team (MNT) and the

13 Senior Women’s National Team (WNT).

14

12. U.S. Soccer (1) selects, funds, trains, and manages the various United States

15 national soccer teams; (2) supports a national development program for talented youth

16 participants over the age of 14; (3) trains and licenses both coaches and referees at all

17 levels of soccer; (4) supports a national training center in Carson, California; and (5)

18 seeks to resolve disputes between and among its members.

19

13. U.S. Soccer has been recognized by the United States Olympic and

20 Paralympic Committee (“USOPC”) as the national governing body and paralympic sports

21 organization (“NGB”) for the sport of soccer under the Ted Stevens Olympic and

22 Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. 220521. Among other requirements, to remain a

23 designated NGB, U.S. Soccer must be a member in good standing of FIFA.

24

14. U.S. Soccer is the national association member of the Federation

25 Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) for the United States. There are 210

26 other national association members of FIFA, each representing a different nation or

27 autonomous region of the world. Each national association member, as a condition of

28

3
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:3018

1 continuing membership, must, among other things, comply fully with the FIFA statutes,

2 regulations, directives and decisions and ensure that their own members do the same.

3

15. U.S. Soccer is also a member of the Confederation of North, Central

4 America and Caribbean Association Football (“Concacaf”), one of six regional

5 confederations recognized by FIFA. There are 40 other members of Concacaf, each

6 representing a different nation or autonomous region in North America, Central America,

7 or the Caribbean. I serve as one of the Concacaf representatives on the FIFA Council.

8

16. U.S. Soccer has been affiliated with Concacaf since Concacaf was founded

9 in 1961.

10

17. As a member of FIFA and Concacaf, the Federation is, to the extent

11 permitted by governing law, obliged to respect the statutes, regulations, directives, and

12 decisions of FIFA and of Concacaf.

13

18. Among their other activities, FIFA and Concacaf sponsor and organize

14 soccer tournaments and other official competitions among their respective members.

15

19. U.S. Soccer has fielded a women’s soccer team for purposes of trying to

16 qualify for and ultimately win the Gold Medal in Olympic competition ever since the

17 sport of women’s soccer was added to the Olympic Games for the 1996 Olympic Games

18 in Atlanta. In fact, the team has qualified for the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 2020.

19

20. U.S. Soccer has fielded a men’s soccer team for purposes of trying to qualify

20 for and ultimately win the Gold Medal in Olympic competition ever since then, as well,

21 and for even longer because men’s soccer has been an Olympic sport for a longer period

22 of time. The team will compete in Olympic qualifiers later this year, in the hope of

23 qualifying for the Olympic Games in Tokyo this summer.

24

21. FIFA sponsors and organizes the FIFA World Cup, a tournament for senior

25 men’s national teams, and has done so every four years since 1930, with the exception of

26 1942 and 1946. Today, the FIFA World Cup is often described as the most popular

27 sporting event in the world, based on the number of people in the world who watch it.

28 See, e.g., www.britannica.com/sports/World-Cup-football, attached to this Declaration as

4
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:3019

1 Exhibit 1. The documents attached to this Declaration as Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 are publicly

2 available on FIFA’s website. They are reports concerning the number of worldwide

3 television viewers of the FIFA World Cups in 2010, 2014, and 2018. The general

4 magnitude of the viewership figures in those documents are consistent with my personal

5 knowledge of the television ratings for those tournaments. I have had access to that

6 ratings data in my role on the FIFA Council.

7

22. FIFA also sponsors and organizes the FIFA Women’s World Cup, a

8 tournament for senior women’s national teams, and has done so every four years since

9 1991. The documents attached to this Declaration as Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 are publicly

10 available on FIFA’s website. They are reports concerning the number of worldwide

11 television viewers of the FIFA Women’s World Cups in 2011, 2015, and 2019. The

12 general magnitude of the viewership figures in those documents are consistent with my

13 personal knowledge of the television ratings for those tournaments. I have had access to

14 that ratings data in my role on the FIFA Council.

15

23. U.S. Soccer has fielded a women’s soccer team for purposes of trying to

16 qualify for and ultimately win the FIFA Women’s World Cup ever since the first such

17 event in 1991.

18

24. U.S. Soccer has fielded a men’s soccer team for purposes of trying to qualify

19 for and ultimately win the FIFA World Cup ever since then, as well, and for even longer

20 because the World Cup for men has been played for a longer period of time.

21

25. Concacaf sponsors and organizes the Gold Cup, which is a competition for

22 senior men’s national teams fielded by the members of Concacaf. It has done so every

23 two years since 2003. Before that, the cadence of Gold Cup competitions was not as

24 uniform.

25

26. U.S. Soccer has fielded a men’s soccer team for purposes of trying to win

26 the Gold Cup in each year since 2003 and prior to that, as well.

27

27. Between 2005 and 2017, FIFA sponsored and organized the FIFA

28 Confederations Cup, which was a competition for senior men’s national teams, every four

5
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:3020

1 years. Before that, the cadence of Confederations Cup competitions was not as uniform.

2 During the 2005-2017 period, the Confederations Cup was an eight-team tournament

3 contested the year before the FIFA World Cup, held in the country that would be hosting

4 the FIFA World Cup the following year. Most recently, the participants typically were

5 the reigning FIFA World Cup champion, the six reigning continental champions (e.g., in

6 Concacaf, typically the reigning Gold Cup champion), and the host of the next year’s

7 FIFA World Cup.

8

28. In 2015, Concacaf organized the CONCACAF Cup, which was a single

9 match contested by the United States and Mexico (winners of the 2013 and 2015 Gold

10 Cups, respectively) for the right to play in the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup.

11

29. Concacaf sponsors and organizes a tournament for senior women’s national

12 teams. Since 2002, this tournament has also doubled as the Concacaf region’s qualifying

13 tournament for either the FIFA Women’s World Cup or the Olympic Games. In contrast,

14 the qualifying processes for the men’s FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games soccer

15 tournament are separate and apart from the men’s Gold Cup.

16

30. U.S. Soccer has fielded a women’s soccer team for purposes of trying to win

17 Concacaf’s regional women’s championship (described in the preceding paragraph) every

18 year since 2002 and prior to that, as well.

19

31. La Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol (“CONMEBOL”) is the

20 continental governing body for the sport of soccer in South America. U.S. Soccer is not a

21 member of CONMEBOL, but it has been invited by CONMEBOL to participate in its

22 championship for its senior men’s national teams, the Copa America, on some occasions

23 in the past. In recent years CONMEBOL has invited teams from outside CONMEBOL to

24 participate.

25

32. In 2017, Concacaf announced the first ever Concacaf Nations League, a

26 tournament for men’s national teams to be contested from 2018-2020. The MNT has

27 participated in this competition, advancing to the semifinals to be played later this year.

28

6
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:3021

1

33. For the women’s soccer tournament in the Olympic Games and the FIFA

2 Women’s World Cup (and their associated qualifying tournaments), the U.S. Soccer

3 fields the WNT.

4

34. For the FIFA World Cup (and its associated qualifying tournament), the

5 Gold Cup, the FIFA Confederations Cup (when it existed), the CONCACAF Cup, Copa

6 America, and the Concacaf Nations League, U.S. Soccer fields the MNT.

7

35. U.S. Soccer does not field the MNT for the men’s soccer tournament in the

8 Olympic Games or for its associated qualifying tournament.

9

36. For the men’s Olympic qualifying tournament, U.S. Soccer is required to

10 field its Under 23 Men’s National Team (U-23 MNT), i.e., the team may not include any

11 players over the age of 23 (as measured by a certain date) for Olympic qualifying

12 matches. U.S. Soccer also must use its U-23 MNT for matches in the Olympic Games if

13 it qualifies, with the exception that the rules of the competition allow the teams that

14 qualify for the Olympic Games to add three players over the age of 23 to their Olympic

15 Games rosters.

16

37. In 2015 and 2016, the MNT included some players who were under the age

17 of 23 and therefore eligible to play for the U-23 MNT in Olympic qualifiers during those

18 years. For example, Jordan Morris played for the U-23 MNT in Olympic qualifiers in

19 2015 and 2016 even though he had previously played in games for the MNT.

20

38. In prior years when the U-23 MNT has qualified for the Olympic Games,

21 U.S. Soccer has used players under the age of 23 who had previously played for the MNT

22 and also has added players over the age of 23 who had previously played for the MNT.

23 For example, the men’s roster for the 2008 Olympic Games included 36-year-old Brian

24 McBride, who had by then played nearly 100 games with the MNT, and Benny Feilhaber,

25 who qualified as a U-23 player but had played for the MNT in past, even scoring the

26 game-winning goal for the MNT in the 2007 Gold Cup Final.

27

39. In 2020, the MNT includes some players who are also eligible to play for the

28 U-23 MNT in its Olympic qualifiers scheduled for March and April 2020. In addition, all

7
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:3022

1 MNT players will be eligible to play for U.S. Soccer at the Olympic Games if the team

2 qualifies (because any of the individuals over the age of 23 could be named as one of the

3 three over-age players).

4

40. In addition to playing in the previously described tournaments, the MNT

5 also plays senior men’s national teams from other nations in international friendlies.

6

41. In addition to playing in the Olympics and the FIFA Women’s World Cup

7 (and their associated qualifying tournaments), the WNT also plays senior women’s

8 national teams from other nations in international friendlies.

9

42. Some of the friendly matches in which the WNT plays have been organized

10 into a round-robin tournament format (e.g., the She Believes Cup, the Algarve Cup, and

11 Tournament of Nations), but they are still considered international friendlies by FIFA and

12 by U.S. Soccer. On FIFA’s international match calendar, these events are called “friendly

13 tournaments.”

14

43. International soccer at the senior men’s and women’s national team level is

15 organized around four-year cycles known as “quads.” The men’s cycle runs from January

16 1 in the year after the FIFA World Cup through December 31 of the year of the next

17 FIFA World Cup. The women’s cycle runs from the January 1 after the Olympic Games

18 through December 31 of the year of the next Olympic Games. The last two quads for the

19 MNT were 2011-2015 and 2015-2018. The current quad runs from 2019-2022. The last

20 two quads for the WNT were 2009-2012 and 2013-2016. The current quad runs from

21 2017-2020.

22

44. U.S. Soccer receives no funding from the federal government.

23

45. Although U.S. Soccer receives some revenue from other sources, more than

24 half of its annual revenue typically comes from a combination of the following sources:

25 (1) hosting soccer matches against other senior men’s and women’s national teams and

26 generating revenue from ticket sales and other activities associated with putting on the

27 event or receiving money from other soccer federations in exchange for agreeing to play

28 in their countries, (2) money received for participating in tournaments organized or

8
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:3023

1 sponsored by FIFA, Concacaf, and CONMEBOL, and (3) agreements with Soccer United

2 Marketing (SUM) and Nike according to which SUM pays U.S. Soccer for certain

3 television broadcasting rights and both SUM and Nike pay U.S. Soccer for different

4 bundles of intellectual property rights.

5

46. In addition, in 2016 a subsidiary of U.S. Soccer organized and hosted the

6 Copa America Centenario, a special 100th anniversary edition of the Copa America, co-

7 sponsored by CONMEBOL and Concacaf. The subsidiary generated more than $70

8 million in net income from this activity and contributed that money to U.S. Soccer. U.S.

9 Soccer’s Board of Directors has approved a plan to spend those funds on various

10 activities designed to further the mission of U.S. Soccer.

11

47. The MNT played in the Copa America Centenario and advanced to the

12 semifinals. The unique opportunity to form a subsidiary to organize and host that

13 tournament would not have existed if U.S. Soccer did not field a senior men’s

14 international soccer team.

15

48. FIFA owns and monetizes all commercial rights associated with the FIFA

16 World Cup and the FIFA Women’s World Cup tournaments, such as television broadcast

17 rights and the right to sell tickets to attend the games. The only revenue U.S. Soccer

18 receives from such tournaments is in the form of money paid to U.S. Soccer by FIFA as a

19 reward for qualifying for or succeeding in the tournament.

20

49. U.S. Soccer, however, does own the broadcast rights and the right to sell

21 tickets to certain FIFA World Cup qualifiers involving the MNT. It does not own the

22 broadcast rights to the FIFA Women’s World Cup qualifiers or the right to sell tickets to

23 those games because the WNT qualifies through Concacaf’s regional championship

24 tournament, and Concacaf owns those rights.

25

50. FIFA awarded prize money for the 2010 FIFA World Cup as described in

26 the prize money memorandum attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 8. U.S. Soccer

27 received $9 million in prize money from FIFA because the MNT advanced to the Round

28 of 16 in the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

9
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:3024

1

51. FIFA awarded prize money for the 2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup as

2 described in the prize money memorandum attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 9. U.S.

3 Soccer received $800,000 in prize money from FIFA because the WNT finished 2nd in

4 the 2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup.

5

52. FIFA awarded prize money for the 2014 FIFA World Cup as described in

6 the prize money memorandum attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 10. U.S. Soccer

7 received $9 million in prize money from FIFA because the MNT advanced to the Round

8 of 16 in the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

9

53. FIFA awarded prize money for the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup as

10 described in the prize money memorandum attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 11.

11 U.S. Soccer received $2 million in prize money from FIFA because the WNT won the

12 2015 Women’s World Cup.

13

54. In 2018, FIFA awarded $38 million in prize money to the French Football

14 Federation because France won the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

15

55. In 2019, the WNT won the FIFA Women’s World Cup, and U.S. Soccer will

16 receive $4 million in prize money from FIFA as a result. The prize money available from

17 FIFA for the 2019 Women’s World Cup is described in the prize money memorandum as

18 Exhibit 12.

19

56. The 2014 FIFA World Cup was held in Brazil. The 2018 FIFA World Cup

20 was held in Russia. Thirty-two senior men’s national teams participated in each

21 tournament.

22

57. To qualify for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the MNT first had to play two

23 games each (home-and-away) against Jamaica, Guatemala, and Antigua & Barbuda over

24 the course of four months in 2012 and then another two games each (home-and-away)

25 against Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama, and Jamaica over the course of eight

26 months in 2013. The MNT finished in first place in each round and qualified for the 2014

27 FIFA World Cup.

28

10
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:3025

1

58. To try to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the MNT first had to play

2 two games each (home-and-away) against Trinidad & Tobago, Guatemala, and St.

3 Vincent & the Grenandines over the course of almost 10 months in 2015 and 2016 and

4 then another two games each (home-and-away) against Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama,

5 Honduras, and Trinidad & Tobago over the course of almost a year in 2016 and 2017.

6 The MNT finished in first place in the initial round but in fifth place in the final round

7 and, as a result, did not qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup. This was the first time

8 since the mid-1980s that the MNT failed to qualify for the FIFA World Cup.

9

59. The 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup was held in Canada. The 2019 FIFA

10 Women’s World Cup was held in France. Twenty-four senior women’s national teams

11 participated in each tournament.

12

60. To qualify for the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup, the WNT had to play

13 five games over the course of 12 days in October 2014, all in the United States.

14

61. To qualify for the 2019 Women’s World Cup, the WNT had to play five

15 games over the course of 14 days in October 2018, all in the United States.

16

62. At all levels of its national team program, including its senior national teams

17 and youth national teams, U.S. Soccer fields separate teams for males and females. This

18 is required by FIFA’s rules and regulations.

19

63. While others (including General Counsel Lisa Levine) participated in and

20 represented U.S. Soccer during the 2012-2013 collective bargaining negotiations with the

21 Women’s National Team Players Association (WNTPA), I am the person who led those

22 negotiations on behalf of U.S. Soccer. Although the Board of Directors needed to

23 approve the final collective bargaining agreement, I had the authority to make and accept

24 offers and reach a tentative agreement with the WNTPA, subject to the Board’s ultimate

25 approval. Those negotiations culminated in the execution of the March 19, 2013,

26 Memorandum of Understanding attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 13.

27

64. In 2012 and 2013, when the WNTPA and U.S. Soccer were negotiating for a

28 new collective bargaining agreement, there was no top-tier women’s professional soccer

11
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:3026

1 league in the United States. The prior two attempts at such a league had failed, with the

2 most recent iteration ceasing operations after three seasons in 2011.

3

65. Acting as President of U.S. Soccer, I had informed WNTPA Executive

4 Director John Langel prior to starting contract negotiations that U.S. Soccer wanted to

5 assist in launching a new top-tier women’s professional league in 2013.

6

66. The November 1, 2012, memorandum attached to this Declaration as Exhibit

7 14 was the first written contract proposal U.S. Soccer received from the WNTPA during

8 the 2012-2013 collective bargaining negotiations.

9

67. On November 5, 2012, representatives of the WNTPA and U.S. Soccer,

10 including me, met in Philadelphia to discuss the WNTPA’s November 1, 2012

11 memorandum. WNT player Lauren Cheney communicated to us during that meeting that

12 the players were grateful for what they were paid and understood that they were among

13 the highest compensated teams in the world.

14

68. On December 4, 2012, U.S. Soccer Chief Financial Officer Eric Gleason

15 e-mailed the WNTPA a summary of U.S. Soccer’s initial proposal for compensation

16 terms in a new collective bargaining agreement. Among other things, the document

17 proposed that there be 24 players under contract receiving an annual salary, per diems

18 equal to the MNT as requested by the WNTPA, a $1.8 million payment to the players for

19 Victory Tours after both the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games,

20 and various bonuses for success in the Olympics. The proposal also included annual

21 housing allowances for players in the NWSL. The 2011-2018 CBA between the MNTPA

22 and U.S. Soccer does not include any of these items. A true copy of this e-mail is

23 attached as Exhibit 15.

24

69. In addition to the terms reflected in the attachment to Gleason’s email

25 (Exhibit 15), I orally offered to the WNTPA an additional $200,000, which the WNTPA

26 could apply to bonuses associated with the FIFA Women’s World Cup or the Olympic

27 Games or some combination, as determined by the WNTPA.

28

12
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:3027

1

70. Later on in negotiations, Mr. Gleason prepared a document for my review

2 showing that from 2005 through 2011, U.S. Soccer earned more than $95 million from

3 MNT game revenue and less than $15 million from WNT game revenue. A copy of this

4 document is attached as Exhibit 16.

5

71. I also knew during those negotiations how much prize money FIFA had

6 awarded to the winner of, and the other participants in, the 2010 FIFA World Cup for

7 men, as well as how much prize money FIFA had awarded to the winner of, and the other

8 participants in, the 2011 FIFA Women’s World Cup.

9

72. During the negotiations, I did not anticipate that either of these gaps in

10 revenue generation would disappear, or even come close to disappearing, during the term

11 of the 2013-2016 collective bargaining agreement.

12

73. During the entire course of the negotiations that led to the 2013

13 Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit 13), the WNTPA never asked for the same

14 World Cup compensation structure as the one found in U.S. Soccer’s collective

15 bargaining agreement with the union representing MNT players. Nor did it ask for the

16 same amount of money for playing in international friendlies as the MNT players

17 received.

18

74. Although I attended some sessions, I was not a regular in-person attendee at

19 the collective bargaining sessions with the WNTPA during the 2016 and 2017

20 negotiations that ultimately led to the 2017-2021 collective bargaining agreement. I did

21 personally attend some of them (including the final sessions before ratification of the

22 agreement), and even when I was not there in person, I remained in active contact with

23 the negotiating team and provided the general parameters of negotiating authority under

24 which they worked, with the final agreement subject to the U.S. Soccer Board of

25 Directors’ ultimate approval of the final agreement.

26

75. During the 2016-2017 negotiations, I understood that U.S. Soccer had

27 generated more revenue from MNT matches on an overall and per-game basis during the

28 WNT quad that ended in 2016.

13
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:3028

1

76. I also knew during those negotiations how much prize money FIFA had

2 awarded to the winner of, and the other participants in, the 2014 FIFA World Cup for

3 men, as well as how much prize money FIFA had awarded to the winner of, and the other

4 participants in, the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup.

5

77. During the negotiations, I did not anticipate that either of these gaps in

6 revenue generation would disappear, or even come close to disappearing, during the term

7 of the 2017-2021 collective bargaining agreement. I also did not anticipate that the MNT

8 would fail to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, given that it had qualified for every

9 World Cup between 1990 and 2014.

10

78. When U.S. Soccer presented its initial “pay-to-play” compensation proposal

11 to the WNTPA on May 9 and 13, 2016, it was an opening offer, and I anticipated that

12 U.S. Soccer would have to increase its offer as negotiations progressed, in order to

13 encourage compromise by the WNTPA on its offer and to ultimately reach a deal.

14

79. During both the 2012-2013 and 2016-2017 negotiations, when I considered

15 what U.S. Soccer should be willing to offer, accept, and tentatively agree to, and what I

16 would be willing to recommend to the full Board of Directors, I always considered the

17 anticipated overall cost of the contract over its full term. As part of that analysis, I

18 considered the cost of every contract provision that caused U.S. Soccer to incur a material

19 cost. I also considered how much success I anticipated the team to achieve on the field

20 during the term of the collective bargaining agreement and how that anticipated success

21 was likely to affect the cost of the contract.

22

80. I do not know what size friendly bonuses I may have been willing to

23 authorize offering, tentatively accepting, or recommending to the Board during 2016-

24 2017 negotiations if the WNTPA had been willing to negotiate a true pay-to-play

25 collective bargaining agreement.

26

81. One thing I do know is that I never would have authorized offering or

27 accepting, and never would have recommended to the Board agreeing to, the same

28 bonuses for Women’s World Cup play that were contained in the MNT’s agreement for

14
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:3029
1 their World Cup play for very simple reasons. I believed the WNT was much more likely 2 to qualify for and succeed in their tournament than the MNT was, and I believed that the 3 MNT’s participation and success in their tournament would result in the receipt of 4 substantially more prize money from FIFA than the WNT’s participation and success in 5 their tournament. 6 // 7 // 8 // 9 // 10 // 11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 //
15
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-3 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:3030
1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 2 Executed on February 20, 2020. 3 4 5 Sunil Gulati 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16
DECLARATION OF SUNIL GULATI

World Cup -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID

#:3031

World Cup

World Cup, formally FIFA World Cup, in football (soccer), quadrennial tournament that determines the sport’s world champion. It is likely the most popular sporting event in the world, drawing billions of television viewers every tournament.

Torres, Carlos Alberto
Captain Carlos Alberto Torres holding the Jules Rimet trophy aloft after Brazil's
triumph at the 1970 World Cup.
AP

The first competition for the cup was organized in 1930 by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and was won by Uruguay. Held every four years since that time, except during World War II, the competition consists of international sectional tournaments leading to a final elimination event made up of 32 national teams. Unlike Olympic football, World Cup teams are not limited to players of a certain age or amateur status, so the competition serves more nearly as a contest between the world’s best players. Referees are selected from lists that are submitted by all the national associations.

Brazil's Ronaldo (yellow shirt) maneuvering around opposing German
players during the final match of the 2002 World Cup, held in Yokohama, Japan; Brazil defeated Germany, 2–0.
Thomas Kienzle/AP

The trophy cup awarded from 1930 to 1970 was the Jules Rimet Trophy, named for the Frenchman who proposed the tournament. This cup was permanently awarded in 1970 to then three-time winner Brazil (1958, 1962, and 1970), and a new trophy called the FIFA World Cup was put up for competition. Many other sports have organized “World Cup” competitions.
For a list of World Cup champions, see table.

https://www.britannica.com/print/article/648277

2/19/2020

World Cup -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID

#:3032

year

FIFA World Cup—men result

1930 Uruguay

4 Argentina

2

1934 Italy*

2 Czechoslovakia 1

1938 Italy

4 Hungary

2

1950 Uruguay

2 Brazil

1

1954 West Germany 3 Hungary

2

1958 Brazil

5 Sweden

2

1962 Brazil

3 Czechoslovakia 1

1966 England*

4 West Germany 2

1970 Brazil

4 Italy

1

1974 West Germany 2 Netherlands 1

1978 Argentina* 3 Netherlands 1

1982 Italy

3 West Germany 1

1986 Argentina

3 West Germany 2

1990 West Germany 1 Argentina

0

1994 Brazil**

0 Italy

0

1998 France

3 Brazil

0

2002 Brazil

2 Germany

0

2006 Italy**

1 France

1

2010 Spain*

1 Netherlands 0

2014 Germany*

1 Argentina

0

2018 France

4 Croatia

2

*Won after extra time (AET).

**Won on penalty kicks. This article was most recently revised and updated by Amy Tikkanen, Corrections Manager.

https://www.britannica.com/print/article/648277

2/19/2020

World Cup -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Page 3 of 3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-4 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID

#:3033

CITATION INFORMATION ARTICLE TITLE: World Cup WEBSITE NAME: Encyclopaedia Britannica PUBLISHER: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. DATE PUBLISHED: 22 January 2020 URL: https://www.britannica.com/sports/World-Cup-football ACCESS DATE: February 19, 2020

https://www.britannica.com/print/article/648277

2/19/2020

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 73 Page ID #:3034

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 73 Page ID #:3035

Contents

Click on section title or page number to skip to section…

Report authors

2

Introduction

3

Match schedule

4

Report notes

6

Top-line coverage and audience summary

7

Executive summary

8

Key market summaries

12

In-home data sources and methodology

15

Global 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM analysis

o In-home television

16

o Out-of-home

25

o Online and mobile

26

Global 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match analysis

27

Regional 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM analysis

o Africa and Middle East

30

o Asia

33

o Europe

36

o North, Central America and Caribbean

39

o Oceania

42

o South America

44

Appendix

o 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM broadcast summary by territory

48

o FIFA World Cup TM audience reach comparison by reach condition

53

o 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match audience summary

55

o Media Rights Licensees

56

o Glossary of terms

72

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 73 Page ID #:3036
Report authors
KantarSport (formerly TNS Sport) is a leading specialist sports and entertainment research company, delivering insight for nearly 20 years into more than 250 sporting federations, rights holders, clubs/teams, venues, broadcasters and sponsors globally. KantarSport has been working directly with FIFA on their global coverage and audience reporting since June 2009. KantarSport is part of the Kantar Media family; the research and insight arm of the WPP group. Address: 66 Wilson Street, London, EC2A 2JX, United Kingdom Tel.: 0044 (0)207 868 6110 Website: www.kantarmedia.com/en/our-expertise/kantarsport
Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
2

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 73 Page ID #:3037

Introduct ion

The 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM took place from 11 June to 11 July and featured 32 football nations from around the globe.

The list of competing nations was:

Group A

Group B

Group C

Group D

South Africa

Argentina

England

Germany

Mexico

Nigeria

USA

Australia

Uruguay

Korea Republic

Algeria

Serbia

France

Greece

Slovenia

Ghana

Group E Netherlands Denmark Japan Cameroon

Group F Italy Paraguay New Zealand Slovakia

Group G Brazil Korea DPR Ivory Coast Portugal

Group H Spain Switzerland Honduras Chile

Each of the teams played three group-stage matches, before the top two teams in each group progressed to the knockout round-of-16 stage. The games took place at ten venues across South Africa, including stadiums in Johannesburg, Nelspruit, Rustenburg, Mangaung/Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Durban, Polokwane, Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth and Tshwane/Pretoria.
Soccer City in Johannesburg had the honour of hosting the final between Spain and Netherlands, where Spain won their first-ever FIFA World Cup 1-0 after extra time.

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 73 Page ID #:3038

Match schedule

Group stage

Match

Stage

1

Group A match

2

Group A match

3

Group B match

4

Group B match

5

Group C match

6

Group C match

7

Group D match

8

Group D match

9

Group E match

10

Group E match

11

Group F match

12

Group F match

13

Group G match

14

Group G match

15

Group H match

16

Group H match

17

Group A match

18

Group B match

19

Group B match

20

Group A match

21

Group D match

22

Group C match

23

Group C match

24

Group E match

25

Group D match

26

Group E match

27

Group F match

28

Group F match

29

Group G match

30

Group G match

31

Group H match

32

Group H match

33

Group A match

34

Group A match

35

Group B match

36

Group B match

37

Group C match

38

Group C match

39

Group D match

40

Group D match

41

Group E match

42

Group E match

43

Group F match

44

Group F match

45

Group G match

46

Group G match

47

Group H match

48

Group H match

Date 11-Jun-10 11-Jun-10 12-Jun-10 12-Jun-10 12-Jun-10 13-Jun-10 13-Jun-10 13-Jun-10 14-Jun-10 14-Jun-10 14-Jun-10 15-Jun-10 15-Jun-10 15-Jun-10 16-Jun-10 16-Jun-10 16-Jun-10 17-Jun-10 17-Jun-10 17-Jun-10 18-Jun-10 18-Jun-10 18-Jun-10 19-Jun-10 19-Jun-10 19-Jun-10 20-Jun-10 20-Jun-10 20-Jun-10 21-Jun-10 21-Jun-10 21-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 23-Jun-10 23-Jun-10 23-Jun-10 23-Jun-10 24-Jun-10 24-Jun-10 24-Jun-10 24-Jun-10 25-Jun-10 25-Jun-10 25-Jun-10 25-Jun-10

Time 16:00 20:30 16:00 13:30 20:30 13:30 20:30 16:00 13:30 16:00 20:30 13:30 16:00 20:30 13:30 16:00 20:30 20:30 16:00 13:30 13:30 16:00 20:30 16:00 13:30 20:30 13:30 16:00 20:30 13:30 16:00 20:30 16:00 16:00 20:30 20:30 16:00 16:00 20:30 20:30 16:00 16:00 20:30 20:30 16:00 16:00 20:30 20:30

Venue Johannesburg (Soccer City)
Cape Town Johannesburg (Ellis Park) Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth
Rustenburg Polokwane
Durban Tshwane/Pretoria Johannesburg (Soccer City) Mangaung/Bloemfontein
Cape Town Rustenburg Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth Johannesburg (Ellis Park)
Nelspruit Durban Tshwane/Pretoria Polokwane Mangaung/Bloemfontein Johannesburg (Soccer City) Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth Johannesburg (Ellis Park) Cape Town Rustenburg Durban Tshwane/Pretoria Mangaung/Bloemfontein Nelspruit Johannesburg (Soccer City) Cape Town Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth Johannesburg (Ellis Park) Rustenburg Mangaung/Bloemfontein Durban Polokwane Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth Tshwane/Pretoria Johannesburg (Soccer City) Nelspruit Johannesburg (Ellis Park) Polokwane Rustenburg Cape Town Durban Nelspruit Tshwane/Pretoria Mangaung/Bloemfontein

Teams RSA v MEX URU v FRA ARG v NGA KOR v GRE ENG v USA ALG v SVN GER v AUS SRB v GHA NED v DEN JPN v CMR ITA v PAR NZL v SVK CIV v POR BRA v PRK HON v CHI ESP v SUI RSA v URU FRA v MEX GRE v NGA ARG v KOR GER v SRB SVN v USA ENG v ALG GHA v AUS NED v JPN CMR v DEN SVK v PAR ITA v NZL BRA v CIV POR v PRK CHI v SUI ESP v HON MEX v URU FRA v RSA NGA v KOR GRE v ARG SVN v ENG USA v ALG GHA v GER AUS v SRB SVK v ITA PAR v NZL DEN v JPN CMR v NED POR v BRA PRK v CIV CHI v ESP SUI v HON

Score 1:1 (0:0)
0:0 1:0 (1:0) 2:0 (1:0) 1:1 (1:1) 0:1 (0:0) 4:0 (2:0) 0:1 (0:0) 2:0 (0:0) 1:0 (1:0) 1:1 (0:1) 1:1 (0:0)
0:0 2:1 (0:0) 0:1 (0:1) 0:1 (0:0) 0:3 (0:1) 0:2 (0:0) 2:1 (1:1) 4:1 (2:1) 0:1 (0:1) 2:2 (2:0)
0:0 1:1 (1:1) 1:0 (0:0) 1:2 (1:1) 0:2 (0:1) 1:1 (1:1) 3:1 (1:0) 7:0 (1:0) 1:0 (0:0) 2:0 (1:0) 0:1 (0:1) 1:2 (0:2) 2:2 (1:1) 0:2 (0:0) 0:1 (0:1) 1:0 (0:0) 0:1 (0:0) 2:1 (0:0) 3:2 (1:0)
0:0 1:3 (0:2) 1:2 (0:1)
0:0 0:3 (0:2) 1:2 (0:2)
0:0

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
4

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 73 Page ID #:3039

Knockout phase

Match

Stage

49

Round of 16

50

Round of 16

51

Round of 16

52

Round of 16

53

Round of 16

54

Round of 16

55

Round of 16

56

Round of 16

57

Quarter-final

58

Quarter-final

59

Quarter-final

60

Quarter-final

61

Semi-final

62

Semi-final

63

Match for third place

64

Final

Date 26-Jun-10 26-Jun-10 27-Jun-10 27-Jun-10 28-Jun-10 28-Jun-10 29-Jun-10 29-Jun-10

Time 16:00 20:30 16:00 20:30 16:00 20:30 16:00 20:30

Venue Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth
Rustenburg Mangaung/Bloemfontein Johannesburg (Soccer City)
Durban Johannesburg (Ellis Park)
Tshwane/Pretoria Cape Town

02-Jul-10 02-Jul-10 03-Jul-10 03-Jul-10

16:00 20:30 16:00 20:30

Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth Johannesburg (Soccer City) Cape Town Johannesburg (Ellis Park)

06-Jul-10 20:30 07-Jul-10 20:30

Cape Town Durban

10-Jul-10 20:30 Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth

11-Jul-10 20:30

Johannesburg (Soccer City)

Teams URU v KOR USA v GHA GER v ENG ARG v MEX NED v SVK BRA v CHI PAR v JPN ESP v POR
NED v BRA URU v GHA ARG v GER PAR v ESP
URU v NED GER v ESP

Score 2:1 (1:0) 1:2 a.e.t. (1:1, 0:1) 4:1 (2:1) 3:1 (2:0) 2:1 (1:0) 3:0 (2:0) 0:0 a.e.t. 5:3 PSO 1:0 (0:0)
2:1 (0:1) 1:1 a.e.t. (1:1, 0:1) 4:2 PSO
0:4 (0:1) 0:1 (0:0)
2:3 (1:1) 0:1 (0:0)

URU v GER

2:3 (1:1)

NED v ESP

0:1 a.e.t.

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
5

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 73 Page ID #:3040
Report notes1
• Throughout this report “AUDIENCE REACH” has been quoted, which is the measurement of the total unique individuals to have watched the event on television in-home. This ensures viewers are not duplicated while providing a true measure of event penetration. For the purposes of this report, audience reach has been based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes of coverage; however various other reach conditions have also been sourced and are quoted throughout as well as shown in the “Appendix” section. The projected global reach is based on collecting the audited reach data in major measured markets around the world, which account for a wide geographic spread as well as a significant proportion of the world’s population. The same methodology has been used to calculate the total reach for the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM.
• Many markets around the world have developed accurate methodologies to measure “INHOME AUDIENCES” over recent years; therefore there is a higher level of available audited audiences in this report than in the 2006 event report. Such markets include Egypt, where previously “ESTIMATED AUDIENCES” had to be used; however the audited audiences from the market are now sourced.
• Where estimated audiences have been applied, a more rigorous methodology has been employed than previously, taking into account multiple variables (see “In-Home Data sources and methodology” section). Audience estimates are used due to the fact that official audited audience measurement systems still do not exist in many markets around the world. For example, estimates continue to be necessary in much of Africa, the Middle East, Caribbean, Pacific Islands and smaller markets in the Asia sub-continent. In addition, many digital/subscription channels around the world either do not or are not able to measure their audiences. For the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM, audited audience data was available in close to 80 territories, which, although only representing less than 40% of the 214 territories where coverage was available, accounted for approximately 70% of the world population and 85% of the global GDP. In addition, nearly 80% of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM total audience was generated from audited markets.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS”
6

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 73 Page ID #:3041

Top-line coverage and audience summary
(Comparison against 2006)
Total broadcast hours:
Total territories reached:
Total in-home audience reach (20+ consecutive minutes):
Total in-home audience reach (1+ minute):
Average global in-home audience per live match:
Highest global in-home average audience (2010 FWC South AfricaTM final): 2010 FWC South AfricaTM final match In-home audience reach (20+ consecutive minutes): 2010 FWC South AfricaTM final match In-home audience reach (1+ minute):

71,867 214 2.2 billion (+3%) 3.2 billion (+8%) 188.4 million (+6%)
530.9 million (+5%)
619.7 million (+5%)
909.6 million (+4%)

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
7

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 73 Page ID #:3042

Executive summary1

The in-home television coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM reached2 over 3.2 billion people around the world; 46.4% of the global population3 and an 8% rise on that achieved at the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM.

Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes of coverage, the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM reached nearly a third of the world population3; 2.2 billion viewers. This is a 3% rise on the in-home television reach of the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM.
To establish the 20-minute audience reach for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM, FIFA sourced audience reach from 17 major measured markets around the world. It was ensured that these markets accounted for a wide geographic spread as well as a significant proportion of the world’s population. This was then used to project a global reach (refer to “Global 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM analysis” section for more detail), resulting in the 2.2 billion viewers quoted above.

However, for comparative purposes and to measure audience reach at various levels of engagement, FIFA sourced the audience reach for the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany TM from 15 of the major markets (the same markets as used in the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
audience reach analysis with the exception of Egypt and Indonesia due to availability). The same
process was then employed to analyse the global reach of the event (refer to “Global 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM analysis” section for more detail) which resulted in the audience reach statistics4 below:

In-home audience reach based on viewers watching at least:

o 1+ minute of coverage:

3.2 billion (+8%); 46% of the global population3

o 3+ consecutive minutes of coverage: 2.8 billion (+5%); 41%

o 20+ consecutive minutes of coverage: 2.2 billion (+3%); 32% o 30+ consecutive minutes of coverage: 2.0 billion (+3%); 29%

The 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match reached 619.7 million in-home viewers, based on those watching at least 20 consecutive minutes of coverage. However, based on watching just one minute of coverage, this rises to 909.6 million viewers, while additional “OUTOF-HOME” viewers are likely to have pushed the total audience reach to over one billion5.
The average in-home global audience for each match during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM was 188.4 million; up 6% versus the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM. The 6% increase is higher than the 3% increase in audience reach, indicating that viewers were more “dedicated” during matches in this edition.
Please note that these figures do not include out-of-home viewing and therefore would be higher if this was also included. Please refer to the “Out-of-home” section for an analysis of this channel.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 2 Based on viewers watching at least one minute of coverage. 3 Based on global population of 6.91 billion (UN Population Division 2010) 4 See “Appendix” section for detailed overview of key market audience reach analysis. 5 See “Out-of-home” section for methodology and analysis.
8

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 73 Page ID #:3043

Other highlights of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM included:
o A total of more than 71,867 hours of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM “DEDICATED COVERAGE” were broadcast in-home; the equivalent to over eight full years of coverage.
o While the total level of broadcast coverage stayed consistent with the amount aired in 2006, a higher amount of coverage was produced and made available by FIFA during this edition, particularly via online and mobile media which recorded significant audiences (refer to “Online and mobile” section for more detail). In addition, radio also offered high levels of coverage of the tournament, allowing access to numerous members of the public, particularly in regions where television and new media is less available (refer to “MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEES” section for full list of licensees or “GLOSSARY” for definition).
o China offered the highest audience reach of any territory around the world, with 329 million viewers watching the available tournament television coverage in-home6. However, the penetration of the event was highest in Spain, with the television coverage reaching nearly 90% of the total population watching the tournament (39.4 million)6.
o In-home television coverage was highest in China, where 17 separate channels aired a total of nearly 3,000 hours. In addition, the tournament gained high levels of coverage in Italy and Argentina where viewers had access to over 2,500 hours of coverage.
o However, the pan-Africa Media Rights Licensee Supersport showed over 3,100 hours across the region, which represents the highest of any licensee.
o Italy saw ten separate “CHANNELS” broadcast a total of 2,854 hours, including 2,473 hours from the dedicated 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM Sky channels Mondiale 1, 2 and 37.
o The South American markets, which received coverage from the DirecTV licensee8, all produced high levels of coverage due to DirecTV airing a total of 9,357 hours across their six feeds to the region. However, audience reach in the region was highest in Brazil (157.5 million), where in particular the coverage aired by TV Globo was watched by high levels of viewers (live game average audience of 17.3 million).
o The highest audiences were achieved in China, Brazil and Japan. Each of these markets generated total audiences of more than 45 million individuals, including a total average audience of 66 million viewers in China for the Germany v. Argentina quarter-final, nearly 50 million in Brazil for both Brazil v. North Korea and Brazil v. Chile and an average audience of 45.6 million in Japan for the Japan v. Paraguay round-of-16 match.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes 7 Channels of the Media Rights Licensee RAI’s sub-licensee Sky Italia 8 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI
9

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 73 Page ID #:3044

o Several territories saw new in-home audience records set during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM, including the host nation of South Africa. The games featuring the home nation attracted average audiences of just under ten million individuals; 30% of all those with access to television in the home. The highest live audience was for the second match between South Africa and Uruguay, which attracted an average of 10.15 million viewers inhome – breaking all previous viewing records in South Africa. These previous viewing records included the 1995 Rugby World Cup final and the FIFA Confederations Cup South Africa 2009TM semi-final, which gained audiences 40% lower than the South African games at the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM.
o Audience reach in South Africa increased 18% versus the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM6. A total of nearly 28 million individuals were reached in South Africa by the inhome coverage6; 57% of the population and well over 80% of all those with access to television in-home.
o Records were also broken in the USA during the tournament. A new audience record was set for a men’s football match when the USA played Ghana in the round-of-16. A combined average of 24 million viewers watched the live game on either ABC9 or Univision10; beating the previous record held by the 1994 FIFA World Cup USATM quarterfinal between the USA and Brazil, by 20%.
o The audience reach7 in the USA saw a near 20% rise versus that achieved in 2006, with 94.5 million viewers watching some part of the tournament in-home. This is the largest increase in audience reach of any measured market analysed.
o In Germany, a record-breaking in-home audience watched the semi-final between Germany and Spain on ARD. An average of more than 31 million viewers tuned in, which is the first time in German television history that an in-home audience of more than 30 million has been achieved by a single broadcaster. This beats the previous records of 29.7 million for the Germany v. Italy semi-final of the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM and 29.5 million for the Germany v. Turkey semi-final at UEFA EURO 2008.
o A record Dutch audience was achieved for the final, with an average audience of 8.5 million watching the NED111 coverage in-home. This represents well over half of the population and beat the previous record audience set for the Netherlands v. Portugal UEFA EURO 2004 semi-final (+1%).

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes 9 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ESPN & ABC Inc. 10 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Univision Communications Inc. 11 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee EBU/NOS
10

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 73 Page ID #:3045
o In Spain, the final produced a record audience for Telecinco12, attracting by far their highest of any programme aired in the last five years. An average in-home audience of 13.4 million watched the game on Telecinco12; a third of the population. Canal+12 also aired the game live or delayed across three channels in Spain, resulting in a combined average audience of over 14 million for the match; the highest ever achieved during a FIFA World CupTM. This ranks only behind the audience achieved for the Spain v. Germany UEFA EURO 2008 final in recent television history in Spain, not including out-of-home audiences5.
o In the UK, the coverage of Germany v. England on BBC113 achieved an average audience of nearly 17.5 million for the match. This ranks as high as any other sports programme aired in the UK in the last five years, equalling the audience achieved for the England v Sweden match at the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM but higher than such sporting contests as Chelsea v. Manchester United in the 2008 UEFA Champions League final and England v. South Africa in the 2007 Rugby World Cup final.
o Despite Brazil and China achieving the highest individual audiences, the highest ratings (“TVR%”) were produced in the Netherlands as well as such markets as Iceland and El Salvador where ratings of more than 50% of the possible in-home television audience were recorded. In addition, estimated ratings of more than 50% were produced in Ghana, Ivory Coast and Nigeria for games featuring their respective nations.
o The highest “MARKET SHARES” of television audiences during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM were achieved in the Netherlands and Australia. Over 90% of television viewers during home nation games watched the coverage, whilst licensees in key markets such as Germany, Japan and the UK have achieved more than 80% market share during 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM games.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 5 See “Out-of-home” section for methodology and analysis. 12 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Sogecable S.A. 13 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee BBC
11

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 73 Page ID #:3046

Key market summaries1
South Africa Coverage (hh:mm): 1630:57 Audience reach6: 27.9m “AVERAGE LIVE MATCH AUDIENCE”: 4.1m “PEAK MATCH AUDIENCE”: 11.6m
France Coverage (hh:mm): 199:32 Audience reach6: 44.9m Average live match audience: 4.8m Peak match audience: 15.2m
Germany Coverage (hh:mm): 781:27 Audience reach6: 65.0m14 Average live match audience: 8.8m Peak match audience: 31.9m
Italy Coverage (hh:mm): 2854:11 Audience reach6: 46.6m Average live match audience: 4.2m Peak match audience: 21.6m
Spain Coverage (hh:mm): 745:57 Audience reach6: 39.4m Average live match audience: 2.9m Peak match audience: 14.4m

As a result of hosting and participating in the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM, audiences increased sharply; audience reach increased 18% and the average live match gained 152% higher audiences compared to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany TM.
The 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM reached nearly 45 million viewers in-home. However, this is a drop of 10% versus the 2006 edition, primarily due to the national teams’ performance at the previous FIFA World CupTM where they progressed to the final.
Despite the record audience achieved in Germany during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM, audience reach was relatively consistent with that produced in 2006.
Many of the key measures declined in Italy during this edition due to the success achieved by the national team in 2006. Audience reach saw a 3% decline.
In contrast to France and Italy, audiences climbed significantly in Spain during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM. Audience reach increased 19%, while the average live match audience climbed 62%.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes 14 Estimated due to audited reach analysis being unavailable in Germany at time of publishing
12

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 73 Page ID #:3047

UK Coverage (hh:mm): 341:07 Audience reach6: 46.8m Average live match audience: 5.3m Peak match audience: 17.9m
USA Coverage (hh:mm): 607:24 Audience reach6: 94.5m Average live match audience: 5.1m Peak match audience: 24.4m
Mexico Coverage (hh:mm): 852:37 Audience reach6: 71.7m Average live match audience: 3.9m Peak match audience: 22.2m

Audiences were largely consistent in the UK versus the 2006 edition, with audience reach increasing 1%. However the peak match audience increased 19% thanks to a higher live audience for England’s peak game but also from the repeats of the match.
Audience reach increased 19% in the USA against that achieved in 2006. This is the highest rise of any measured market analysed and owed much to the increased interest in the tournament and football in general. The peak match audience was also up nearly 50% versus that achieved during 2006.
Audiences in Mexico enjoyed an increase versus the 2006 edition, with audience reach increasing 6%. This was achieved mainly due to the nationally available broadcasters in the market showing more prime-time programming.

Argentina Coverage (hh:mm): 2513:54 Audience reach6: 33.6m Average live match audience: 3.1m Peak match audience: 12.4m

Audiences largely stayed at a similar level to 2006, with audience reach showing a slight (+0.1%) increase.

Brazil Coverage (hh:mm): 1905:55 Audience reach6: 157.5m Average live match audience: 16.1m Peak match audience: 49.5m

Audiences in Brazil declined slightly during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
versus the 2006 edition; audience reach
falling 4%.

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
13

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 73 Page ID #:3048

China Coverage (hh:mm): 2968:09 Audience reach6: 328.7m Average live match audience: 17.5m Peak match audience: 66.0m

Audience reach in China increased 17% versus the 2006 edition, equivalent to 48.5 million extra viewers. This was due to the addition of regional broadcasters as well as a higher level of non-live prime-time coverage.

India Coverage (hh:mm): 572:31 Audience reach6: 44.9m Average live match audience: 1.5m Peak match audience: 5.6m
Japan Coverage (hh:mm): 933:46 Audience reach6: 108.7m Average live match audience: 6.5m Peak match audience: 45.6m

Audience reach in India was 53% down on the 2006 edition, mainly due to the main national broadcaster not airing any support programming (such as magazines and highlights) during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM.
Viewers in Japan had access to nearly double the level of coverage during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM versus 2006, including coverage on 3D channels. This helped audience reach to increase 7%.

Korea Republic Coverage (hh:mm): 819:12 Audience reach6: 39.4m Average live match audience: 2.3m Peak match audience: 15.7m

Despite the tournament being aired by just one broadcaster in 2010 (versus three in 2006), the reach of the event was nearly matched at a total of 39.4 million.

Australia Coverage (hh:mm): 578:15 Audience reach6: 5.6m Average live match audience: 0.3m Peak match audience: 1.6m

Due to the national team not advancing through the knockout phase, audience reach saw a 19% decline from that achieved during the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM.

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
14

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 73 Page ID #:3049

In-home data sources and methodology1

The majority of schedules of programming were sourced directly from the FIFA “MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEES (MRLs)”, or in some cases from the official television auditing agencies in markets. In addition, the current household penetration figures were confirmed via the same source for the majority of MRLs, or if this was not forthcoming, from either published data or via the Kantar Media and WPP network of offices. Furthermore, audience data, where available, has been gathered for each programme directly from MRLs. However, in some cases this has also been ordered from official television auditing agencies in the market.
It is worth noting that several territories have audience measurement panels which do not cover the entire territory. In such cases, the audiences are upweighted using the officially measured data in conjunction with population and television penetration information to account for the entire territory.
Where markets are able to split live coverage into pre-match, match and post-match and such coverage is of reasonable duration (more than three minutes), this has been displayed and analysed as separate highlights programming.
Where markets remain unrated, a methodology to “ESTIMATE AUDIENCES” was employed in each of the individual markets. This methodology is based on using the available data for licensees in the corresponding region as well as analysis based on a combination of the following variables:
o Household penetration of channel o Day part (early morning, morning, lunchtime, afternoon, prime time, late evening or late
night) o Type of coverage (live, delayed, repeat, highlights / magazine) o Match (live games only) o Stage of competition (group match / round of 16 / quarter-finals / semi-finals / final; all
non-live programming) o Analysis of individual market (i.e. whether the market has a team competing in the
tournament, whether the market has a team competing in the fixture, the level of interest in football within a market, etc.) o Comparative audiences in the region
Please note that at time of publishing there were Media Rights Licensees whose data remained outstanding15. It has been assumed that each of these licensees aired their confirmed broadcast intentions (each game live or delayed as well as the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM opening and closing ceremonies).

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 15 ERA Taiwan, Canal Horizons across Africa, AMPTV Armenia, Boom Sport Romania, CFU across the Caribbean, DigiSport Hungary, RTCG Montenegro, Stod2 Sport (365 Media) Iceland and Telemach Slovenia
15

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 73 Page ID #:3050

Global 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM analysis

When based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes, the total audience reach of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM was over 2.2 billion. However, when analysing the total one-minute audience reach, a total of 3.2 billion was achieved.
To establish the global audience reach of the event, official measured audience reach statistics were collected from 17 major markets around the world (please refer to below). For the purposes of defining the audience reach below, viewers had to have watched a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM coverage. Please see the “Appendix” section for alternative reach condition analysis.

350

Audience reach by territory16

90%

300

80%

70% 250
60%

200

Audience Reach

50%

150

% of Population

40%

30% 100
20%

50

10%

0

0%

Audience Reach (millions) China Brazil Indonesia Japan
USA Mexico
Russia UK
Italy France
India Spain Korea Rep. Argentina South Africa Egypt Australia
Reach as % of Population

The in-home audience reach of the tournament in these 17 markets alone totalled 1.325 billion individuals; 60% of the total global projected reach.
More than 328 million individuals were reached in China, mainly due to the earlier live games, which kicked off in prime-time slots across several channels in the market. These games had average total audiences of nearly 40 million, the highest of which was 66 million for the live Argentina v. Germany quarter-final.
In Brazil, 157.5 million individuals were reached during the tournament, again helped by the prime-time showing of certain matches, but in this market it was the later kick-offs. The matches that aired in prime-time slots gained an average of nearly 20 million viewers, including a total average audience of 49.5 million for the Brazil v. North Korea group match.

16 Please note, at time of publishing audience reach in Germany was unavailable
16

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 73 Page ID #:3051

Due to the large population, Indonesia also generated a comparatively high reach figure of nearly 150 million. This was derived from the overall popularity of the tournament, with each game attracting an average of more than eight million viewers. These audiences peaked at more than 20 million for the live Argentina v. Germany and Netherlands v. Brazil quarter-finals as well as the opening encounter between South Africa and Mexico.
Elsewhere, the in-home television coverage in Japan reached over 108 million individuals, while, 94.5 million viewers were reached in the USA and approximately 70 million were reached in Mexico and Russia.
Reach in each of the other four European markets analysed was at a similar level, with over 44 million viewers being reached in the UK, Italy and France. In Spain, nearly 40 million viewers were reached, which represents the highest penetration of any population analysed (nearly 90% of the population), slightly ahead of Argentina, Brazil and Japan; each of which had a tournament reach of over 80% of the population.

To calculate the global reach of the event, a ratio was calculated taking in to account live average and peak audiences in each market, the universe of channels in each market and the reach in each of the measured markets shown on the previous page. This ratio was then used to extrapolate across all markets in the corresponding regions.
This methodology resulted in the event reaching a total of 2.2 billion individuals globally (based on viewing a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes); nearly a third (32%) of the world population3. However, if the reach condition is reduced to viewers watching just one minute of coverage, the projected global reach equates to 3.2 billion.

Individuals (millions)

1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000
800 600 400 200
0

1,511.3 884.4
Asia

Projected reach by region

20+ consecutive minutes 1+ minute

734.2 557.6

299.8 356.8

245.6 263.3

323.7 215.1

Europe

South America Africa & Middle East

North, Central America & Caribbean

9.2 14.5 Oceania

3 Based on global population of 6.91 billion (UN Population Division 2010)
17

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 73 Page ID #:3052
The highest reach was in Asia (884.4 million6) with viewers in China accounting for well over a third (37.2%) of the reach across the region. Together with Indonesia and Japan these three markets accounted for a total of over 586 million individuals6; two thirds of the reach6 in the region. There were 558 million individuals reached in Europe6, with the five major European markets of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK combining to offer a total reach of 230 million individuals6. In addition, a reach of 68.5 million was achieved in Russia6, while a projected reach of 51 million people were reached in Turkey6. Such territories as Ukraine and Poland also delivered comparatively high projected reach of over 20 million individuals6.
South America and the North, Central America and Caribbean region produced a combined audience reach of 515 million viewers6. Brazil produced by far the highest level (157.5m6), while the USA contributed a further 94.5 million viewers6.
Across Africa and the Middle East, a projected reach of over 245 million individuals was generated6, with more than 90 million individuals being generated across the Middle East6 and a combined total reach of nearly 86 million individuals6 in Nigeria and South Africa.
In addition to the in-home reach analysed in this section, it is acknowledged that there will be further reach through out-of-home coverage, including online and mobile viewing. However the large majority of individuals who accessed coverage through these media will also have watched through television in-home and therefore will be accounted for in the above analysis.

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
18

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 73 Page ID #:3053

The final of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM attracted the highest global in-home average audience of any game, with an average audience of 531 million viewers. Over 489 million of this audience was achieved for the live match. It is also worth noting that with the estimated live outof-home audiences also considered this total would be far higher5.
Outside of the final, the Germany v. Spain semi-final and the Argentina v. Germany quarter-final generated the highest in-home audiences, while a further four matches gained total global inhome average audience of more than 300 million.
On average, the matches featuring Spain and Germany offered the highest audiences of all competing nations. On average, the games featuring these teams each gained over 280 million in-home viewers around the world, while matches involving Netherlands, Argentina and Brazil attracted global average audiences of over 250 million.
A total of 57 matches (89% of all matches) gained global average in-home audiences of at least 100 million, while the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM opening ceremony also achieved this level.

NED v. ESP (final) GER v. ESP (semi-final) ARG v. GER (quarter-final) NED v. BRA (quarter-final) URU v. NED (semi-final) GER v. ENG (round of 16) RSA v. MEX (group match) ARG v. NGA (group match) ARG v. MEX (round of 16) ESP v. POR (round of 16) BRA v. PRK (group match) BRA v. CHI (round of 16) BRA v. CIV (group match) URU v. GER (match for third place) POR v. BRA (group match) PAR v. JPN (round of 16) JPN v. CMR (group match) URU v. GHA (quarter-final) FRA v. MEX (group match) ITA v. PAR (group match)

Global average audience by match (Top 20 shown)
489

Individuals (millions) 41

359

45

369

29

316

17

292

38

315

15

302

14

291

7

251

22

235

27

253

8

241

20

234 217 204

17 28 31

Live Non-live (repeat, delayed)

225

8

216

9

200

26

206

12

210

9

5 See “Out-of-home” section for methodology and analysis
19

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 73 Page ID #:3054

The live games aired on TV Globo in Brazil attracted an average of 17.3 million viewers; the highest of any channel showing the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM. The average audience on TV Globo for the games featuring Brazil was in excess of 44 million, peaking for their match against Ivory Coast at 46.6 million.
CCTV-517 in China achieved average audiences of 17 million for each of their live games, including an average audience of 54.5 million for the live Germany v. Argentina quarter-final; the highest audience of any live programme on any channel during the tournament.
Elsewhere, the OSMI/BON Network in Nigeria18/19 along with TBS20 and TV-Asahi20 in Japan generated average audiences of over 14 million for each of the live games they aired. The free-toair Al Jazeera Sport Channel21 broadcast to estimated average audiences of over 12.2 million, while channels in Spain and Germany achieved average audiences of more than 10 million.

Overall, there were over 450 different channels broadcasting coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM around the world, with 25 channels in 15 different markets achieving average
audiences of more than five million to each live game.

Average audience per live match by channel (over five million shown)

Individuals (000s)

Brazil-TV Globo China-CCTV-5
Nigeria-OSMI/BON Network Japan-TBS
Japan-TV-Asahi Pan Middle East-Al Jazeera Sport 1
Spain-Telecinco Germany-ARD Germany-RTL Indonesia-RCTI Italy-RAI 1 Germany-ZDF Japan-NHK USA-ABC Japan-Fuji-TV
Japan-NTV Japan France-TF1
Indonesia-GTV Japan-TV-Tokyo United Kingdom-BBC1
Russia-RTR Russia-C1R Mexico-TV Azteca 13 Vietnam-VTV2 United Kingdom-ITV1

17,280 16,999 14,957 14,587 14,178 12,221 10,762 10,318 9,289 9,023 8,662 8,153 8,030 7,983 7,887 7,843 7,011 6,351 6,344 6,306 5,396 5,232 5,202 5,131 5,081

17 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CCTV

18 Estimated audience

19 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Optima Sports Management International (OSMI) & Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON)

20 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Dentsu 21 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Al Jazeera

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
20

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 73 Page ID #:3055

A total of over 71,867 hours of dedicated 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM were aired around the world. For the purposes of this report, this has been broken down into six regions (see below).
Licensees in Europe showed the highest levels of dedicated in-home coverage, with a total of 16,578 hours being across 55 territories. The highest contribution to this total was provided by licensees in Italy, where extensive levels of coverage (2,854 hours) across ten separate channels were aired.
In South America, licensees aired a total of 15,669 hours of coverage, while in Asia; over 13,900 hours of coverage were broadcast. In particular, viewers in China had the opportunity to watch high levels of coverage, with 17 separate channels in the territory showing a total of nearly 2,970 hours.
Mainly due to the wide distribution covered by the AUB licensee across Africa, the Africa and Middle East region accounted for the highest number of territories; broadcasting a total of 13,093 hours of tournament coverage in 67 territories.
Meanwhile licensees in the North, Central America and the Caribbean region transmitted over 8,100 hours of coverage, whilst viewers across Oceania could have seen nearly 4,500 hours.

Region Europe South America Asia Africa & Middle East North, Central America and Caribbean Oceania Total

No. of territories
55 12 31 67 35 14 214

Total coverage (hh:mm) 16578:12 15668:55 13938:12 13092:54 8111:13 4478:27 71867:57

Hours of coverage Territories

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000
0

Hours of coverage and territories by region 80

Hours of coverage

70

Territories

60

50

40

30

20

10

Europe South America Asia

0
Africa & North, Central Oceania Middle East America and
Caribbean

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
21

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 73 Page ID #:3056

Live coverage of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM games accounted for half of the overall total (36,588 hours). Repeats, along with highlights and coverage within magazine programming, generated a further 42% of the coverage (15,495 hours and 14,674 hours respectively), while delayed coverage of live games produced 7% of the coverage (5,109 hours).

Total coverage of the tournament was slightly lower than the 2006 edition (-1.6%)2, however this was largely due to fewer late-night repeat programmes on smaller penetration sub-licensees, therefore not affecting the overall audience reach of the event.

In-home coverage by programme type

Highlights /
Magazine 20%

Delayed 7%

Live 51%

Repeat 22%

Hours of coverage (thousands)

In-home coverage by programme type comparison

40

35

2006 FIFA World Cup

30

Germany

25

2010 FIFA World Cup

South Africa

20

15

10

5

0

Live

Repeat Highlights Delayed

/

Magazine

Live coverage attracted by far the highest audiences of any type of coverage, therefore producing almost two-thirds of the total audience. Highlights and magazine programming generated a further 30% of the total audience, while repeats and delayed footage accounted for the lowest audiences and therefore produced just 5% of the overall audience combined.

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
22

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 73 Page ID #:3057

Overall the event proved more popular with men, with approximately 57% of the live match audience across 15 major measured markets being male.
There is a relationship between the reach of the event and the audience profile. Where the event reached a high share of the population, the audience profile was more reflective of the general population (i.e. less aligned to men). In addition, there also appears to be a relationship with time zone, as markets such as Australia and China which aired live games late at night were less likely to attract a more balanced audience.

Live game audience profile - gender

31% 32% 36% 36% 39% 40% 44% 44% 44% 46% 48% 49% 51% 53% 53%

Female

69% 68% 64% 64% 61% 60% 57% 56% 56% 54% 52% 52% 50% 47% 47%

Male

Meanwhile, several markets attracted a slightly older audience to their live games, including Italy and Germany, where more than half of the average audience was classified as “senior”. However, the live matches in markets such as South Africa, India, Mexico and USA were watched by a far younger audience.

Live game audience profile - age 2220

22% 23%

20% 25%

22% 23%

19% 31%

30%

25%

36%

31%

39%

28%

43%

44%

45%

55%

53%

24% 31% 20% 30% 24% 36%

36% 19%

42% 13%

33% 22%

36% 15%

28% 19%

36% 8%

27% 17%

30% 10%

31% 6%

26% 10%

27%
23% 8%

26%
22% 8%

28%
22% 6%

23%
17% 5%

31%
13% 3%

Senior (50+)
Mid Life (35-49)
Young Adult (16-34) Children

22 Standard age breaks alter by market; therefore age classifications above should only be used as an indicative guide.
23

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 73 Page ID #:3058

In addition to gender and age differences, the economic status of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM viewers differed by market. Several markets attracted a more affluent viewer,
particularly India, Germany, Australia, Korea Republic and the USA, where more than a third of
the live game audience were classified as high socio-economic status, class or household earnings.

Live game audience profile - socio-economic/class2/3HH earnings

22% 21%

13% 37%

17% 40%

38%

20%

17%

29%

39%

30%

43%

29%

51%

48%

59

46% 51%

26%

40% 33% 45% 34% 51% 30% 33%

57%

50%

43%

36%

34%

31%

31%

28%

26%

23%

21%

20%

19%

30 11

It is important to note that there are multiple factors that influence the live match profile of the viewers in each market, including time zone, channel platform, cost of access to channel, general interest in football as well as interest in the tournament itself (whether a team from the market is competing). In addition, the general population of a market will also have a bearing.

23 Socio-economic, class and household earning breaks and definitions alter by market; therefore the classifications above should only be used as an indicative guide. Please note, social class or earnings data is unavailable in Japan.
24

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 73 Page ID #:3059

Out-of-home analysis
This report focuses on the in-home television coverage and audiences, however in addition, FIFA commissioned SPORT+MARKT to undertake analysis into the out-of-home consumption of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM.
Nationally representative (age 16-69) interviews in 15 key markets from around the world (see below) were conducted immediately after the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM. In markets where telephone interviewing was not possible, face-to-face interviews were conducted. Respondents were asked where and how they had watched matches, with a pre-defined criteria of locations and media, including pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels and official FIFA Fan FestsTM.
The net result of this research showed that on average there was an 11.8% uplift of the in-home audiences via the various out-of-home media channels (as listed above).

Average % uplift of in-home audience

30% 25%

Average 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM in-home audience uplift through out-of-home channels
25.9%

20%

15%

14.1%

10% 7.1%

10.5%

5%

19.3%

16.3%

19.1%

16.3%

7.8%

12.6%

11.9% 9.9%

4.2%

4.3%

2.9%

11.8%

0%

Argentina Brazil China

Spain FranceGermany

India

Italy KJoarpeaanRepublic MeSxoicuoth Africa Russia

UK USA

Total

Question: I will now read out some options how people watched matches from the Football World Cup. Please tell me how many of the (Int.: Read
out number of matches given in Q18) matches you watched…. (figures in %). Base: 11,425 representative citizens who watched the 2010 FIFA World CupTM matches on TV

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
25

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 73 Page ID #:3060
Online and mobile analysis
In addition to the in-home and out-of-home television coverage considered, the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM had far greater distribution and usage of online and mobile media.
Online More online coverage than ever before was available during the 2010 edition, with close to 100 licensees using online coverage. The audiences that the online streams achieved were also far higher than in 2006. Audience highlights included;
o 1.1 million unique viewers streamed the USA v. Algeria game in the USA on the Enlgish lanuage ESPN website (14% of the USA live TV average audience).
o The stream of matchday 13 on the BBC website gained nearly two million views (11% of total live in-home BBC television audience on matchday 13).
o Over 1.7 million views of the Globoesporte.com stream of Italy v. Paraguay in Brazil (10% of the live TV average audience in Brazil).
o More than 1.5 million views of the Telecinco stream of the Spain v. Switzerland game in Spain (15% of the live TV average audience in Spain).
o The EBU online platform offered the match retransmission to 31 of their members, therefore providing viewers the channel and language of their choice. A total of nearly five million unique viewers were reached through the EBU platform.
Such online audiences are records for many of the licensees and will form a major part of the audience landscape for the tournament moving forward.
Mobile There were a total of 35 mobile licensees for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM, covering more than 80 territories. Licensees had access to the Mobile Match Feed for all 64 matches of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM, which included an extra dedicated camera and specific graphics for small-screen viewing.
In addition, more than 15,000 clips of in-match and editorial content in 11 languages were specifically produced for the mobile medium. Audience highlights included;
o ESPN Mobile TV and Univision in the USA achieved 1.5 million unique visitors during the tournament.
o Telekom Deutschland had almost 1.6 million accesses to their 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM live channels.
o Optus Australia achieved a total audience for the tournament of 400,000. o ITV had 300,000 mobile streams served during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM. o TMN Portugal had a total audience of 120,000. o KT Korea had a total audience of more than 600,000, with close to 80,000 unique viewers.
Click arrow to return to “Contents”
2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
26

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 73 Page ID #:3061

Global 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM f inal match analysis

Based on watching just one minute of coverage, the total audience reach of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match was 909.6 million. However, including the likely out-of-home audience (as shown on page 25), this would have been over one billion.
Using a higher reach condition of viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes of coverage, the global audience reach of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match was 619.7 million. Of the available audited markets, Brazil and China combined accounted for an audience reach of nearly 100 million, while the major European markets of France, Italy, Russia, Spain and the UK generated a combined reach of 103 million.
Elsewhere, in-home coverage in the USA reached6 over 37 million viewers, while a projected reach of 52.8 million6 in-home viewers was generated across the Middle East.
To establish the global reach of the final, a ratio was calculated taking into account live average and peak audiences in each market, the universe of television channels in each market and the reach in each of the measured markets shown below. This ratio was then used to extrapolate across all markets in the corresponding regions.

Territory South Africa France Italy Russia Spain
United Kingdom USA
Mexico Argentina
Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Rest of World (projected) Total

2010 FWC South AfricaTM final match in-home reach6
9,289,880 17,775,500 18,918,688 22,120,000 21,588,000 22,296,000 37,093,000 23,659,923 10,830,741 43,887,190 52,530,000 11,393,821 11,495,790 4,376,718 1,305,000 311,149,204 619,709,456

% change v. 2006 17% -27% -32% -15% 126% -1% 24% 29% -9% -12% 6% -14% 27% -9% 5% 7% 5%

Reach condition 1+ minute
3+ consecutive minutes 20+ consecutive minutes 30+ consecutive minutes

2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM final match in-home reach 871,060,228
780,821,865
592,464,845
536,949,235

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

27

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match in-home reach 909,566,803
792,668,084
619,709,456
566,998,277

% change 4% 2% 5% 6%

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 73 Page ID #:3062

The highest audience reach for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match was generated in Europe, where 208 million viewers watched at least 20 consecutive minutes of coverage in-home. The highest reach was achieved in Germany, UK, Spain and Russia all of which had in-home reach of more than 20 million individuals. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the highest increase in reach for the final was seen in Spain, with audience reach more than doubling versus 2006 to 21.6 million6; nearly half of the population.
However, globally the highest in-home reach from a single territory was produced in China, where 52.5 million viewers watched at least 20 consecutive minutes of coverage.
Despite Asia accounting for by far the highest audience reach for the tournament as a whole, the audience reach for the final alone was far smaller than in Europe. This was largely a result of the match airing late at night or early in the morning across the region as well as the competing teams being European.
A total of 113.6 million viewers across the African and Middle Eastern regions watched at least 20 consecutive minutes of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final coverage, with a projected reach of 52.8 million across the Middle East6, 31.3 million in Nigeria6 and 9.3 million in the host market of South Africa6.
Elsewhere, nearly 44 million viewers were reached6 by the in-home coverage in Brazil, while in the USA the total reach was 37 million6; up 24% versus the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM final6.

Individuals (millions)

250 208.0
200
150
100
50
0 Europe

2010 FWC final match projected in-home reach by region 6

128.2

113.6

92.3 75.5

2.1

Asia

Africa & South America North, Central Oceania

Middle East

America &

Caribbean

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
28

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 73 Page ID #:3063

While the in-home 1+ minute reach of the final match was over 900 million, the global in-home average audience during the game was over 531 million viewers.
The highest audited average audiences for the final were achieved in China and Brazil, where average audiences of more than 33 million were achieved. In addition, audited audiences in excess of 15 million were also generated in six other markets including USA, Mexico, Germany, UK, Italy and Indonesia.
Elsewhere, an estimated total audience of more than 49 million was generated by Al Jazeera and its sub-licensees across the Middle East region23, while in Nigeria an estimated average audience of over 30 million was generated.
The total in-home audience for the final in the competing nations of Netherlands and Spain totalled 22.5 million; nearly half of the combined populations.
Half of the total in-home audience for the final was delivered by the top 15 channels alone, including Al Jazeera Sport 118/21 across the Middle East (9%), CCTV-517 in China (7%), TV Globo in Brazil (6%) and the OSMI/BON Network18/19 in Nigeria (6%).

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match total average audience by territory (over 5 million shown, includes live, delayed and repeats) Individuals (000s)

Middle East China Brazil
Nigeria USA
Mexico Germany
UK Indonesia
Italy France
Spain Russia Colombia
Peru Turkey South Africa Poland Argentina Japan Netherlands Venezuela
India

24,415 20,856 18,966 17,903 17,604 15,208 14,110 13,947 13,636 11,132 10,811 9,335 8,952 8,818 8,605 8,598 8,512 6,451 5,957

37,961 33,311 30,264

49,033

17 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CCTV

18 Estimated audience

19 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Optima Sports Management International (OSMI) & Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON)

21 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Al Jazeera

23 Includes pan-regional Al Jazeera channels, plus the Al Jazeera sub-licensees in Iran,

Egypt, Algeria and Syria

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
29

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 73 Page ID #:3064

Regional 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM analysis
Africa and Middle East
A projected reach of over 245.6 million individuals6 was generated across the region by the inhome coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM.
The coverage across the Middle East region reached a projected 90.1 million individuals6, with well over a third of this reach being generated by Egypt (17.9 million6) and Iran (15.8 million6) combined.
Based on viewers watching just one minute of coverage, the in-home coverage in the Middle East generated a projected reach of more than 130 million viewers, with the 2010 FIFA World CupTM final alone reaching a projected 103 million viewers.
Coverage of the tournament in Nigeria reached a projected 57.9 million viewers6, based on the estimated methodology for unrated markets.
The coverage in the host market of South Africa reached nearly 28 million viewers in-home6; 57% of the population of the market and well over 80% of all those with access to television in the home. This audience reach of the tournament is 18% higher than the previous edition.

Audience reach (million)

100 90.1 90

Projected in-home reach6 by territory Africa and Middle East (over 3 million shown)

80

70

57.9

60

50

40

27.9

30

20 10

10.0 6.4

5.4

4.4

4.4

3.8

3.7

3.3

3.1

0 24
Middle East

NigeriaSouth Africa Ivory Coast

Kenya

Ghana

Senegal

Uganda Cameroon Congo DR

Ethiopia

Angola

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

24 Includes the reach from the pan-regional Al Jazeera channels, plus the Al Jazeera sub-licensees in Iran,

Egypt, Algeria and Syria

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
30

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 73 Page ID #:3065

The highest audiences in the region were delivered by the OSMI/BON Network18/19 in Nigeria and by Al Jazeera Sport 120/21 across the Middle East. Both of these channels achieved estimated inhome average audiences of more than 35 million during the tournament; comfortably inside the top ten audiences delivered by all 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM channels.
An estimated audience of over 36.5 million watched the Nigeria v. Argentina group-stage match on the OSMI/BON Network19 in Nigeria, while this audience was nearly matched by the estimated number of viewers achieved for the live 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final on Al Jazeera Sport 121. However, when the Al Jazeera sub-licensees in Iran, Algeria, Egypt and Syria are considered, the total average audience across the Middle East18 for the final was over 49 million.
Elsewhere, SABC125 in South Africa achieved an average audience of 4.4 million for each live game aired, peaking at over nine million for the South Africa v. Uruguay group-stage match.

Average and peak live average audience by channel Africa and Middle East (average of over 1 million shown)

Individuals(000s)

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Nigeria-OSMI/BON Network

Pan Middle East-Al Jazeera Sport 1

South Africa-SABC 1

Iran-IRIB

Ivory Coast-RTI

Algeria-ENTV Kenya-KBC
Egypt-Channel 2

Average live audience Peak average live audience

Senegal-RTS

Uganda-UBC

Syria-Syrian TV

18 Estimated audience

19 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Optima Sports Management International (OSMI) & Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON)

21 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Al Jazeera

25 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee SABC

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
31

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 73 Page ID #:3066

More than 13,000 hours of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM coverage was broadcast in the African and Middle Eastern region; the equivalent to nearly 18 months of continuous coverage.
The Pan Africa Supersport and Canal Horizons channels accounted for a combined total of over 3,000 hours of tournament coverage. Supersport also had feeds going directly to the host market of South Africa26 as well as Nigeria, therefore overall, this licensee accounted for a total of 4,619 hours of coverage.
Viewers in South Africa had access to 1,631 hours of coverage; with high levels of Supersport26 coverage supplemented by the coverage on the higher-penetration SABC channels.
Audiences across the Middle East were able to watch more than 1,000 hours of tournament coverage, in particular Egypt generated over 400 hours of coverage.
Elsewhere, largely thanks to the presence of the dedicated Supersport channels, Nigeria also saw a high level of coverage, with the Supersport programming complemented by coverage on the OSMI/BON Network19.
Audiences in Ghana, Cape Verde, Mozambique and Sierra Leone all had access to more than 290 hours of coverage.
In addition to these markets, the territories on the AUB distribution across the region aired an overall total of 6,717 hours via this Media Rights Licensee.

Coverage (hh:mm)

3200:00 3067:04

Coverage by territory - Africa and Middle East (over 200 hours shown)

2400:00

1600:00 800:00

1630:57 1018:15

621:05

418:30

291:00

291:00

291:00

00:00 Pan Africa

South Africa

Middle East

Nigeria

Ghana

Cape Verde

Mozambique

Sierra Leone

19 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Optima Sports Management International (OSMI) & Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON) 26 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee SABC
32

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 73 Page ID #:3067

Asia
The projected audience reach totalled 884 million individuals6 in Asia; the highest of any region.
China alone contributed 37% of the reach in the region7, not least due to the sheer population size, however multiple broadcasters in the territory ensured duplication across both national and regional channels when each live game was aired.
In addition, China generated the highest in-home reach of any territory around the globe (328.7 million6).
Elsewhere, audience reach topped 100 million in Indonesia and Japan6; inside the top five highest reach of all territories which had access to tournament coverage around the world.
The in-home coverage in Vietnam, Thailand, India and Korea Republic reached in excess of 39 million individuals in each market6.

Audience reach (million)

350 328.7 300

Projected in-home reach6 by territory - Asia (over 5 million shown)

250

200 148.9

150

108.7

100

58.7 52.7 44.9 39.4

50

15.0 11.5 10.5 10.2 9.2 7.8 6.8

0

China Indonesia

Japan Vietnam Thailand

India Korea

Republic

MalaysiaCambodia

TaiwanUzbekistan

Nepal PakistaAnfghanistan

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
33

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 73 Page ID #:3068

CCTV-517 in China achieved the highest audiences in the region, with an average of 17 million individuals tuning in to each live game. The highest audience of any 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM channel in the region as well as around the world was also produced by CCTV-517, when more than 54.5 million viewers watched the CCTV-517 coverage of the Argentina v. Germany quarter-final.
However, TBS20 and TV-Asahi20 in Japan achieved average live audiences close to the level of CCTV-517. On average, these channels had more than 14 million viewers watch each of their live games, while TBS20 achieved a peak average audience of 45 million for the Japan v. Paraguay round-of-16 match.
In addition, TV-Asahi20 and NHK20 in Japan also achieved peak average audiences of more than 30 million for the live coverage of games featuring Japan.
Elsewhere, RCTI27 in Indonesia produced average live audiences of over nine million, while Fuji TV20, NTV20 and TV-Tokyo20 in Japan, GTV27 in Indonesia, and VTV228 in Vietnam all achieved average live audiences of more than five million.
As well as the channels in China and Japan, channels in Indonesia, Philippines and the Korea Republic attracted peak average audiences of over ten million.

Average and peak live average audience by channel Asia (average of over 2 million shown)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Individuals (000s)

50,000

60,000

China-CCTV-5 Japan-TBS
Japan-TV-Asahi Indonesia-RCTI
Japan-NHK Japan-Fuji-TV Japan-NTV Japan Indonesia-GTV Japan-TV-Tokyo Vietnam-VTV2 Japan-NHK BS China-CCTV-7 Thailand-Channel 7 Thailand-Channel 3 Thailand-Channel 11 Korea Republic-SBS

Average live audience Peak average live audience

17 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CCTV 20 Sub-licensee of the Media Rights Licensee Dentsu 27 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensees PT EC Entertainment and M-League (ISM) 28 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee Dentsu Alpha Ltd’s sub-licensee VTV
34

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 73 Page ID #:3069

Over 13,937 hours of tournament coverage were aired throughout Asia.
China accounted for over one-fifth of the regional total alone (2,968 hours; 21%), with 17 channels showing the event. Three of these channels were produced by the high penetration Media Rights Licensee CCTV, which showed 512 hours of coverage alone. Four other channels in China produced over 300 hours of coverage, including Shenzhen Sport29 which aired nearly 400 hours.
Outside of China, more than 1,000 hours were shown in Singapore. The majority of this coverage came from the dedicated 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM Starhub channels30 which aired nearly 650 hours of coverage.
Elsewhere, viewers in Japan, Macau and Korea Republic had access to over 800 hours of tournament coverage, in particular Sky PerfectTV31 in Japan (449 hours) and SBS Sports32 in the Korea Republic (552 hours) aired high levels of coverage.
Licensees in Thailand, Indonesia, India, and Vietnam all feature strongly among the Asian territories where coverage was relatively high as well as the pan-regional ESPN and Star Sports channels33 offering further levels of coverage in the region.

2968:09

1051:14 933:46 879:38 819:12 729:14 608:58 574:47 572:31 560:49 555:00 395:56 377:30 250:03 249:00 241:30

Coverage (hh:mm)

3200:00

Coverage by territory - Asia (over 200 hours shown)

2400:00

1600:00

800:00

00:00

ChinaSingapore

Japan

Macau Korea

Republic

ThailandIndonesia

Pan

Asia

India Vietnam Brunei MalaysHiaong KongCambodPiahilippines Pakistan

29 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee CCTV 30 Channels of the Media Rights Licensee Starhub Cable Vision Ltd. 31 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Dentsu Inc. 32 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee SBS International, Inc. 33 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ESS (ESPN STAR SPORTS)
35

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 73 Page ID #:3070

Europe
Over 557 million individuals were reached6 across the region by the in-home coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM.
Audience reach was highest in Russia, with the television coverage reaching nearly 70 million viewers6. In addition, the projected audience reach in Germany was 65 million6, while the in-home television coverage reached more than 40 million individuals in Turkey6, UK6, Italy6 and France6.
In Spain, almost 40 million viewers were reached during the tournament6; 86% of the population; the highest penetration of population of any measured market analysed.

Audience reach (million)

80

68.5 70

65.0

Projected in-home reach6 by territory - Europe (over 10 million shown)

60

51.0

50

46.8

46.6

44.9

39.4

40

30

26.1 20.9

20

14.7 13.5

10

0 Russia

Germany

Turkey

UK

Italy

France

Spain

Poland

Ukraine

Romania Netherlands

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
36

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 38 of 73 Page ID #:3071

The highest audience in Europe was generated by ARD in Germany, when an average audience of over 31 million individuals watched the Germany v. Spain semi-final. On average, over ten million viewers watched each of the live games on ARD.
Average audiences of over ten million were also achieved by Telecinco12 in Spain, peaking at an average audience of over 13.4 million for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final.
Elsewhere, average audiences of more than 15 million were produced in Italy, France and the UK during the tournament, the highest of which was an average audience of nearly 19 million on RAI 134 in Italy for the Italy v. Paraguay group match.

Average and peak live average audience by channel Europe (average of over 2.5 million shown)

0

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Individuals (000s) 30,000 35,000

Spain-Telecinco Germany-ARD Germany-RTL Italy-RAI 1 Germany-ZDF France-TF1
United Kingdom-BBC1 Russia-RTR Russia-C1R
United Kingdom-ITV1 Turkey-TRT 1 Spain-Cuatro Poland-TVP 1 Poland-TVP 2 France-FR 2
Netherlands-Nederland1 Spain-C+ LIGA2 (D+)

Average live audience Peak average live audience

12 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Sogecable S.A. 34 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee RAI
37

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 39 of 73 Page ID #:3072

Licensees across Europe showed 16,578 hours of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM coverage.
Italy generated by far the highest level of coverage in the region, with 11 separate channels airing the event. The majority of the Italian coverage was derived from four dedicated 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM Sky Italia35 channels, which aired nearly 2,500 hours of coverage.
Over 850 hours of output were shown in Portugal, thanks largely to nearly 700 hours being broadcast by Sport TV36.
Elsewhere, Media Rights Licensees in Germany, Switzerland and Spain showed over 740 hours of tournament coverage. Of the licensees in those territories, Sky37 in Germany (558 hours) and Canal+12 in Spain (645 hours) aired the highest levels.
A further 14 territories showed more than 300 hours of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM coverage, including Russia (438 hours) and the UK (341 hours), while there were nearly 200 hours aired in France.

4000:00 3000:00

2854:11

Coverage by territory - Europe (over 300 hours shown)

Coverage (hh:mm)

858:52 781:27 753:35 745:57 592:36 538:16 469:08 438:29 412:54 400:21 382:14 361:30 360:00 347:57 341:07 330:36 311:41 305:34

2000:00

1000:00

00:00 ItalPyortugGalermSawnityzerland SpainSlovenia PolanRdomania RussiaSlovaMkaiacedoniHaungary MaltaIcelandBelgium

UKUkraine GreeceBulgaria

12 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Sogecable S.A. 35 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee RAI 36 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensees EBU/RTP 37 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Sky Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
38

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 40 of 73 Page ID #:3073

North, Central America & Caribbean
The in-home television coverage across the region reached 215 million individuals6.
In the USA, the tournament coverage reached 94.5 million viewers6; well over 40% of the reach for the region. Audience reach in the USA saw a 19% rise versus the 2006 edition6, the highest rise of any measured market.
Elsewhere, audience reach in Mexico totalled 71.7 million6, therefore USA and Mexico accounted for over three-quarters of the regional total.
In addition to USA and Mexico, a projected ten million viewers were reached in Canada6, while in Cuba, Honduras and El Salvador a projected reach of more than five million was achieved6.

Audience reach (million)

100 94.5 80

Projected in-home reach6 by territory
North, Central America & Caribbean (over 2 million shown) 71.7

60

40

20 0 USA

Mexico

10.1

5.8

5.6

5.5

4.8

4.7

3.5

2.8

2.1

Canada

Cuba

Honduras El Salvador GuaDteommailnaican Republic

Costa Rica Nicaragua

Panama

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
39

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 41 of 73 Page ID #:3074

ABC9 in the USA attracted the highest audiences throughout the region, achieving an average audience of nearly eight million for each live game shown. However, an average audience of more than 15.5 million watched the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final on ABC9.
Three channels in Mexico (TV Azteca 1338, Televisa 239 and TV Azteca 738) as well as Univision in the USA achieved peak average audiences of over 8.7 million, the highest of which was nearly 9.7 million for the Argentina v. Mexico round-of-16 match on TV Azteca 1338 in Mexico.
The average audience for each live games on TV Azteca 1338 was 5.2 million, while Televisa 239 in Mexico attracted an average of over four million to each live game. In addition, TV Azteca 738 in Mexico, Univision and ESPN in the USA all achieved average audiences of over two million individuals for each live game aired.
In Mexico, each game achieved a combined average audience of 3.9 million, while in the USA each game gained an average of 5.1 million viewers.

Average and peak live average audience by channel North, Central America & Caribbean (average of over 250,000 shown)
Individuals (000s)
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

USA-ABC Mexico-TV Azteca 13
Mexico-Televisa 2 Mexico-TV Azteca 7
USA-Univision USA-ESPN
Canada-CBC El Salvador-Canal 4
USA-ESPN2 Cuba-RTVC Dominican Rep.-Pio Dep. Radio TV USA-Telefutura Honduras-VICA TV Costa Rica-Channel 7

Average live audience Peak average live audience

9 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ESPN & ABC Inc. 38 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI’s sub-licensee TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V. 39 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI’s sub-licensee Televisa, S.A. de C.V.
40

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 42 of 73 Page ID #:3075

Over 8,100 hours of tournament coverage were aired in the North, Central America and Caribbean region.
Almost 20% of the coverage in the region came from Canada, where licensees showed 1,471 hours. Of these, Bold HD40 (287 hours), Telelatino40 (230 hours) and CBC (204 hours) aired the highest level of coverage.
In Mexico, licensees showed over 850 hours, with TDN39 showing the most coverage (331 hours).
In the USA, television viewers could have seen in excess of 600 hours of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM coverage. The main contributors to this total were the Hispanic channels Univision, Galavision41 and Telefutura41 which aired a combined 405 hours. In addition, ESPN9 and ABC9 aired a combined 202 hours.

Coverage (hh:mm)

1680:00 1471:27 1440:00

Coverage by territory - North, Central America & Caribbean (over 200 hours shown)

1200:00 960:00 720:00 480:00 240:00

852:37

607:24

438:00

434:00

283:10

277:04

239:52

234:05

00:00

Canada

Mexico

USA

Barbuda

Antigua &

St. Lucia

Honduras

Nicaragua

Guatemala

Costa Rica

9 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ESPN & ABC Inc. 39 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI’s sub-licensee Televisa, S.A. de C.V. 40 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CBC 41 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Univision Communications Inc.
41

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 43 of 73 Page ID #:3076

Oceania
A total of 9.2 million individuals were reached6 across the region by the in-home coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM. Australia accounted for more than 60% of the reach in the region (5.6 million6), while the projected reach in New Zealand totalled more than 1.5 million6.
By far the highest audiences in the region were delivered by SBS 142 in Australia, which gained an average of 350,000 viewers for each live game. However, SBS 142 attracted an average audience of 1.4 million to the coverage of Ghana v. Australia.
TVOne43 in New Zealand achieved an average audience of 175,000 individuals for each live game, while their peak average audience was 376,000 for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final.
Mai TV44 reached a projected 1.9 million viewers across the Pacific Islands through their sublicensees on each island.

Average and peak live average audience by channel Oceania (top 10 shown)

0

200 400 600 800

Individuals (000s) 1,000 1,200 1,400

Australia-SBS 1 New Zealand-TVOne Papua New Guinea-Media Niugini Limited
Australia-SBS 2 New Zealand-Sky Sports 2 New Zealand-Sky Sports 1 Fiji-Fiji Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. Solomon Islands-Telekom Television Limited Vanuatu-Vanuatu Broadcasting and TV Corp. Samoa-Samoa Quality Broadcasting Ltd.

Average live audience Peak average live audience

7 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes 42 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee SBS Australia 43 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee SBS Australia’s sub-licensee TVNZ 44 Sub-licensee of the main Media Right Licensee SBS Australia
42

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 44 of 73 Page ID #:3077

A total of 4,478 hours of 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM coverage was shown across the Oceania region.
The licensees in New Zealand and Australia both generated over 570 hours of coverage, while the 11 territories covered by the Mai TV44 distribution each aired at least 237 hours.
SBS in Australia produced the highest levels of coverage of any licensee in Oceania (578 hours), while Sky Sports44 in New Zealand also showed significant amounts (530 hours).

Coverage (hh:mm)

720:00 600:00 480:00 360:00 240:00 120:00
00:00

619:38 New Zealand

Coverage by territory - Oceania

578:15

474:00

474:00

237:00

Australia

Tonga

American Samoa All Other Mai TV Territories

43 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee SBS Australia’s sub-licensee Sky NZ 44 Sub-licensee of the main Media Right Licensee SBS Australia
43

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 45 of 73 Page ID #:3078

South America
Nearly 300 million individuals were reached6 across the region by the in-home coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM.
In Brazil, audience reach totalled over 157 million individuals6; the second-highest audience reach of any territory around the world, behind China. However, while the Chinese reach was equivalent to 25% of the population, the audience reach in Brazil accounted for 81% of the total population, behind only Spain and Argentina.
Colombia and Argentina both accounted for audience reach of more than 33 million6, while more than 21 million individuals were reached in Venezuela6.

Audience reach (million)

180 157.5
160

Projected in-home reach6 by territory South America (over 2 million shown)

140

120

100

80

60

40 20

34.7

33.6

21.3

16.7

13.4

11.4

4.5

0

Brazil

Colombia

Argentina

Venezuela

Peru

Chile

Ecuador

Paraguay

2.9

2.7

Bolivia

Uruguay

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
44

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 46 of 73 Page ID #:3079

By far the highest audiences in the region were generated by TV Globo in Brazil. On average, over 17 million individuals watched each live game aired on the channel, including an average audience of 46.6 million for the Brazil v. Korea DPR group match. This average is the highest of all channels which aired coverage around the world, while this peak average audience is second only to CCTV517 in China.
Outside of Brazil, Telefe45 in Argentina attracted an average of 4.5 million viewers to each of their live games, while their coverage of the Argentina v Germany quarter-final achieved an average audience of 9.4 million.
In addition, Caracol8 in Colombia and Canal 745 in Argentina recorded average audiences in excess of five million, with Caracol achieving an average audience of over 7.2 million for their coverage of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final.

Average and peak live average audience by channel South America (average of over 200,000 shown)

Individuals (000s)

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

Brazil-TV Globo Argentina-Telefe Colombia-Caracol Argentina-Canal 7 Colombia-RCN TV
Peru-ATV Ecuador-TC Television Venezuela-Venevision
Chile-TVN Brazil-Bandeirantes Argentina-TyC Sports Venezuela-Meridiano TV Bolivia-Canal 2 (Unitel)
Ecuador-GamaTV Paraguay-SNT CANAL 9 Argentina-DirecTV - 610

Average live audience Peak average live audience

8 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI 17 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CCTV 45 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Torneos y Competencias S.A.
45

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 47 of 73 Page ID #:3080

A total of 15,668 hours of tournament coverage was broadcast across the South America region; the equivalent to over 650 days of continuous coverage.
Argentina generated the highest amount of coverage with licensees airing more than 2,500 hours during the event. DirecTV8 accounted for the majority of this coverage (1,560 hours), however TyC Sports46 also contributed comparatively high levels (683 hours). In addition, these were supplemented by coverage on Canal 746, Telefe46 and Fox Sports46.
Licensees in Brazil showed more than 1,900 hours of tournament coverage, with the ESPN47 channels in Brazil airing over 800 hours, nearly 700 hours shown on the BandSports47 channel, 263 hours of Bandeirantes47 and 146 hours on TV Globo.

Coverage (hh:mm) 2513:54
1976:12 1912:45 1905:55 1894:22 1793:44 1715:19 918:13 303:27 211:30 162:00 162:00

3000:00 2500:00 2000:00 1500:00 1000:00
500:00 00:00 Argentina Venezuela

Coverage by territory - South America

Peru

Brazil Ecuador Colombia

Chile Uruguay Paraguay

Bolivia Suriname

Guyana

8 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI 46 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Torneos y Competencias S.A. 47 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A
46

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 48 of 73 Page ID #:3081
Appendix
Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
47

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 49 of 73 Page ID #:3082

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM broadcast summary by territory

Africa and Middle East
Territory
Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Chad Congo DR Egypt Eritrea Ethiopia Equatorial Guinea French Overseas Territories Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea-Bissau Guinea-Conakry Iran Ivory Coast Kenya Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Pan Africa Pan Middle East Rwanda Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa Swaziland Syria Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Africa & Middle East total

Total coverage (hh:mm)
59:30 139:00 161:30 161:30 161:30 161:30 161:30 291:00 156:30 146:30 409:15 161:30 161:30 161:30 199:32 161:30 161:30 418:30 161:30 151:30 161:30 161:30 161:30 161:30 159:00 161:30 161:30 161:30 291:00 161:30 161:30 621:05 3067:04 226:30 161:30 161:30 161:30 291:00 1630:57 161:30 161:30 156:30 161:30 161:30 161:30 156:30 13092:54

Total

Average

programmes TVR%

24

12.8

57

19.1

66

18.3

66

18.8

66

18.5

66

18.8

66

19.8

116

10.4

64

18.5

60

18.5

234

0.5

66

18.8

66

18.8

66

18.8

130

12.7

66

18.8

66

18.8

167

7.5

66

18.8

62

18.9

66

8.1

66

19.9

66

18.8

66

18.8

65

18.5

66

18.8

66

18.8

66

18.8

116

10.4

66

18.8

66

18.8

429

5.0

2,359

1.3

89

5.6

66

18.8

66

18.8

66

18.8

116

11.2

1,264

1.6

66

18.8

66

8.1

64

18.6

66

18.8

66

18.8

66

18.8

64

18.6

7,328

7.5

Live coverage (hh:mm)
59:30 123:00 140:30 145:30 140:00 145:30 145:30 291:00 140:30 130:30 44:31 145:30 145:30 145:30 164:54 145:30 145:30 418:30 145:30 135:30 145:30 145:30 145:30 145:30 140:30 145:30 145:30 145:30 291:00 145:30 145:30 272:00 712:05 226:30 145:30 145:30 145:30 291:00 314:45 145:30 145:30 138:00 145:30 145:30 145:30 140:30 8097:45

Live programmes
24 49 56 58 56 58 58 116 56 52 22 58 58 58 83 58 58 167 58 54 58 58 58 58 56 58 58 58 116 58 58 96 237 89 58 58 58 116 120 58 58 55 58 58 58 56 3,184

Average live
TVR%
12.8 21.4 20.8 20.7 21.0 20.7 21.9 10.4 20.5 20.7 1.9 20.7 20.7 20.7 19.0 20.7 20.7 7.5 20.7 21.0 9.0 22.0 20.7 20.7 20.8 20.7 20.7 20.7 10.4 20.7 20.7 17.3 5.0 5.6 20.7 20.7 20.7 11.2 10.0 20.7 9.0 20.9 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.6 16.1

Total audience reach (20+
consec. mins)
9,779,129 3,124,414 679,127 510,517 1,596,867 1,121,938 3,791,980 209,392 285,639 3,743,181 17,905,350 514,115 3,345,216
45,671 422,264 249,136 115,194 5,435,371 108,843 1,783,220 15,808,756 9,967,115 6,386,639 244,389 2,983,294 644,501 1,103,414 1,044,242 1,537,350 348,359 1,162,154 57,897,761 3,907,967 40,906,456 168,872 4,445,830 66,684 288,626 27,949,380 160,122 5,744,823 2,326,674 670,791 4,419,920 2,184,793 2,326,724 245,554,230

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
48

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 50 of 73 Page ID #:3083

Asia
Territory
Afghanistan Bangladesh Brunei Cambodia China Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan Korea Republic Kyrgyzstan Laos Macau Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal North Korea Pakistan Pan Asia Philippines Singapore Sri Lanka Taiwan Tajikistan Thailand Timor Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Vietnam Asia total

Total coverage (hh:mm)
161:30 78:00 555:00 250:03 2968:09 377:30 572:31 608:58 933:46 819:12 161:30 161:30 879:38 395:56 161:30 131:00 134:21 161:30 155:30 241:30 574:47 249:00 1051:14 57:00 161:30 161:30 729:14 161:30 161:30 161:30 560:49 13938:12

Total

Average

programmes TVR%

66

2.3

30

1.7

184

1.5

122

3.1

1,720

0.5

147

1.3

467

0.2

272

2.6

401

1.8

529

0.8

66

2.4

66

2.4

429

0.5

272

1.8

66

2.4

64

2.0

61

2.0

66

2.3

63

3.3

97

1.3

480

1.1

105

1.1

491

0.9

22

3.0

66

1.2

66

2.4

466

0.8

66

2.4

66

2.4

66

2.4

302

1.3

7,384

1.1

Live coverage (hh:mm)
145:30 76:00 545:00 125:03 1308:50 352:30 141:59 381:05 400:44 165:55 145:30 145:30 508:27 243:20 145:30 123:00 134:21 145:30 139:30 225:30 145:31 161:30 318:27 57:00 145:30 145:30 165:05 145:30 145:30 145:30 250:43 7424:32

Live programmes
58 29 179 60 602 122 69 114 134 64 58 58 211 89 58 60 61 58 55 89 71 64 138 22 58 58 64 58 58 58 121 2,998

Average live
TVR%
2.5 1.8 1.5 4.5 1.0 1.5 0.7 4.4 2.7 5.0 2.7 2.7 0.7 3.5 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.5 3.7 1.3 2.3 1.7 2.2 3.0 1.4 2.7 4.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.1

Total audience reach (20+
consec. mins)
6,806,880 3,134,067 336,076 11,527,408 328,718,000 1,293,894 44,894,503 148,860,000 108,699,081 39,416,956 2,176,050 3,468,305 355,400 15,039,403
92,421 936,826 2,520,570 9,202,344 3,885,879 7,825,657 3,930,041 2,798,227 3,352,359 1,214,462 10,513,500 3,212,730 52,710,167 134,430 2,288,520 10,171,200 58,668,795 884,387,221

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
49

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 51 of 73 Page ID #:3084

Europe
Territory Albania Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia-Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Kazakhstan Kosovo Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Malta Moldova Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Europe total

Total coverage (hh:mm)
294:25 160:30 147:16 146:20 155:45 347:57 137:50 305:34 280:53 272:41 171:31 269:33 149:50 220:23 199:32 198:31 781:27 311:41 382:14 360:00 179:23 130:18 2854:11 147:26 160:30 137:50 143:39 400:21 361:30 147:57 161:20 187:25 183:18 538:16 858:52 469:08 438:29 260:58 412:54 592:36 745:57 215:34 753:35 131:00 330:36 341:07 16578:12

Total programmes
140 66 216 64 89 350 71 259 214 223 89 241 79 164 130 156 901 214 171 225 80 74 2,410 64 66 64 68 208 178 66 66 94 132 306 563 270 229 199 350 348 777 226 1,107 64 185 251 12,507

Average TVR% 5.2 5.5 4.9 5.4 3.3 4.7 4.1 3.8 5.7 3.4 2.4 4.4 4.9 4.9 6.8 4.3 8.4 3.5 4.2 14.1 4.8 7.0 0.3 4.9 5.5 3.7 4.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 8.6 13.8 6.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.0 6.8 1.7 2.7 0.9 5.1 5.6 5.7 1.2 4.1 3.4

Live coverage (hh:mm)
267:45 144:30 104:49 130:20 134:35 262:22 72:00 116:10 118:03 129:26 154:30 122:02 127:25 141:46 164:54 133:09 257:44 145:55 293:13 250:20 160:15 121:59 174:07 136:46 144:30 122:36 135:48 236:32 234:30 133:38 145:20 160:41 123:41 352:14 362:59 266:27 140:41 135:47 187:17 408:11 187:30 129:36 315:56 131:00 203:00 152:58 8275:10

Live programmes
124 58 56 56 64 141 36 59 58 64 64 60 56 60 83 64 132 64 122 104 56 64 94 59 58 56 64 116 115 58 58 65 60 168 165 123 61 66 89 173 100 64 167 64 100 63 3,851

Average live
TVR% 5.8 6.0 7.6 5.8 4.0 6.2 7.5 7.9 10.8 7.0 3.2 8.2 6.5 7.9 7.1 7.1 12.4 7.7 5.4 18.8 6.2 7.8 5.0 4.9 6.0 4.0 5.1 4.1 3.6 3.0 9.7 16.1 9.7 3.0 4.2 3.7 3.0 11.1 3.6 4.0 4.2 7.6 9.6 5.7 1.9 9.0 6.4

Total audience reach (20+
consec. mins) 2,468,837 1,815,322 5,682,683 3,017,244 4,254,300 7,266,841 3,255,199 5,304,336 3,021,808 542,836 7,188,674 4,402,545 930,965 3,395,378 44,891,913 791,202 64,992,868 7,346,549 6,662,957 169,914 3,008,351 1,344,024 46,614,585 7,335,000 1,264,916 1,564,081 2,323,612 1,383,853 299,891 2,224,838 438,582 13,522,053 2,874,743 26,057,854 7,835,122 14,683,297 68,460,000 5,867,851 4,168,129 1,602,228 39,384,000 6,484,329 5,777,481 50,950,271 20,929,200 46,817,000
557,572,278

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
50

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 52 of 73 Page ID #:3085

North, Central America & Caribbean

Territory

Total coverage (hh:mm)

Total programmes

Antigua & Barbuda

438:00

174

Aruba

162:00

66

Bahamas

162:00

66

Barbados

162:00

66

Bermuda

162:00

66

Canada

1471:27

712

Cayman Islands

162:00

66

Costa Rica

234:05

119

Cuba

162:00

66

Curacao

162:00

66

Dominica

162:00

66

Dominica Republic

162:00

66

El Salvador

160:00

64

French Overseas Territories 199:32

130

Grenada

162:00

66

Guatemala

239:52

129

Haiti

162:00

66

Honduras

283:10

103

Jamaica

162:00

66

Mexico

852:37

556

Nicaragua

277:04

143

Panama

160:00

64

St. Kitts

162:00

66

St. Lucia

434:00

174

St. Maarten

162:00

66

St. Vincent

162:00

66

Trinidad &Tobago

162:00

66

Turks & Caicos

162:00

66

USA

607:24

308

North, Central America & Caribbean total

8111:13

3,798

Average TVR%
1.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.6 4.8 4.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 16.2 2.4 4.8 3.2 4.8 3.2 4.8 2.6 2.4 5.0 4.8 1.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.5
3.0

Live coverage (hh:mm)
438:00 146:00 146:00 146:00 146:00 700:08 146:00 209:03 146:00 146:00 146:00 146:00 160:00 164:54 146:00 211:10 146:00 283:10 146:00 261:28 220:55 160:00 146:00 434:00 146:00 146:00 146:00 146:00 318:45
6043:33

Live programmes
174 58 58 58 58 300 58 106 58 58 58 58 64 83 58 113 58 103 58 117 113 64 58 174 58 58 58 58 126
2,523

Average live
TVR%
1.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 1.0 5.4 4.6 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 16.2 3.0 5.4 3.6 5.4 3.2 5.4 3.4 2.7 5.0 5.4 1.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 0.9
3.9

Total audience reach (20+
consec. mins)
38,023 38,599 126,742 120,981 32,262 10,065,838 23,044 3,467,225 5,835,916 61,067 29,957 4,657,787 5,450,246 493,432 48,969 4,792,053 1,244,381 5,585,625 1,111,877 71,723,645 2,813,500 2,092,483 11,522 81,230 23,620 51,849 541,536 86,415 94,489,000
215,138,824

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
51

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 53 of 73 Page ID #:3086

Oceania
Territory American Samoa Australia Cook Islands Fiji French Overseas Territories Nauru New Zealand Niue Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Vanuatu Oceania total

Total coverage (hh:mm)
474:00 578:15 237:00 237:00 199:32 237:00 619:38 237:00 237:00 237:00 237:00 237:00 474:00 237:00 4478:27

Total programmes
232 419 116 116 130 116 350 116 116 116 116 116 232 116 2,407

Average TVR% 1.1 0.7 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.3 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.7

Live coverage (hh:mm)
289:00 129:33 144:30 144:30 164:54 144:30 188:11 144:30 144:30 144:30 144:30 144:30 289:00 144:30 2361:08

Live programmes
114 63 57 57 83 57 77 57 57 57 57 57 114 57 964

Average live
TVR% 2.1 2.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.1 1.7 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 2.1 4.1 3.3

Total audience reach (20+
consec. mins) 13,211
5,574,000 11,411 262,310 177,682 2,757
1,519,805 268 4,021
1,322,466 35,230 179,979 20,410 47,101
9,170,652

South America
Territory
Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador French Overseas Territories Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela South America total

Total coverage (hh:mm)
2513:54 211:30 1905:55 1715:19 1793:44 1894:22 199:32 162:00 303:27 1912:45 162:00 918:13 1976:12 15668:55

Total

Average

programmes TVR%

1,676

1.3

104

9.3

1,329

1.9

1,192

1.5

1,230

1.4

1,398

2.6

130

4.1

66

4.8

120

4.9

1,419

1.2

66

4.8

409

1.9

1,328

1.2

10,467

1.8

Live coverage (hh:mm)
777:43 133:30 568:37 241:27 360:50 392:51 164:54 146:00 303:27 263:44 146:00 403:22 483:59 4386:26

Live programmes
366 66 285 100 148 188 83 58 120 122 58 116 235 1,945

Average live
TVR%
2.7 12.4 2.5 8.0 6.2 6.7 5.8 5.4 4.9 6.0 5.4 3.7 3.9 4.7

Total audience reach (20+
consec. mins)
33,633,135 2,942,489 157,512,436 13,360,799 34,725,167 11,416,167 187,249 496,168 4,472,480 16,684,172 302,015 2,675,567 21,346,420 299,754,263

Global total

71867:57

43,891

3.2

36588:36

15,465

6.7

2,211,577,468

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
52

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 54 of 73 Page ID #:3087

FIFA World CupTM audience reach comparison by reach condition

Territory South Africa France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Argentina Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Rest of World (Projected) Global total

1+ minute reach

2006 FIFA World Cup

2010 FIFA World Cup

GermanyTM

South AfricaTM

24,596,341

29,070,430

53,560,000

53,060,700

51,992,106

53,244,952

121,100,000

110,460,000

38,845,000

42,574,000

51,984,000

53,381,000

128,706,000

161,544,000

71,975,003

76,118,073

35,261,312

36,053,612

171,255,252

167,392,892

489,438,792

609,396,000

184,308,000

106,474,176

119,761,000

121,983,105

43,861,342

42,661,324

10,204,000

8,852,000

1,381,512,346

1,531,176,255

2,978,360,493

3,203,442,519

% change 18% -1% 2% -9% 10% 3% 26% 6% 2% -2% 25% -42% 2% -3% -13% 11% 8%

Territory South Africa France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Argentina Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Rest of World (Projected) Global total

3+ consecutive minutes reach

2006 FIFA World Cup

2010 FIFA World Cup

GermanyTM

South AfricaTM

23,734,604

28,983,505

52,780,000

51,663,645

51,129,137

51,674,896

112,000,000

97,020,000

37,547,000

41,542,000

50,938,000

51,819,000

108,107,000

129,660,000

71,506,958

75,693,365

34,778,009

35,423,733

170,051,633

164,877,867

407,551,185

498,280,000

156,450,000

84,903,670

115,570,000

118,278,906

43,182,404

41,715,490

8,827,000

7,479,000

1,249,408,156

1,354,233,299

2,693,561,085

2,833,248,376

% change 22% -2% 1% -13% 11% 2% 20% 6% 2% -3% 22% -46% 2% -3% -15% 8% 5%

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
53

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 55 of 73 Page ID #:3088

Territory South Africa France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Argentina Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Rest of World (Projected) Global total
Territory South Africa France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Argentina Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Rest of World (Projected) Global total

20+ consecutive minutes reach

2006 FIFA World Cup

2010 FIFA World Cup

GermanyTM

South AfricaTM

23,607,044

27,949,380

49,655,400

44,891,913

47,997,680

46,614,585

85,400,000

68,460,000

32,975,000

39,384,000

46,404,000

46,817,000

79,312,000

94,489,000

67,840,601

71,723,645

33,585,597

33,633,135

164,482,649

157,512,436

280,192,539

328,718,000

94,728,000

44,894,503

101,981,000

108,699,081

41,185,656

39,416,956

6,920,000

5,574,000

1,000,343,938

1,052,799,834

2,156,611,104

2,211,577,468

30+ consecutive minutes reach

2006 FIFA World Cup

2010 FIFA World Cup

GermanyTM

South AfricaTM

23,428,461

27,275,580

47,933,300

42,206,571

45,824,885

44,300,360

76,580,000

60,480,000

30,452,000

37,845,000

44,071,000

44,435,000

69,708,000

86,149,000

65,162,340

68,690,017

32,809,143

32,607,107

161,177,187

154,278,832

232,512,898

275,621,000

78,654,000

35,242,482

96,774,000

103,717,572

39,476,876

38,233,263

6,314,000

5,047,000

909,166,634

967,034,286

1,960,044,724

2,023,163,070

% change 18% -10% -3% -20% 19% 1% 19% 6% 0% -4% 17% -53% 7% -4% -19% 6% 3%
% change 16% -12% -3% -21% 24% 1% 24% 5% -1% -4% 19% -55% 7% -3% -20% 6% 3%

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
54

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 56 of 73 Page ID #:3089

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM final match audience summary

Territory South Africa France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Argentina Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Rest of World Total

2010 FWC South AfricaTM final match in-home total average audience 8,951,803 14,110,000 15,208,078 13,636,000 13,947,444 17,903,000 24,414,763 20,855,656 8,604,583 33,310,974 37,961,000 5,956,712 8,597,904 2,208,122 900,000 304,305,248 530,871,287

% change v. 20062 135% -53% -41% -27% 84% 24% 49% 93% -25% 1% 10% -28% 44% 18% 19% 17% 5%

Territory South Africa France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Argentina Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Rest of World (Projected) Total

2010 FWC South AfricaTM final match in-home reach6 9,289,880 17,775,500 18,918,688 22,120,000 21,588,000 22,296,000 37,093,000 23,659,923 10,830,741 43,887,190 52,530,000 11,393,821 11,495,790 4,376,718 1,305,000 311,149,204 619,709,456

% change v. 2006 17% -27% -32% -15% 126% -1% 24% 29% -9% -12% 6% -14% 27% -9% 5% 7% 5%

6 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
55

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 57 of 73 Page ID #:3090
Media Rights Licensees
In addition to the television, broadband and mobile distribution reported within this analysis, the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM coverage included radio transmission, news access, 3D, inflight/in-ship as well as fixed media rights distribution. Radio 469 Media Rights Licensees had media rights for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM. FIFA had a specific cooperation with AUB and BBC World Service in Africa. News access Broadcasters have been appointed by FIFA to license bona-fide television access footage to domestic television channels for the respective territories reported in the Media Rights Licensees list. Stand-alone news access agreements were also made with several entities including BBC World Service (global), CNN (global) and Deutsche Welle for global coverage and Eurosport on a pan-European level. 3D A total of eight Licensees took the 3D feed for in-home distribution purposes, covering 28 territories. 3D public viewing events were held in 647 cinemas and nine large venues across 39 territories. The largest single territory for 3D public viewing in terms of cinemas was Mexico, with 114 cinemas showing matches. The strongest markets were to be found in Europe, the Americas and East Asia, although distribution covered all continents with Australia and New Zealand taking matches in Oceania and the host country South Africa showing a large number of matches in the two biggest cinema chains in the country.
Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
56

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 58 of 73 Page ID #:3091

Media Rights Licensee Al Jazeera ENTV - Algerian TV ENTV Radio Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Supersport International (PTY) Limited TPA - Televisao Publica de Angola African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN ORTB - Office de Radiodifussion Télévision du Bénin Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Botsw ana Radio and Television Services Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited TNB - Radiodiffusion Télévision du Burkina Faso African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTNB - Radiodiffusion Télévision Nationale du Burundi Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International CRTV - Cameroon Radio & Television Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTVCV - Radio TV du Cap Vert Supersport International (PTY) Limited TV Record African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTNT - Radiodiffusion Télévision Nationale Tchad Supersport International (PTY) Limited Al Jazeera Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Licensor FIFA
Al Jazeera Al Jazeera
FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA AUB
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
57

Continent A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a

Territory Algeria Algeria Algeria Algeria Angola
Angola
Angola Angola Angola Benin
Benin
Benin Benin Benin Benin Benin Botsw ana Botsw ana
Botsw ana
Botsw ana Botsw ana Botsw ana Botsw ana Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi Burundi Burundi Burundi Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon Cameroon Cameroon Cameroon Cameroon Cape Verde
Cape Verde
Cape Verde Cape Verde Cape Verde Cape Verde Cape Verde Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Central African Republic Central African Republic Central African Republic
Chad
Chad
Chad Chad Chad Chad Comoros Comoros Congo Brazzaville
Congo Brazzaville
Congo Brazzaville Congo Brazzaville Congo Brazzaville Congo Brazzaville

XXXXXXX X
X X
XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXXXX XXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX X
XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXX
XXXX X X
XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXXXX XXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X X XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
X XXXX
XXX
XXXX X X
XXXXX

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 59 of 73 Page ID #:3092

Media Rights Licensee African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTI - Radiodiffusion Télévision Ivoirienne Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTNC - Radiodiffusion Télévision Nationale congolaise Supersport International (PTY) Limited Al Jazeera Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Al Jazeera ERTU - Egyptian Radio Television Union Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Radiodifusao de Equatorial Guinea Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Erithrea Television Broadcast Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International ETS - Ethiopian Radio and Television Agency Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTG - Radiodiffusion Télévision Gabonaise Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International GRTS - Gambia Radio and Television Services Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International GBC - Ghana Broadcasting Corporation Metro TV Ltd. Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited TV3 Netw ork Ltd. African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTVGB - Radio et télévision de Guinée Bissau Supersport International (PTY) Limited

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Licensor FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA Al Jazeera FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA

Continent A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a

Territory Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire Cote d'Ivoire Cote d'Ivoire Cote d'Ivoire Cote d'Ivoire Democratic Republic of Congo
Democratic Republic of Congo
Democratic Republic of Congo Democratic Republic of Congo Democratic Republic of Congo Democratic Republic of Congo
Djibouti Djibouti Egypt Egypt Egypt Equatorial Guinea
Equatorial Guinea
Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Eritrea
Eritrea Eritrea Eritrea Eritrea Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Gabon
Gabon
Gabon Gabon Gabon Gabon Gambia
Gambia
Gambia Gambia Gambia Gambia Ghana
Ghana
Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Guinea Bissau
Guinea Bissau
Guinea Bissau Guinea Bissau Guinea Bissau Guinea Bissau Guinea Bissau

XXXX
XXX
XXXX X X
XXX XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
X XXXXXXX XX
X XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX XXX X X XXXXX XXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX X X
XXX XXXXX

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
58

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 60 of 73 Page ID #:3093

Media Rights Licensee African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTG - Radiodifussion Télévision Guinéenne Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International KBC - Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Lesotho National Broadcasting Services Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited Al Jazeera Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International ORTPM - Radiodif f usion Television de Madagascar SND Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International MBC - Malaw i Broadcasting Corporation Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International ORTM - Of f ice des Radiodif f usion et television du Mali Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited Al Jazeera Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation SND Supersport International (PTY) Limited Al Jazeera Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited TV Record TVM - Televisao de Moçambique African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International NBC - Namibian Broadcasting Corporation Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Licensor FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA AUB AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA

Continent A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a

59

Territory Guinea Conakry
Guinea Conakry
Guinea Conakry Guinea Conakry Guinea Conakry Guinea Conakry Guinea Conakry
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Lesotho
Lesotho
Lesotho Lesotho Lesotho Lesotho Liberia
Liberia
Liberia Liberia Liberia Liberia Lybia Lybia Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar Madagascar Madagascar Madagascar
Malaw i
Malaw i
Malaw i Malaw i Malaw i Malaw i
Mali
Mali
Mali Mali Mali Mali Mauritania Mauritania Mauritius
Mauritius
Mauritius Mauritius Mauritius Mauritius Morocco Morocco Mozambique
Mozambique
Mozambique Mozambique Mozambique Mozambique Mozambique
Namibia
Namibia
Namibia Namibia Namibia Namibia

XXXX
XXX
XXXX X X
XXX XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX X X
XXXXX XXXXXXX
X XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXXXXX X
XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX
XXXXXXX X
XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXXXX XXX XXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 61 of 73 Page ID #:3094

Media Rights Licensee African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International ORTN - L'Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision du Niger Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited AIT (DAAR) Akw a Ibom Broadcasting Corporation, Uyo Anambra Broadcasting Service, Akw a Aso Radio/TV Borno Radio Television Corporation Broadcasting Corporation of Oyo State Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CHANNELS TV Continental Broadcasting Service, Lagos DBN TV Abuja Desmims Broadcast (Nig) Limited, Kaduna FRCN - Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria Galaxy Television Gatew ay Television, Abeokuta IMO Broadcasting Corporation, Ow erri Independet Telvision / Radio KSMC - Kaduna State Media Corporation, Kaduna Kw ara State Broadcasting Corporation Minaj Systems Limited (MSL) Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Nasaraw a Broadcasting Service, Lafia NSMC, - Niger State Media Corporation, Minna NTA - Nigerian Television Authority ONDO State RadioVision Corporation Optima Sports Management International (OSMI) & Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON) OSBC - Osun State Broadcasting Corporation Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Plateau State Radio/TV Corporation Silverbird Communications Limited Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN ORINFOR - Rw andaise Bureau of Information & Broadcasting Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd RTS - Radiodiffusion Télévision Sénégalaise Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd SLBS - Sierra Leone Broadcasting Services Supersport International (PTY) Limited Yes TV Al Jazeera Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Licensor FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI
FIFA
OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI FIFA OSMI OSMI OSMI OSMI
FIFA
OSMI FIFA OSMI OSMI FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA

Continent A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a

Territory Niger
Niger
Niger Niger Niger Niger Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Rw anda
Rw anda
Rw anda Rw anda Rw anda Rw anda Rw anda
Sao Tome & Principe
Sao Tome & Principe Senegal
Senegal
Senegal Senegal Senegal Senegal Seychelles
Seychelles
Seychelles Seychelles Seychelles Seychelles Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone Sierra Leone Sierra Leone Sierra Leone Sierra Leone
Somalia Somalia

XXXX
XXX
XXXX XXX X XXXXX XXX X X X X X
XXX
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X
XXXX
X X
X X XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX X
XXXXX
XXX
X XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXXX
XXX
XXXX X
XXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX
X

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
60

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 62 of 73 Page ID #:3095

Media Rights Licensee Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Nu Metro Cinemas Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Radio 2000 Radio 5FM Music Radio CKI FM Radio Good Hope FM Radio Ikw ekw ezi FM Radio Lesedi FM Radio Ligw alagw ala FM Radio Lotus FM Radio Metro FM Radio Motsw eding FM Radio Munghana Lonene FM Radio Phalaphala FM Radio RSG Radio SAfm Radio Thobela FM Radio Ukhozi FM Radio Umhlobo Wenene FM Radio X-K fm SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited Sterkinekor Theatres, a Division of Primedia (PTY) Ltd Supersport International (Proprietary) Limited Al Jazeera Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd STVA - Sw aziland Television Broadcasting Authority Supersport International (PTY) Limited African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited TBS - Tanzania Broadcasting Services African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International RTVT - Radiodiffusion Télévision Togolaise Supersport International (PTY) Limited Al Jazeera Orange Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited Uganda Broadcasting Corporation African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited ZNBC - Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Supersport International (PTY) Limited TBS - Tanzania Broadcasting Services African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Canal Overseas Africa (Canal Horizons) CFI - Canal France International Phash' Comm Media Entertainment (Pty) Ltd Supersport International (PTY) Limited ZBC - Zimbabw e Broadcasting Corporation

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Licensor FIFA FIFA FIFA SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC SABC FIFA FIFA SABC FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB AUB FIFA FIFA Al Jazeera FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA AUB FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA AUB
61

Continent A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a
A f ric a
A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a A f ric a

Territory South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa
Sudan Sudan Sudan Sw aziland

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

XXXXX

XXXX

XX

X

X

XXXX

Sw aziland

XXX

Sw aziland Sw aziland Sw aziland Sw aziland Sw aziland Tanzania

XXXX X X
XXX XXXXX XXXX

Tanzania

XXX

Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania
Togo

XXXX X
XXXXX XXX XXXX

Togo

XXX

Togo Togo Togo Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia Uganda

XXXX XXX XXXXX
XXXXXXX X X
XXXX

Uganda

XXX

Uganda Uganda Uganda Uganda Uganda Zambia

XXXX X X
XXXXX XXX XXXX

Zambia

XXX

Zambia Zambia Zambia Zambia Zambia Zanzibar

XXXX X X
XXXXX XXX XXXX

Zanzibar

XXX

Zanzibar Zanzibar Zanzibar Zimbabw e

XXXX XXXXX XXX
XXXX

Zimbabw e

XXX

Zimbabw e

XXXX

Zimbabw e

X

Zimbabw e

XXXXX

Zimbabw e

XXX

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 63 of 73 Page ID #:3096

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Media Rights Licensee CFU - Caribbean Football Union ABS TV Radio CFU - Caribbean Football Union CTV - Communications Netw ork Sys. Karib Cable America TV SA ARTEAR (Canal 13) (ARTE Radio Televisivo Argentino SA) DirecTV ESPN Sur (Radio) Fox Sports OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Radio La Red (Radio Red Celeste y Blanca) Sociedad de Servicios Radiofónicos Unión Radio S.L. (Radio Continental) Systemas Nacional de Medios Publicos S.E. (Channel 7) Tele Red Imagen S.A. (TyC Sports) Telefe - Television Federal S.A. Torneos y Competencias S.A. CFU - Caribbean Football Union TeleAruba N.V. Cable Bahamas Limited CFU - Caribbean Football Union CBC CFU - Caribbean Football Union CFU - Caribbean Football Union Bermuda Broadcasting Corp. Ltd. CFU - Caribbean Football Union OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Televisa, S.A. de C.V. TSB - Canal 2 - Red Unitel TSB - Red Unitel (Channel 2) CFU - Caribbean Football Union Bandsports ESPN do Brasil Fundação Santo Antonio Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (TV Globo / GloboSat) Rádio Banda B (also know n as L.K. Radiodifusão Ltda.) Radio Brasil Sul Ltda. Radio Clube de Goiana S/A Radio Clube do Pará PRC5 Ltda. Radio e Televisão Bandeirantes Ltda. Rádio e Televisão Bandeirantes Ltda. Radio Eldorado Ltda. Radio Excelsior S.A. Rádio Gaúcha S/A Radio Globo São Paulo Ltda. Radio Guaíba Ltda. Radio Itatiaia Ltd. Radio Liberdade de Caruaru Ltda. Rádio Paiquerê Ltda. Radio Panamericana S.A. Radio Sociedade de Bahia S.A. Radio SP-Um Ltda. Radio Transamérica de SP Ltda Radio TUPI S.A. SporTV (Globosat) TV e Radio Jornal do Commércio Lda. Vivo CFU - Caribbean Football Union CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) TV & Radio CBC / Jump TV CBC / Bold TV CBC / Fairchild CBC / Rogers Cable Communications Inc. & Rogers Wireless Partnership CBC / SRC (Radio Canada Television) CBC / Talentvision CBC / TEAM Radio CBC / The Score CBC / TLN - Telelatino Netw ork Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp Cogeco Cable Canada L.P. Reedsw ain Inc. Shaw Cablesystems G.P. and Shaw Satellite G.P Telus Communications Company

Licensor FIFA CFU FIFA CFU CFU TyC TyC TyC TyC TyC FIFA TyC TyC TyC TyC TyC FIFA FIFA CFU CFU FIFA CFU FIFA FIFA CFU FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
Televisa OTI FIFA
TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo
FIFA TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo TV Globo
FIFA TV Globo
FIFA FIFA FIFA CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC FIFA CBC FIFA CBC CBC

Continent Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas

Territory Anguilla Antigua & Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Argentina Aruba Aruba Bahamas Bahamas Barbados Barbados Belize Bermuda Bermuda Bolivia Bolivia Bolivia Bolivia Bolivia Bonaire Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil British Virgin Islands Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada

XXX

X

XXX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

XXXX

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

XXX

XXX

X

XXX

X

X

XXX

X

XXX

XXX

X

XXX

XXXX

XXXX

X

X

XXXX

XXX

XX

XXX

X

XXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXX

XXXXXXX

X

XXX

X

X

XX

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXX

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
62

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 64 of 73 Page ID #:3097

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Media Rights Licensee CFU - Caribbean Football Union Weststar TV Limited DirecTV OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Radio ADN (formerly Radio "W" de Santiago) Radio Agricultura de Santiago Radio Bio-Bio de Santiago Radio Cooperativa Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Televisión Naciioanl de Chile Television Nacional de Chile (Channel 7) TVN - Television Nacional de Chile Caracol Radio Caracol Television S.A. Caracol Television, S.A. Cinecolombia DirecTV OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. RCN Radio RCN Television S.A. RCN Television, S.A. Televisa, S.A. de C.V. OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Radio Columbia Radio Monumental Representaciones Televisivas Repretel, S.A. (Channel 4, 6, 11) Representaciones Televisivvas Repretel S.A. Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Televisora de Costarica S.A. Televisora de Costarica S.A. (Channel 7 / Teletica) CFU - Caribbean Football Union RTVC CFU - Caribbean Football Union TeleCuracao CFU - Caribbean Football Union Marpin 2K4 Limited CFU - Caribbean Football Union Pio Deportes Radio TV DirecTV OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Telecentro Cadena Ecuatoriana de Television (Channel 10) (Telecentro Cadene Ecuatoria) Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Television del Pacifico Teledos, S.A. (Channel 2/Gamavision) OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Telecorporacion Salvadorena (Channel 2, 4, 6) Telecorporacion Salvadoreña Canales 2, 4, 6 Televisa, S.A. de C.V. CFU - Caribbean Football Union Granada Broadcasting Netw ork OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Radio Television Guatemala S.A. Radio Television Guatemala, S.A. Teleonce S.A. (Channel 11) Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Televisiete S.A Televisiete, S.A. (Channel 7) Trecevision S.A. Trecevision, S.A. (Channel 13) CFU - Caribbean Football Union Guyana TV Broadcasting CFU - Caribbean Football Union Television Nationaled' Haiti Compañia Televisora Hondureña S.A. de C.V. (Channel 5) Compañia Televisora Hondureña S.A. de C.V. (Channel 5) Corporacion Centroamericana de Comunicacion S.A. de C.V. (VICA or Channel 2, 9, 13) Corporacion Centroamericana de Comunicacion S.A. de C.V. (VICA or Channel 2, 9, 13) Deportes Radio Amercia OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Radio Emisoras Unidas Telesistema Hondureño S.A. de C.V. (Channel 3 and 7) Telesistema Hondureño S.A. de C.V. (Channel 3 and 7) Televisa, S.A. de C.V. CFU - Caribbean Football Union CVM TV

Licensor FIFA CFU
TVN Chile FIFA OTI
TVN Chile TVN Chile TVN Chile
FIFA FIFA OTI Televisa OTI Televisa OTI FIFA RCN FIFA OTI Televisa OTI FIFA FIFA OTI* OTI OTI Televisa FIFA Televisa OTI FIFA CFU FIFA CFU FIFA CFU FIFA CFU Channel 2 & 10 FIFA
OTI
FIFA OTI FIFA OTI Televisa FIFA FIFA CFU FIFA Televisa OTI OTI FIFA Televisa OTI Televisa OTI FIFA CFU FIFA CFU OTI Televisa
OTI
Televisa
OTI FIFA OTI OTI Televisa FIFA FIFA CFU

Continent Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas
Americas
Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas
Americas
Americas
Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas

63

Territory Cayman Islands Cayman Islands
Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Colombia Costa Rica Costa Rica Costa Rica Costa Rica Costa Rica Costa Rica Costa Rica Costa Rica Cuba Cuba Curacao Curacao Dominica Dominica Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Ecuador Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador Ecuador El Salvador El Salvador El Salvador El Salvador Granada Granada Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guyana Guyana
Haiti Haiti Honduras Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras Honduras Honduras Honduras Honduras Honduras Jamaica Jamaica

XXX X XXX XXXX X X X X
X X
XXXX X
X X
XXXX X
XXX XXXX X
X XXXX
X XXXX X X XXXX
X X
X XXXX
XXX X XXX X XXX X XXX X XXX XXXX
XXXX
X XXXX XXXX XXXX
X X XXX X XXXX
X XXXX XXXX
X X
XXXX X
XXXX XXX X XXX X
XXXX X
XXXX
X
X XXXX X XXXX
X X XXX X

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 65 of 73 Page ID #:3098

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Media Rights Licensee Cablevision S.A. de C.V. Cinepolis Corporacion Novavision S de R.L. de C.V. (SKY Mexico) OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. TDN (Televisa Deportes Netw ork) Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Televisa, S.A. de C.V. TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V. CFU - Caribbean Football Union OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Radio y Television Nicaraguense, S.A. Televicentro de Nicaragua S.A. (Channel 2) Televicentro de Nicaragua S.A. (Channel 2) Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Televisora Nacional, S.A. (Canal 2) Corporacion Medcom Panama, S.A. (Channel 4) Corporacion Medcom Panama, S.A. (Channel 4) OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Televisora Nacional, S.A. (Canal 2) OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Radio 1ro. de Marzo Radio 970 AM Montecarlo S.A. Radio Cardinal AM 730 Radio Uno S.A. Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Television Cerro Cora, S.A. (Channel 9) Television Cerro Cora, S.A. (Channel 9) Tenfield S.A. TV Accion, S.A. / Telefuturo (Canal 4) Andina de Radiodiffusion S.A.C. (ATV or Channel 9) Andina de Radiodiffusion S.A.C. (ATV or Channel 9) DirecTV OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Red Global Canal 13 (Empresa Radiodifusora 1160 SA) RPP Radio Programas de Peru Televisa, S.A. de C.V. ESPN Inc. & ABC Futbol de Primera T-Mobile USA Univision Communications Inc. including: Telefutura & Galavisión (Cable TV) Verizon CFU - Caribbean Football Union ZIZ Broadcasting Corporation Cable & Wireless Ltd. CFU - Caribbean Football Union Helen Television Systems Karib Cable CFU - Caribbean Football Union St. Maarten Cable TV / TV15 CFU - Caribbean Football Union Karib Cable CFU - Caribbean Football Union Surinaamse Television Stching (STVS) Caribean Comm. Netw ork (CNN) / TV6 CFU - Caribbean Football Union Caicos Television Holdings (WIV) / WIV Cable TV CFU - Caribbean Football Union 810 Radio El Espectador (Lanos S.A) Channel 11 Punta del Este Channel 3 Colonia Channel 8 Rosario Montecarlo TV S.A. (Channel 4) Montecarlo TV S.A. (Channel 4) OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Radio Oriental 770 AM Radio Universal Red Uruguaya de Television Sociedad Anonima Emisoras de Television y Anexos ( Channel 10) Sociedad Anonima Emisoras de Television y Anexos ( Channel 10) Sociedad de Televisora Larranaga S.A. (Channel 12) Sociedad de Televisora Larranaga S.A. (Channel 12) Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Tenfield S.A.

Licensor OTI/Televisa
FIFA OTI/Televisa
FIFA Part of Televisa
FIFA FIFA OTI OTI FIFA FIFA OTI OTI Televisa FIFA Televisa OTI Televisa FIFA FIFA OTI FIFA OTI OTI OTI OTI FIFA OTI Televisa FIFA OTI OTI Televisa OTI FIFA ATV/Canal 9 ATV/Canal 9 FIFA FIFA FIFA Univision FIFA Univision FIFA CFU CFU FIFA CFU CFU FIFA CFU FIFA CFU FIFA CFU CFU FIFA CFU FIFA OTI Monte Carlo TV Monte Carlo TV Monte Carlo TV OTI Televisa FIFA Monte Carlo TV OTI Monte Carlo TV OTI Televisa OTI Televisa FIFA FIFA

Continent Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas

64

Territory Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico
Montserrat Nicaragua Nicaragua Nicaragua Nicaragua Nicaragua Nicaragua Panama Panama Panama Panama Panama Paraguay Paraguay Paraguay Paraguay Paraguay Paraguay Paraguay Paraguay Paraguay Paraguay
Peru Peru Peru Peru Peru Peru Peru Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Puerto Rico St. Kitts & Nevis St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia St. Lucia St. Lucia St. Lucia St. Martin St. Martin St. Vincent St. Vincent Suriname Suriname Trinidad &Tobago Trinidad &Tobago Turks & Caicos Turks & Caicos Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay Uruguay

X X
X XXXX
X X X
XXXX XXXX
XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
X X
X XXXX
X XXXX
X XXXX XXXX X X X X
X XXXX
X X
XXXX XXXX
X XXX XXXX XXXX X
X XXXXXXX X
X XXXXXX
X XXX X X XXX X X XXX X XXX X XXX X X XXX X XXX X XXX XXX XXX XXXX
X XXXX X X
XXX XXXX
X XXXX
X X
X

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 66 of 73 Page ID #:3099

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Media Rights Licensee CFU - Caribbean Football Union ESPN Inc. & ABC AT & T Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp ESPN Inc. & ABC Futbol de Primera National Cinemedia, LLC Reedsw ain Inc. T-Mobile USA Univision Communications Inc. including: Telefutura & Galavisión (Cable TV) Verizon Continental, T.V. C.A. (Meridiano TV) Corporacion Venezolana de Television, C.A. (Venevision / Canal 4) DirecTV Inversiones 9954, CA OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Televisa, S.A. de C.V. Televisora Venezolana Social (TEVES) Lemar TV MOBY Media Tolo TV Al Jazeera BTV Bangladesh ESS (ESPN STAR SPORTS) ESS (ESPN STAR SPORTS) Astro (Measat Broadcast Netw ork Systems (MBNS)) Kristal Astro M-League Marketing Sdn Bhd M-League Marketing Sdn Bhd RTB - Radio Television Brunei CBS - Cambodian Broadcasting Service Co. Ltd. CTN MyTV i-CABLE Sports Limited Panorama Distributions Company Ltd. All India Radio (AIR) Doordarshan ESS (ESPN STAR SPORTS) Ten Sports Global TV Matrix M-League (ISM - Inter-Sports Marketing Sdn Bhd) PT EC Entertainment (PT Electronic City Entertainment) RCTI Al Jazeera IRIB Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Al Jazeera CWS Brains Ltd. Dentsu Inc. JC OPS (JC Operations) JC/Fuji TV JC/NAB JC/NHK JC/NTV (= Nippon TV) JC/TBS JC/TV Asahi JC/TV Tokyo King Record Co. Ltd Long Tail Live Station Inc (LTLS) Sky PerfecTV (Sky Perfect Jsat Corporation) Sof bank Al Jazeera Orange Al Jazeera ABU - Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union KRT ABU - Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union LaosTV Al Jazeera TDM - Teledif usão de Macau S.A. Astro (Measat Broadcast Netw ork Systems (MBNS)) MAXIS MOBILE SERVICES SDN BHD Measat Broadcast Netw ork Systems Sdn Bhd. M-League Marketing Sdn Bhd M-League Marketing Sdn Bhd Radio Television Malaysia (RTM)

Licensor FIFA FIFA
ESPN Inc. FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
Univision FIFA
Univision OTI OTI OTI
OTI/Venevision FIFA FIFA OTI
MOBY Media FIFA
MOBY Media FIFA
ESPN Star Sports FIFA FIFA
M-League/ ISM Astro FIFA FIFA
Kristal Astro FIFA CBS CBS FIFA FIFA
ESPN Star Sports ESPN Star Sports
FIFA ESPN Star Sports
PT EC PT EC FIFA M-League/ ISM PT EC FIFA Al Jazeera FIFA FIFA Softbank/ Dentsu FIFA Dentsu Dentsu Dentsu Dentsu Dentsu Dentsu Dentsu Dentsu FIFA Dentsu Dentsu Dentsu FIFA Al Jazeera FIFA FIFA ABU FIFA ABU FIFA FIFA M-League/ ISM M-League/ ISM FIFA FIFA FIFA M-League/ ISM

Continent Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas Americas
Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia

65

Territory US Virgin Islands US Virgin Islands
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA Venezuela Venezuela Venezuela Venezuela Venezuela Venezuela Venezuela A f ghanis tan A f ghanis tan A f ghanis tan Bahrain Bangladesh Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Brunei Brunei Brunei Brunei Cambodia Cambodia Cambodia Hong Kong Hong Kong India India India India Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Iran Iran Iran Iraq Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Jordan Jordan Kuw ait Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Laos Laos Lebanon Macau Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia

XXX

XXXXXXX

X

X

XXXXXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

XXXX

XXXX

XXX

X

XXXX

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXXX

X

XXXX

XXXX

X

XX

X

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXX

X

XXX

X

XXX

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

XXXX

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

XXXXXXX

X

X

XXXXXXX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

X

X

XXX

X

X

XXXXXXX

X

XXXXXXX

XX

X

XX

X

XXXXXXX

XXXX

X

XX

XXX

X

XXXX

XXXX

X

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 67 of 73 Page ID #:3100

Media Rights Licensee ESS (ESPN STAR SPORTS) TVM - Television Maldives (MNBC - Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation) Channel One Television Mongolia BEC-TERO Entertainment Pcl ESS (ESPN STAR SPORTS) Media Hub / Avenue TV, Nepal TV/Kantipur TV Media Hub Ptv. Ltd. (Avenue TV & Nepal TV/Kantipur TV) ABU - Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union Al Jazeera ESS (ESPN STAR SPORTS) PTV Pakistan Al Jazeera CCTV - China Central Television KU6.com qq.com - Tencent Video Technologies Sina.com Sohu.com Tudou.com Youku.com ABS - CBN Broadcasting Corporation / Balls TV Al Jazeera Al Jazeera MediaCorp Singnet (Singtel) Starhub Cable Vision Ltd. KT - Korean Telekom SBS Contents Hub Co. Ltd SBS International, Inc. SKT ESS (ESPN STAR SPORTS) SLRC - Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (Channel EYE) Al Jazeera Syrian TV ELTA Technology Co. Ltd. ERA Communications Ltd. ABU - Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union Channel 3 Channel 7 Channel 9 NBT Channel 11 RS International Broadcasting & Sports Management Co. Ltd. True Visions Public Company Ltd. & True Visions Cable Public Company Ltd. ABU - Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union RTTL ABU - Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union Al Jazeera ABU - Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union MRT Dentsu Alpha Ltd. HTV - Ho Chi Minh Television Megaf un MyTV VASC Softw are & Media Company (IPTV) Viettel Corporation VOV - Voice of Vietnam VSTV (Vietnam Satellite Digital Television) (Brand name = K+) VTC - Vietnam Television Corporation VTV Al Jazeera Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Radio Tirana Radiotelevisioni Shqiptar Supersport Albania Vodafone Albania Canal+ France Télévision (France 2 & France 3) MediaProduccion S.L. Sogecable S.A. (Cuatro = Free to Air TV / Digital+ = Pay TV) TF1 - Télévision Francaise 1 SA Unidad Editorial S.A. AMPTV - Public Television of Armenia ARM Radio - Public Radio of Armenia EBU - European Broadcasting Union

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Licensor FIFA
ESPN Star Sports
FIFA FIFA FIFA ESPN Star Sports ESPN Star Sports FIFA FIFA FIFA ESPN Star Sports FIFA FIFA CCTV CCTV CCTV CCTV CCTV CCTV FIFA FIFA FIFA Singtel FIFA FIFA SBS Korea FIFA FIFA SBS Korea FIFA ESPN Star Sports FIFA Al Jazeera FIFA FIFA FIFA RsBS RsBS RsBS RsBS FIFA
RsBS
FIFA ABU FIFA FIFA FIFA ABU FIFA Dentsu Alpha VASC VASC Dentsu Alpha Dentsu Alpha VTV Dentsu Alpha Dentsu Alpha Dentsu Alpha FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU RTV Albania FIFA TF1 TF1 FIFA
FIFA
FIFA MediaProduccion S.L.
EBU EBU FIFA
66

Continent Asia
Asia
Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia
Asia
Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe
Europe
Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe

Territory Maldives
Maldives
Mongolia Myanmar
Nepal Nepal Nepal North Korea Oman Pakistan Pakistan Palestine People's Republic of China People's Republic of China People's Republic of China People's Republic of China People's Republic of China People's Republic of China People's Republic of China Philippines Qatar Saudi Arabia Singapore Singapore Singapore South Korea South Korea South Korea South Korea Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Syria Syria Taiw an Taiw an Tajikistan Thailand Thailand Thailand Thailand Thailand
Thailand
Timor Leste Timor Leste Turkmenistan
UAE Uzbekistan Uzbekistan
Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Yemen Yemen Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania Andorra Andorra Andorra
Andorra
Andorra Andorra Armenia Armenia Armenia

XXXX

X

XXXX

XXX

XXXX

X

XX

XX

XXXXXXX

XXXX

X

XXXXXXX

XXXXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

X

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

X

X

XXXXXXX

X

XXXX

XX

XXXX

XX

X

X

XXX

XXX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

XXXXXXX

XX

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXX

XXX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XXXXXX

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

X

XXXX

X

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 68 of 73 Page ID #:3101

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Media Rights Licensee EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. ORF ORF - Oesterreichischer Rundfunk ORF Radio (Ö3) RTL Television GmbH (including VOX, n-tv, RTLII, SuperRTL) Sky Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Premiere Fernsehen GmbH) Studio Hamburg Distribution and Marketing GmbH EBU - European Broadcasting Union LMH (Lider TV) 1st Channel BTRC - Belaruskaja Tele-Radio Companija EBU - European Broadcasting Union Radio Station Belarus Radio Stolitsa Radius FM EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Exqui NV Radio 1 RTBF - Radio Télévision Belge de la Communauté Française RTBF Radio SND VivaCité Radio / La Premiére VRT - Vlaamse Radi en Televisie VTM BH Radio 1 BHRT - Javni Radiotelevizijski Servis EBU - European Broadcasting Union SV-RSAdoo BNT - Balgarska Nationala Televizija Bulgarian National Radio - Horizont Channel EBU - European Broadcasting Union BBC Radio BBC TV ITV EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. HRT - Hrvatska Radiotelevizija HRT Radio Nova TV dd SV-RSAdoo CYBC - Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation CYBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 EBU - European Broadcasting Union Mobile Telephone Netw ork (Pty) Ltd. - MTN Cesky Rozhlas 1 - Radiozurnal CTV - Ceska Televize EBU - European Broadcasting Union Channel 9 DR DK - Danmarks Radio TV Eutelsat S.A. P3 Radio (DR Radio) SVT - Sveriges Television TV2 Denmark EBU - European Broadcasting Union ETV - Eesti Televisioon Eutelsat S.A. Vikerradadio SVT - Sveriges Television Eutelsat S.A. MTV SVT - Sveriges Television Urho TV YLE Canal+ Cielecran Europe 1 Telecompagnie S.A. France Télévision (France 2 & France 3) Radio France Radio RTL France (Ediradio SA) RFI - Radio France Internationale RMC Sport (Radio Monte Carlo) SND TF1 - Télévision Francaise 1 SA

Licensor FIFA FIFA RTL EBU EBU
Premiere FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU EBU FIFA EBU EBU EBU FIFA FIFA VRT EBU EBU EBU FIFA RTBF EBU VRT EBU EBU FIFA FIFA EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU HRT FIFA EBU EBU FIFA FIFA EBU EBU FIFA DR DK SVT FIFA DR DK FIFA SVT FIFA EBU FIFA EBU FIFA FIFA YLE FIFA YLE SVT TF1 FIFA FIFA TF1 FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA

Continent Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe

Territory Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria
Azerbaijan Azerbaijan
Belarus Belarus Belarus Belarus Belarus Belarus Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Bosnia-Herzegovina Bosnia-Herzegovina Bosnia-Herzegovina Bosnia-Herzegovina Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Channel Islands Channel Islands Channel Islands Croatia Croatia Croatia Croatia Croatia Croatia Cyprus Cyprus Cyprus Cyprus Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Estonia Estonia Estonia Estonia Faroe Islands Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland France France France France France France France France France France

XXXX

X

X

XX

X

XXXXXX

X

XXX

X

XX

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

X

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

X

XXXXXX

X

XXXX

X

X

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXX

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

X

X

XXXX

X

X

XXX

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
67

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 69 of 73 Page ID #:3102

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Media Rights Licensee EBU - European Broadcasting Union GT - Georgian Telvision & Radio Broadcasting Public Radio - 1 Channel Radio Tw o - Georgian Radio 104.6 RTL & 105.5 Spreeradio Antenne Bayern GmbH & Co. KG Antenne Thüringen GmbH & Co. KG ARD Radio (incl. Bayerischer Rundfunk, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südw estrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, ARD Digital, KIKA, 3sat & Phoenix) ARD TV (incl. Bayerischer Rundfunk, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südw estrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, ARD Digital, KIKA, 3sat & Phoenix) Eutelsat S.A. Radio / Tele FFH GmbH & Co. Betriebs-KG Radio Center Berlin Radio NRW RTL Television GmbH (including VOX, n-tv, RTLII, SuperRTL) Sky Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Premiere Fernsehen GmbH) Studio Hamburg Distribution and Marketing GmbH Telekom ZDF EBU - European Broadcasting Union ERT - Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi SA ERT Radio Sports Sentra FM (New s Sports Pegasus SA Radio) Skai Radio Sport FM Digi Sport EBU - European Broadcasting Union Index.hu Magyar Radio MTV - Magyar Televizio EBU - European Broadcasting Union RUV - Ras 2 RUV - Rikisutvarpid (Icelandic National Broadcasting Service) Stod 2 Sport (365 Media Iceland) 2 Entertain Video Limited EBU - European Broadcasting Union RTE - Radio Telefis Eireann RTE Radio Supervision Media Sports Ltd BBC Radio BBC TV ITV EBU - European Broadcasting Union IB Radio Kol Israel IBA Reshet TV (Channel 2) Saar Promarket Sales Promotion Agency Ltd. Sport Channel 5 The Sports Channel b4 Agency La 7 Radio RTL 102.5 Italy RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. RTI Mediaset SKY Italia S.R.L. The Space Cinema S.P.A. Vodafone Italia EBU - European Broadcasting Union KABA Kazakhstan EBU - European Broadcasting Union Radio Kosova RTK Kosova SV-RSAdoo EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Latvian Radio Latvijas Televizija

Licensor FIFA EBU EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA
FIFA
FIFA
FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA Premiere FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA MTV Hungary FIFA MTV Hungary EBU EBU FIFA EBU EBU RUV FIFA FIFA EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU IBA FIFA IBA FIFA FIFA RAI FIFA FIFA FIFA RAI RAI FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU FIFA EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU

Continent Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe

68

Territory Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Germany Germany Germany
Germany

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

Germany
Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Greece Greece Greece Greece Greece Greece Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Iceland Iceland Iceland Iceland
Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Isle of Man Isle of Man Isle of Man Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel
Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Kosovo Kosovo Kosovo Kosovo Latvia Latvia Latvia Latvia

XXX

X

X

X

X

X

XXX

X

XX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XX

X

X

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

X

XXXXXX

XXX

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXX

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

X

XX

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXX

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 70 of 73 Page ID #:3103

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Media Rights Licensee EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Klasika Lietuvos Radijas LT - Lietuvos Radijas Ir Televizija Opus-3 UAB-LNK EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Radio RTL France (Ediradio SA) SND EBU - European Broadcasting Union Macedonian Radio MKRTV Telekom SV-RSAdoo EBU - European Broadcasting Union Melita PBS - Public Broadcasting Services Radio Malta EBU - European Broadcasting Union Radio Moldova Radio Moldova International TRM - Teleradio Moldova Canal+ France Télévision (France 2 & France 3) SND TF1 - Télévision Francaise 1 SA EBU - European Broadcasting Union Radio Montenegro RTCG SV-RSAdoo EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. NOS - Nederlandse Omroep Stichting NOS Radio (Langs de Lijn) Sport1 Football Broadcasting BV Strengholt Multimedia Eutelsat S.A. SVT - Sveriges Television TV2 Norw ay Viasat Sport Norw ay EBU - European Broadcasting Union Multikino S.A. Nsport Orange Sport TV Polish Radio TVP - Telew izja Polska SA EBU - European Broadcasting Union Live It Well events Ltd. Radio Noticias Radio Regional de Lisboa SA (Channel Name = Radio Clube Portugues) Radio Renascença, Lda. & Radio TSF RTP - Radiotelevisao Portuguesa RTP Radio - Antena 1 SIC Sport TV TMN TVI Vodafone Portugal BOOM SPORT ONE (S.C. ROMTELECOM S.A.) EBU - European Broadcasting Union Radio Romania New s Telesport TVR - Televiziunea Romana Channel One Russia EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Mayak Radio Russia RTR - Rossijskoe Teleradio (All-Russian State TV and Radio Broacasting Company) Vesti-FM La 7 RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. RTI Mediaset SKY Italia S.R.L.

Licensor FIFA FIFA EBU EBU EBU EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA
PBS Malta EBU EBU FIFA EBU EBU EBU TF1 TF1 FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU NOS FIFA FIFA FIFA SVT NRK FIFA FIFA TVP TVP EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU RTP RTP FIFA RTP FIFA EBU FIFA EBU EBU EBU EBU FIFA FIFA EBU EBU
EBU
EBU RAI FIFA FIFA RAI RAI

Continent Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe
Europe
Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe

69

Territory Lithuania Lithuania Lithuania Lithuania Lithuania Lithuania Lithuania Luxembourg Luxembourg Luxembourg Luxembourg Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia
Malta Malta Malta Malta Moldova Moldova Moldova Moldova Monaco Monaco Monaco Monaco Montenegro Montenegro Montenegro Montenegro Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Norw ay Norw ay Norw ay Norw ay Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Romania Romania Romania Romania Romania Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia
Russia
Russia San Marino San Marino San Marino San Marino San Marino

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XXXX

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXX

X

XXX

XXXX

X

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

X

XXX

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

Click arrow to return to “Contents”

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 71 of 73 Page ID #:3104

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Media Rights Licensee EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Radio Belgrade RTS - Radiotelevizija Srbije and Radiotelevizija Crne Gore SV-RSAdoo EBU - European Broadcasting Union Radio Patria Radio Regina Radio Slovensko Radio_FM STV - Slovenska Televizia EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Mobitel Radio Slovenija RTVS - Radiotelevizija Slovenija Telecom Slovenije Telemach SV-RSAdoo DTS Distribuidora de Television Digital S.A. DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital SA MediaProduccion S.L. Sogecable S.A. (Cuatro = Free to Air TV / Digital+ = Pay TV) Spanish Radio - Cadena Cope (Radio Popular S.A.) Spanish Radio - Cadena Ser (Union Radio) Spanish Radio - Onda Cero (Uniprex S.A.) Spanish Radio - Radio Marca (Unedisa Comunicaciones S.L.) Spanish Radio - RNE Telecinco (& La Siete) Unidad Editorial S.A. A f tonbladet Sveriges Radio SVT - Sveriges Television TV4 Sw eden EBU - European Broadcasting Union Eutelsat S.A. Sky Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Premiere Fernsehen GmbH) SND SRG SSR idée suisse (consisting of SF, TSR, RSI, Radio DRS, RSR - Radio Suisse Romande, RSI Radio, RR - Radio Rhaeto-Romanic, HD Suisse) STAR TV World Radio Sw itzerland EBU - European Broadcasting Union TRT - Turkiye Radyo-Televizyon Kurumu TRT Radio 1 Turkcell 1st Channel (The First) 2nd Channel (Promin) EBU - European Broadcasting Union ICTV NTU - Natsionalna Telekompanya Ukrainy STV Scotland 2 Entertain Video Limited BBC Radio BBC TV ITV Supervision Media Sports Ltd talkSPORT La 7 RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. RTI Mediaset SKY Italia S.R.L. ESPN Inc. & ABC KVZK Maona TV Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Optus Mobile Pty Limited (Virgin Mobile Austraila Ltd.) SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation SBS Television Corporation Cook Islands Television / Elijah Communications Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation

Licensor FIFA FIFA EBU EBU FIFA FIFA EBU EBU EBU EBU EBU FIFA FIFA FIFA EBU EBU
RTV Slovenia RTVS FIFA FIFA
Sogecable FIFA
FIFA
FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA Sogecable MediaProduccion S.L. FIFA SVT FIFA SVT FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
EBU
SRG EBU FIFA EBU EBU FIFA EBU EBU FIFA NTU EBU ITV FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA RAI FIFA FIFA RAI RAI FIFA Mai TV Mai TV SBS FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA Mai TV SBS FIFA

Continent Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe
Europe
Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe
Europe
Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania

70

Territory Serbia Serbia Serbia Serbia Serbia Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Spain Spain Spain
Spain
Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Sw eden Sw eden Sw eden Sw eden Sw itzerland Sw itzerland Sw itzerland Sw itzerland
Sw itzerland
Sw itzerland Sw itzerland
Turkey Turkey Turkey Turkey Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Vatican City Vatican City Vatican City Vatican City Vatican City American Samoa American Samoa American Samoa American Samoa American Samoa Australia Australia Australia Cook Islands Cook Islands Cook Islands

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

XXXX

X

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

XXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXXX

XXXX

X

X

XX

X

X

XXXXXX

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

X

X

X

XXXXX

XXXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

X

XXXXXXX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 72 of 73 Page ID #:3105

Media Rights Licensee Fiji Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation ESPN Inc. & ABC Nauru Media Bureau Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation SBS Television Corporation SKY Netw ork Television Limited The Radio Netw ork (TRN) TVNZ - Television New Zealand BCN Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation PNCC Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Media Niugini Limited Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Samoa Quality Broadcasting Ltd. Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Telekom Television Limited - Solomon Islands Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Cable Pacific Ltd. Tonga Broadcasting Commission Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Vanuatu Broadcasting and TV Corp. Mai TV SBS Australia - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Radio Africa No. 1 BBC ITV BBC Radio TF1 - Télévision Francaise 1 SA MBC & Al Arabiya Euronew s Eurosport BBC World Services BBC World New s CNN Deutsche Welle TWI (UK) Limited / FIFA Futbol Mundial Aide Carnival UK Celebrity DFDS Disney Cruise Lines Holland America Ibero Cruises Louis Cruises MSC NCL Princess Pullmantur RCL Residensea Silverseas Star Cruises Thomson Cruises Asiana British Airw ays Cathay Pacific El Al Jet Blue Airlines LAN Luf thans a Saudi Arabian Airlines Singapore Airlines Thai Airw ays

Rights exploited

Radio TV Highlights News Access Mobile Broadband Internet 3D DVD In-Ship & In-Flight

Licensor Mai TV SBS FIFA FIFA Mai TV SBS FIFA FIFA FIFA SBS TVNZ SBS Mai TV SBS FIFA Mai TV SBS FIFA Mai TV SBS FIFA Mai TV SBS FIFA Mai TV SBS FIFA Mai TV Mai TV SBS FIFA Mai TV SBS FIFA AUB FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
Al Jazeera FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG IMG

Continent Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania
International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters International Waters

Territory Fiji Fiji Fiji
Guam Nauru Nauru Nauru New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand Niue Niue Niue Palau Palau Palau Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea Samoa Samoa Samoa Solomon Islands Solomon Islands Solomon Islands Tonga Tonga Tonga Tonga Vanuatu Vanuatu Vanuatu A f ric a British Forces Bases Overseas British Forces Bases Overseas British Forces Bases Overseas French Overseas Territories Middle East pan-Europe pan-Europe Sub-Saharan Africa w orldw ide w orldw ide w orldw ide w orldw ide

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

XXXXXXX

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

XXXX

XX

X

XXX

X

X

XXX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

XXXXX

XXXXX

X

X

XXXX

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Click arrow to return to “Contents” 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
71

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-5 Filed 02/20/20 Page 73 of 73 Page ID #:3106
Glossary of terms
Audience reach: the net number of unique individuals that watched an event for a minimum of a stated number of consecutive minutes. For the purposes of this report, 20 consecutive minutes has been used, as a recognised industry standard for engagement with football, however one minute reach has also been quoted throughout. Average audience: in audited markets, an audience is measured each minute throughout the day. The average audience is the sum of each audience for each minute during a broadcast, divided by the duration of coverage in minutes. Channel(s): the television station which the Media Rights Licensee used to show the event inhome. Dedicated coverage: the television time the event is aired for, based on specific devoted event coverage including live games, repeats, event highlights and magazine shows. Dedicated coverage therefore excludes clips shown in news bulletins and in non-dedicated magazine coverage such as FIFA Futbol Mundial or World Sport. Estimated audience: as many markets remain unaudited around the globe, estimated audiences are employed to predict the audience for coverage. For this event, the methodology outlined in the “In-home data sources and methodology” section was used. In-home viewing: the audience measurement based on all viewers from within the home, including guests. Market Share %: the audience expressed as a percentage of the total viewing audience watching television during a particular time period. Media Rights Licensee (MRL): an organisation which has been granted certain media rights to the 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM in relation to the live and continuous transmission of the international TV signal of each match in a particular territory or territories. Out-of-home viewing: the estimated audience, based on market research conducted by SPORT+MARKT on behalf of FIFA, of all media channels outside of the home (including bars, restaurants, pubs, clubs, hotels and official FIFA Fan Fests™). This does not include online and mobile viewing. Peak match audience / peak average audience: the highest average audience of any programme from all broadcasts. TVR%: the audience expressed as a share of the total possible television viewers in a particular market.
Click to here to Return to “Contents” Click here to return to “Report Notes” Click to here to return to “Executive Summary” Click to here to return to “Key Market Summaries” Click to here to return to “Global 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM Analysis”
2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM
72

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 79 Page ID #:3107

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 79 Page ID #:3108

Contents

Report authors

2

Introduction

3

Match schedule

4

Report notes

6

Top-line coverage and audience summary

7

Executive summary

8

Key market summaries

11

In-home data sources and methodology

16

Global 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ analysis

o In-home television

17

o Out-of-home

26

o Non-TV consumption of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™

27

Global 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match analysis

30

Regional 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ analysis

o Africa and Middle East

33

o Asia

36

o Europe

39

o North, Central America and Caribbean

42

o Oceania

45

o South America

47

Appendix

o 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ broadcast summary by territory

51

o FIFA World Cup™ audience reach comparison by reach condition

56

o 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match audience summary

58

o Media Rights Licensees

59

o Glossary of terms

78

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

1

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 79 Page ID #:3109
Report authors
Kantar Media is a leading specialist sports and entertainment research company, delivering insight for 20 years into more than 250 sporting federations, rights holders, clubs/teams, venues, broadcasters and sponsors globally. Kantar Media has been working directly with FIFA on their global coverage and audience reporting since June 2009. Kantar Media is part of the Kantar family; the research and insight arm of the WPP group. Address: 222 Grays Inn Road, London, WC1X 8HB, United Kingdom Tel.: 0044 (0)207 160 5828 Website: http://www.kantarmedia.co.uk/businesses/kantarsport/

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

2

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 79 Page ID #:3110

Introduction
The 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM took place from 12th June to 13th July 2014 and featured 32 football nations from around the globe.
The list of competing nations was:

Group A Brazil Croatia Mexico Cameroon

Group B Spain Netherlands Chile Australia

Group C Colombia Greece Cote d’Ivoire Japan

Group D Uruguay Costa Rica England Italy

Group E Switzerland Ecuador France Honduras

Group F Argentina Bosnia-Herzegovina Iran Nigeria

Group G Germany Portugal Ghana USA

Group H Belgium Algeria Russia Korea Republic

Each of the teams played three group matches, before the top two teams of each group progressed to the knockout round of 16 stage. The games took place at twelve venues across Brazil, Belo Horizonte, Brasilia, Cuiaba, Curitiba, Fortaleza, Manaus, Natal, Porto Alegre, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador and Sao Paulo.
The brand new Estadio do Maracana in Rio de Janeiro hosted the Final between Germany and Argentina, with Germany claiming their country’s fourth FIFA World CupTM title with an extra time 1:0 triumph over Argentina. The result meant Germany became the first Europeans to win in the Americas.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

3

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 79 Page ID #:3111

Match Schedule

Group Matches

Match

Stage

1

Group A Match

2

Group A Match

3

Group B Match

4

Group B Match

5

Group C Match

6

Group C Match

7

Group D Match

8

Group D Match

9

Group E Match

10

Group E Match

11

Group F Match

12

Group F Match

13

Group G Match

14

Group G Match

15

Group H Match

16

Group H Match

17

Group A Match

18

Group A Match

19

Group B Match

20

Group B Match

21

Group C Match

22

Group C Match

23

Group D Match

24

Group D Match

25

Group E Match

26

Group E Match

27

Group F Match

28

Group F Match

29

Group G Match

30

Group G Match

31

Group H Match

32

Group H Match

33

Group A Match

34

Group A Match

35

Group B Match

36

Group B Match

37

Group C Match

38

Group C Match

39

Group D Match

40

Group D Match

41

Group E Match

42

Group E Match

43

Group F Match

44

Group F Match

45

Group G Match

46

Group G Match

47

Group H Match

48

Group H Match

Date 12-Jun-14 13-Jun-14 13-Jun-14 13-Jun-14 14-Jun-14 14-Jun-14 14-Jun-14 14-Jun-14 15-Jun-14 15-Jun-14 15-Jun-14 16-Jun-14 16-Jun-14 16-Jun-14 17-Jun-14 17-Jun-14 17-Jun-14 18-Jun-14 18-Jun-14 18-Jun-14 19-Jun-14 19-Jun-14 19-Jun-14 20-Jun-14 20-Jun-14 20-Jun-14 21-Jun-14 21-Jun-14 21-Jun-14 22-Jun-14 22-Jun-14 22-Jun-14 23-Jun-14 23-Jun-14 23-Jun-14 23-Jun-14 24-Jun-14 24-Jun-14 24-Jun-14 24-Jun-14 25-Jun-14 25-Jun-14 25-Jun-14 25-Jun-14 26-Jun-14 26-Jun-14 26-Jun-14 26-Jun-14

Time 17:00 13:00 16:00 18:00 13:00 22:00 16:00 18:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 16:00 13:00 19:00 13:00 18:00 16:00 18:00 16:00 13:00 13:00 19:00 16:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 13:00 18:00 16:00 18:00 13:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 13:00 13:00 16:00 17:00 13:00 13:00 16:00 17:00 13:00 13:00 13:00 13:00 17:00 17:00

Venue Sao Paulo
Natal Salvador Cuiaba Belo Horizonte
Recife Fortaleza Manaus Brasilia Porto Alegre Rio de Janeiro Curitiba Salvador
Natal Belo Horizonte
Cuiaba Fortaleza Manaus Rio de Janeiro Porto Alegre Brasilia
Natal Sao Paulo
Recife Salvador Curitiba Belo Horizonte Cuiaba Fortaleza Manaus Rio de Janeiro Porto Alegre Brasilia
Recife Curitiba Sao Paulo Cuiaba Fortaleza
Natal Belo Horizonte
Manaus Rio de Janeiro Porto Alegre
Salvador Recife Brasilia
Sao Paulo Curitiba

Teams BRA v CRO MEX v CMR ESP v NED CHI v AUS COL v GRE CIV v JPN URU v CRC ENG v ITA SUI v ECU FRA v HON ARG v BIH IRN v NGA GER v POR GHA v USA BEL v ALG RUS v KOR BRA v MEX CMR v CRO ESP v CHI AUS v NED COL v CIV JPN v GRE URU v ENG ITA v CRC SUI v FRA HON v ECU ARG v IRN NGA v BIH GER v GHA USA v POR BEL v RUS KOR v ALG CMR v BRA CRO v MEX AUS v ESP NED v CHI JPN v COL GRE v CIV ITA v URU CRC v ENG HON v SUI ECU v FRA NGA v ARG BIH v IRN USA v GER POR v GHA KOR v BEL ALG v RUS

Score 3:1 (2:0) 1:0 (0:0) 1:5 (1:1) 3:1 (2:1) 3:0 (1:0) 2:1 (0:1) 1:3 (1:0) 1:2 (1:1) 2:1 (0:1) 3:0 (1:0) 2:1 (1:0) 0:0 (0:0) 4:0 (3:0) 1:2 (0:1) 2:1 (0:1) 1:1 (0:0)
0:0 0:4 (0:1) 0:2 (0:2) 2:3 (1:1) 2:1 (0:0)
0:0 2:1 (1:0) 0:1 (0:1) 2:5 (0:3) 1:2 (1:1) 1:0 (0:0) 1:0 (1:0) 2:2 (0:0) 2:2 (0:1) 1:0 (0:0) 2:4 (0:3) 1:4 (1:2) 1:3 (0:0) 0:3 (0:1) 2:0 (0:0) 1:4 (1:1) 2:1 (1:0) 0:1 (0:1)
0:0 0:3 (0:2)
0:0 2:3 (1:2) 3:1 (1:0) 0:1 (0:0) 2:1 (1:0) 0:1 (0:0) 1:1 (0:1)

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

4

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 79 Page ID #:3112

Match Schedule

Knockout phase

Match

Stage

49

Round of 16

50

Round of 16

51

Round of 16

52

Round of 16

53

Round of 16

54

Round of 16

55

Round of 16

56

Round of 16

57

Quarter Finals

58

Quarter Finals

59

Quarter Finals

60

Quarter Finals

61

Semi Finals

62

Semi Finals

63

3/4 Place

64

Final

Date 28-Jun-14 28-Jun-14 29-Jun-14 29-Jun-14 30-Jun-14 30-Jun-14 01-Jul-14 01-Jul-14
04-Jul-14 04-Jul-14 05-Jul-14 05-Jul-14
08-Jul-14 09-Jul-14
12-Jul-14
13-Jul-14

Time 13:00 17:00 13:00 17:00 13:00 17:00 13:00 17:00
17:00 13:00 17:00 13:00
17:00 17:00
17:00
16:00

Venue Belo Horizonte Rio de Janeiro
Fortaleza Recife Brasilia
Porto Alegre Sao Paulo Salvador
Fortaleza Rio de Janeiro
Salvador Brasilia
Belo Horizonte Sao Paulo
Brasilia
Rio de Janeiro

Teams BRA v CHI COL v URU NED v MEX CRC v GRE FRA v NIG GER v ALG ARG v SUI BEL v USA
BRA v COL FRA v GER NED v CRC ARG v BEL
BRA v GER NED v ARG
BRA v NED
GER v ARG

Score 1:1 a.e.t. (1:1, 1:1) 3:2
PSO 2:0 (1:0) 2:1 (0:0) 1:1 a.e.t. (1:1, 0:0) 5:3
PSO 2:0 (0:0) 2:1 a.e.t. (0:0) 1:0 a.e.t. (0:0) 2:1 a.e.t. (0:0)
2:1 (1:0) 0:1 (0:1) 0:0 a.e.t. 4:3 PSO 1:0 (1:0)
1:7 (0:5) 0:0 a.e.t. 2:4 PSO
0:3 (0:2)
1:0 a.e.t. (0:0)

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

5

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 7 of 79 Page ID #:3113
Report Notes
• Throughout this report “AUDIENCE REACH” has been quoted, which is the measurement of the total unique individuals to have watched the event on television in-home. This ensures viewers are not duplicated while providing a true measure of event penetration. For the purposes of this report, audience reach has been based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes of coverage; however various other reach conditions have also been sourced and are quoted throughout as well as shown in the “Appendix” section. The projected global reach is based on collecting the audited reach data in major measured markets around the world, which account for a wide geographic spread as well as a significant proportion of the world’s population.
• This report examines only Television audiences. 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ is available to audiences via other media forms, such as broadband and mobile (see “Non-TV consumption of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™” section on page 27), however, this report does not detail consumption figures for these other forms of media as the data cannot as yet be aggregated.
• Similarly, out-of-home viewing (see “Out-of-home” section on page 26) is not considered in detail within this report. It is acknowledged that many people in many countries around the world consumed 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ in public places, bars, restaurants etc. however, aggregated data for these volumes is also not available.
• Many markets around the world have developed accurate methodologies to measure “IN-HOME AUDIENCES” over recent years; therefore there is a higher level of available audited audiences in this report than in the previous event report.
• Where estimated audiences have been applied, a more rigorous methodology has been employed than previously, taking into account multiple variables (see “In-home data sources and methodology” section on page 16). Audience estimates are used due to the fact that official audited audience measurement systems still do not exist in many markets around the world. For example, estimates continue to be necessary in much of Africa, the Middle East, Caribbean, Pacific Islands and smaller markets in the Asia sub-continent. In addition, many digital/subscription channels around the world either do not or are not able to measure their audiences. Audited audience data is available in over 85 territories, which, although only representing around 40% of the territories where coverage was available, account for approximately 75% of the world population.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS”

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

6

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 8 of 79 Page ID #:3114

Top-line coverage and audience summary
Total broadcast hours: Total territories reached: Total in-home audience reach (20+ consecutive minutes): Total in-home audience reach (1+ minute): Average in-home audience per live match: Highest global in-home average audience (2014 FWC BrazilTM final; GER v ARG): 2014 FWC BrazilTM final match In-home audience reach (20+ consecutive minutes) 2014 FWC BrazilTM final match In-home audience reach (1+ minute) 2014 FWC BrazilTM final match In-home + Out-of-home audience reach (1+ minute)
(all % in parenthesis are compared to 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM)

98,087 (+36%) 207 2.1 billion (-4%) 3.2 billion (+/-0%) 186.7 million (-1%)
570.1 million (+7%)
695.0 million (+12%)
913.7 million (+1%)
1.013 billion

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

7

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 9 of 79 Page ID #:3115

Executive summary
The in-home television coverage of the 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM reached2 3.2 billion people around the world. The Asian market observed a decline in audience reach due to the less favourable kick off times which caused the global figure not to rise compared to 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM. Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes of coverage, the 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM reached 2.1 billion viewers. This report analyses the global audience of Television coverage of 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM and does not include global analysis of any other forms of media as this data is not available to be aggregated globally.
To establish the audience reach for the 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM, FIFA sourced audience reach from 25 major markets within this report. It was ensured that these markets accounted for a wide geographic spread as well as a significant proportion of the world’s population. This was then used to project a global reach (refer to “Global 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ analysis” section for more detail). For 2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM, FIFA sourced audience reach from 17 markets which was then used to project a global reach. The audience statistics below were the result:

In-home audience reach based on viewers watching at least:

o 1+ minute of coverage: o 3+ consecutive minutes of coverage: o 20+ consecutive minutes of coverage: o 30+ consecutive minutes of coverage:

3.2 billion (+/- 0%) 2.7 billion (-3%) 2.1 billion (-4%) 1.9 billion (-4%)

A total of 98,087 hours of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ “DEDICATED COVERAGE” was broadcast in-home globally; the equivalent to over eleven full years of coverage.
The 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match reached 695.0 million in-home viewers, based on those watching at least 20 consecutive minutes of coverage. However, based on watching just one minute of coverage, this rises to 913.7 million viewers, while additional “OUT-OF-HOME” viewers pushed the total projected audience reach to 1.013 billion3.
The highest global in-home average audience during the 2014 edition of the FIFA World Cup was for the final match between Germany and Argentina, with an average of 570.1 million people watching across the duration of the match.
Please note that the average figure above does not include out-of-home viewing and therefore would be higher if this was also included. Please refer to the “Out-of-home” section for an analysis of this channel.
All of the above audience figures, in-home and out-of-home, relate to Television viewing only and no other forms of media.
In addition to the in-home and out-of-home television coverage considered, the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ enjoyed further distribution and usage via online, media players and apps.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 2 Based on viewers watching at least one minute of coverage.
3 See “Out-of-home” section for methodology and analysis.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

8

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 10 of 79 Page ID #:3116

There was more online coverage than any previous FIFA World Cup™ with 188 licensees offering 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage via websites, media players and apps.
Between 2010 and 2014, internet usage has grown by nearly 50%, with close to 3 billion people online in 2014. Alongside the growth in usage, there has also been a growth in accessing digital content and, in particular, streaming live content. Consumer surveys suggest this has increased by 36% for online TV viewing and 248% for mobile TV viewing, which is not surprising given that broadband penetration, mobile device usage and internet speed have all increased in many of the more developed markets. For the first time, broadcasters are able to provide a level of detail for digital media audience measurement that has not previously been available, and whilst this is not yet in the same level of detail on a global basis as for television, it does provide some data that allows Kantar to project the potential reach of dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ match content. Using online/mobile viewing data from 40 countries (all sourced directly from MRLs) and relating this back to the typical viewing patterns on TV, a projected 280 million people were reached by dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ match content online or on mobile. This equates to 9.6% of the global internet population in 2014. It is important to note that this does not account for shorter highlights or news clips and is purely based on official MRL data of match viewing. This is a conservative estimate given the relatively small amount of detailed data available. Some of the individual market highlights are shown below.
Other highlights of the 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM included:
o An average global in-home audience of 186.7 million watched live matches of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.
o 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM generated some record average audiences around the world. In Germany, the highest television audience of all time was recorded by ARD for the Final between Germany and Argentina. An average audience of 34.5 million people tuned in across the country.
o The same all time television audience record was achieved in Netherlands to0; 9.1 million people tuned in for the semi-final between Netherlands and Argentina.
o TV audience records were also broken in the USA by 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM programming. ESPN’s coverage of USA v POR was watched by an average audience of 18.2 million people across the country; this was the most watched soccer match ever on US television at the time of broadcast. Netherlands v Mexico attracted an average audience of 10.4 million viewers to Univision, making it the most watched programme in the history of Spanish language TV in the USA.
o The France v Germany quarter-final generated the highest TV audience on French television for 7 years, an average of 16.9 million people watched.
o The single biggest audiences were, however, recorded in the host market Brazil. 8 live matches drew audiences of over 30 million viewers. The highest was on TV Globo for the opening match of the tournament between Brazil and Croatia; the match was seen by an average in-home audience of 42.9 million people.
o The highest measured “TVR%” during the 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM was achieved by Ned 14 (58.5%) in the Netherlands during live coverage of the Netherlands v Argentina semi-final.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 4 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee NOS 5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

9

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 11 of 79 Page ID #:3117

o The highest “MARKET SHARES” during competitive prime time in the 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM were achieved in Netherlands and Germany. In Netherlands, live coverage of the Netherlands v Mexico match in the round of 16 (kick-off 18:00 in Netherlands) gained 89.4% of all television viewers during the period of the match whilst in Germany, the Brazil v Germany semifinal drew 87.6% of the audience from 10pm local time.
o Audience reach5 was highest in China, where 252.3 million viewers were reached5 across the duration of the event. This represents 18.1% of the total population. It also accounts for 12% of the total global reach5 of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.
o Elsewhere, host market Brazil achieved a reach5 of 164.6 million viewers during the 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM. USA and Indonesia both achieved a reach5 of over 100 million viewers with 105.3 and 103.4 respectively.
o Over a quarter of the global dedicated coverage was generated within the host region of South America. A total of 25,178 hours were aired across the region with DirecTV6 contributing a large proportion via their feeds – a total of 16,897 hours.
o South America broadcast more dedicated coverage of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ than any other region of the world. A total of 25,178 hours were shown within the region representing 26% of the global total. The largest contributions came from licensees in Argentina where a total of 3,933 hours were shown. DirecTV6 aired the majority with 2,863 hours, whilst TyC Sports7 made 759 hours available. A further 247 hours were aired by the high penetration Canal 77. In host market Brazil a total of 2,832 hours were shown across the tournament with ESPN8 channels airing 852 hours, more than 760 hours on SporTV, 599 hours on BandSports8, over 250 hours on Fox Sports8 channels, 198 hours on TV Bandeirantes8 and 164 hours on TV Globo.
o Media Rights Licensees across Europe broadcast a total of 20,144 hours of dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage, a rise of 22% compared to 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™. The highest proportion of this total originated in Italy where a total of 3,052 hours, 15% of the regional total. Rai showed 344 hours (176 of these across their high penetration channels Rai 19 and Rai 29). The remaining 2,708 hours were aired by Sky Italia10 across 6 different channels.
o A total of 18,761 hours of dedicated coverage were broadcast across Asia, 19% of the global total. Once again, China led the way, contributing nearly 3,000 hours of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage to the total. This was shared amongst a combination of national and provincial broadcasters, totalling 15 channels. The 3 high penetration channels of CCTV showed 1,028 hours of coverage; this was complemented by 1,931 hours on provincial channels. Six of these provincial channels aired over 100 hours of dedicated coverage, among them were Guangzhou TV11 Competition11 and Guangdong TV Sports11.
o Across Africa and Middle East, over 17,000 hours of dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage were aired in total. This is an increase of 30% compared to 4 years ago. The key contributions came from Pan African broadcasters Supersport and Canal + with a combined total of nearly 5,000 hours. Supersport also aired directly into South Africa and Nigeria taking the total for this licensee alone to 6,164 hours.
1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes 6 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI 7 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Torneos y Competencias S.A. 8 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A 9 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee RAI 10 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee RAI 11 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee CCTV

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

10

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 12 of 79 Page ID #:3118

Key Market Summaries
Brazil Coverage (hh:mm): 2832:37 Audience reach5: 164.6m Live Match “AVERAGE AUDIENCE”: 21.9m “PEAK MATCH AUDIENCE”: 52.5m
South Africa Coverage (hh:mm): 1973:51 Audience reach5: 27.5m Live match average audience: 3.0m Peak match audience: 7.9m
France Coverage (hh:mm): 644:26 Audience reach5: 47.2m Live match average audience: 4.5m Peak match audience: 18.2m
Germany Coverage (hh:mm): 243:46 Audience reach5: 65.8m Live match average audience: 11.2m Peak match audience: 34.5m
Italy Coverage (hh:mm): 3052:45 Audience reach5: 45.3m Live match average audience: 3.8m Peak match audience: 18.1m

Hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup™ generated high interest in Brazil with the average live match audience increasing by 36% compared to 4 years ago. The increased popularity per match contributed to a total audience reach5 increase of 5% vs. 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™.
Since hosting and competing in the event 4 years ago, interest in FIFA World Cup™ has remained high in South Africa. Across the country, the unique audience reach5 of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ was on a par with 4 years ago.
Over 47 million people across France watched at least 20 minutes of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™. The national team’s advance to the quarter-finals in 2014, bettering their group stage exit in 2010, helped generate a 5% increase of audience reach5 compared to 4 years ago.
2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ performed very well in Germany with all metrics seeing a rise from 2010. Most impressive of all was the peak audience which included an all-time TV audience record of 34.5 million for the Final. Average live audiences for the tournament increased by 27%.
For the second consecutive edition of FIFA World Cup™, Italy exited the tournament at the group stage. The audience figures reflect the performance with overall event reach5 decreasing by 3%.

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS” 5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

11

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 13 of 79 Page ID #:3119

Netherlands Coverage (hh:mm): 191:56 Audience reach5: 14.8m Live match average audience: 2.8m Peak match audience: 9.1m
Poland Coverage (hh:mm): 733:43 Audience reach5: 25.0m Live match average audience: 2.6m Peak match audience: 8.9m
Romania Coverage (hh:mm): 288:22 Audience reach5: 10.1m Live match average audience: 1.0m Peak match audience: 3.5m
Russia Coverage (hh:mm): 474:24 Audience reach5: 75.7m Live match average audience: 4.4m Peak match audience: 15.0m
Spain Coverage (hh:mm): 747:09 Audience reach5: 32.9m Live match average audience: 2.4m Peak match audience: 13.3m

The semi-final match of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ between Netherlands and Argentina recorded a higher audience than the Final match of 2010 (NED v ESP). An audience of 9.1 million tuned in for the live Final in 2014, a rise of 7% and an all-time Dutch television viewing record.
TV viewers in Poland received 36% more coverage in 2014 than 4 years prior. Additionally, the peak match audience increased slightly to 8.9 million viewers for 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™, a rise of 1% on the 2010 event.
Audiences watching 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ in Romania were of a similar level to 2010. The peak match audience (the Final match both years) rose very slightly by 0.1%.
2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ performed well in Russia with average viewing figures rising by 9% and peak match viewing rising by 10% to 15.0 million people for the Belgium v Russia group stage match.
Many of the key measures in Spain saw a decline for the 2014 edition due to their contrasting success in 2010. Overall tournament reach5 decreased by 16%, however, there was a lesser drop of only 8% for peak match audience.

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

12

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 14 of 79 Page ID #:3120

Turkey Coverage (hh:mm): 738:53 Audience reach5: 39.9m Live match average audience: 2.4m Peak match audience: 6.5m
UK Coverage (hh:mm): 365:33 Audience reach5: 44.5m Live match average audience: 5.2m Peak match audience: 18.0m
Canada Coverage (hh:mm): 1147:10 Audience reach5: 21.0m Live match average audience: 1.6m Peak match audience: 6.1m
Guatemala Coverage (hh:mm): 255:35 Audience reach5: 4.6m Live match average audience: 0.4m Peak match audience: 1.4m
Mexico Coverage (hh:mm): 2307:06 Audience reach5: 81.5m Live match average audience: 3.8m Peak match audience: 22.6m

Dedicated coverage of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ was broadcast for 738 hours across Turkey, an increase of over 600 hours from 2010. A peak match audience of 6.5 million people watched the 2014 Final whilst 39.9 million people were reached5 across the whole tournament.
As in 2010, the UK was represented by England. The team finished bottom of their group in 2014, compared to a round of 16 exit against Germany in 2010. Audience reach5 decreased by 5%, however, the peak match audience (the Final match at both editions) rose slightly (+0.3%).
Audiences in Canada have risen sharply since the 2010 edition of the FIFA World Cup™. Average live match figures grew significantly, with an increase of 40% to 1.6 million, whilst the peak match audience increased from 5.4 million in 2010 to 6.1 million in 2014 (+12%).
2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ performed well in Guatemala with the peak match viewing figure rising by 30% and average live match viewing rising by 9%. A total audience reach5 of 4.6 million viewers was achieved across the duration of the tournament.
Audience reach5 in Mexico grew significantly in 2014 compared to the previous edition, with a 14% increase to 81.5 million people. Additionally the peak match audience of 22.6 million in 2014 represented a 2% increase on 2010.

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

13

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 15 of 79 Page ID #:3121

USA Coverage (hh:mm): 1657:23 Audience reach5: 105.3m Live match average audience: 8.2m Peak match audience: 27.7m
Argentina Coverage (hh:mm): 3933:03 Audience reach5: 32.6m Live match average audience: 3.9m Peak match audience: 12.4m
Colombia Coverage (hh:mm): 3167:32 Audience reach5: 39.4m Live match average audience: 3.9m Peak match audience: 12.1m
China Coverage (hh:mm): 2959:33 Audience reach5: 252.3m Live match average audience: 9.7m Peak match audience: 42.4m
India Coverage (hh:mm): 720:54 Audience reach5: 85.7m Live match average audience: 1.3m Peak match audience: 5.1m

As the sport continues to grow in popularity, so the audiences follow. Reach5 across the event grew to 105.3 million for the 2014 edition (+11%) whilst the average live match audience increased dramatically by 61% demonstrating a new level of interest in the USA for FIFA World Cup™.
Interest in all matches in the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ was higher than seen 4 years ago. The tournament was a success for Argentina’s team and the event was hosted locally; both were contributing factors to the 28% increase in live match viewing figures compared to 2010.
Competing in the event for the first time since 1998 generated high interest in Colombia. The average live match audience grew by 23% compared to the previous edition, whilst the peak match audience rose by 9% and the tournament reach5 increased to 39.4 million (+14%).
Audiences in China decreased in size compared to 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™. The timezone was not as favourable for large parts of Asia as in 2010 and the overall audience reach5 decreased by 23% across China.
2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ enjoyed an increase in coverage across India compared to the 2010 edition (+46%) as rights switched to Sony. Audience reach5 for the whole event increased from 44.9 million in 2010 to 85.7 million in 2014.

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

14

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 16 of 79 Page ID #:3122

Indonesia Coverage (hh:mm): 1136:02 Audience reach5: 103.4m Live match average audience: 7.0m Peak match audience: 16.7m
Japan Coverage (hh:mm): 460:12 Audience reach5: 97.3m Live match average audience: 4.2m Peak match audience: 35.1m
Korea Republic Coverage (hh:mm): 1631:18 Audience reach5: 31.2m Live match average audience: 1.3m Peak match audience: 9.6m
Thailand Coverage (hh:mm): 633:45 Audience reach5: 33.9m Live match average audience: 1.4m Peak match audience: 3.8m
Australia Coverage (hh:mm): 529:13 Audience reach5: 8.2m Live match average audience: 0.3m Peak match audience: 2.5m

Indonesia did not benefit from the timezone of the host market and as a result the audience totals decreased compared to 2010. The total audience reach5 for the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ was 103.4 million people (-31%).
Audience reach5 in Japan for 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ was 97.3 million, a decrease of 10% compared to 4 years ago. This is partly due to team success (round of 16 in 2010, group stage 2014) and partly due to timezone. Average and peak audiences also saw decreases.
Korea Republic had a less successful tournament in 2014 (bottom of their group) compared to 2010 (round of 16). In addition, the live match kick off times did not suit Eastern Asia. This resulted in lower audiences, with tournament reach5 decreasing by 21% compared to 2010.
As with other Asian countries, the bigger live match audiences seen in prime time at 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™ were not achieved by the later broadcast times of the 2014 event from Brazil. Live match average and peak match audiences both saw decreases.
2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ performed well in Australia. A unique audience reach5 of 8.2 million people watched the event in 2014 with a peak match audience of 2.5 million.

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

15

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 17 of 79 Page ID #:3123
In-home data sources and methodology
The majority of schedules and programming were sourced from the official television auditing agencies in markets, or in some cases directly from the FIFA “MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEES (MRLs)”. In addition, the current household penetration figures were confirmed via the same source for the majority of MRLs, or if this was not forthcoming, from either published data or via the Kantar Media and WPP network of offices. Furthermore, audience data, where available, has been gathered for each programme directly from MRLs. However, in some cases this has also been ordered from official television auditing agencies in the market.
It is worth noting that several territories have audience measurement panels which do not cover the entire territory. In such cases, the audiences are upweighted using the officially measured data in conjunction with population and television penetration information to account for the entire territory.
Where markets are able to split live coverage into pre-match, match and post-match and such coverage is of reasonable duration (more than three minutes), this has been displayed and analysed as separate highlights programming.
Where markets remain unrated, a methodology to “ESTIMATE AUDIENCES” was employed in each of the individual markets. This methodology is based on using the available data for licensees in the corresponding region as well as analysis based on a combination of the following variables:
o Household penetration of channel o Day part (early morning, morning, lunchtime, afternoon, prime time, late evening or late night) o Type of coverage (live, delayed, repeat, highlights / magazine) o Match (live games only) o Stage of competition (group match / round of 16 / quarter-finals / semi-finals / final; all non-live
programming) o Analysis of individual market (i.e. whether the market has a team competing in the tournament,
whether the market has a team competing in the fixture, the level of interest in football within a market, etc.) o Comparative audiences in the region

1 Please refer to Glossary for definition of all terms identified in “CAPITALS”

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

16

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 18 of 79 Page ID #:3124

Global 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM analysis
When based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes, the total audience reach of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ was 2.1 billion. However, when analysing the ‘three-minute’ audience reach, a total of 2.7 billion was achieved.
To establish the global audience reach of the event, official measured audience reach statistics were collected from 25 markets within this report. For the purposes of defining the audience reach below, viewers had to have watched a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes of 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM coverage. Please see the “Appendix” section for alternative reach condition analysis.

Audience Reach (millions) Reach as % of TV Population

300

Audience reach by territory

120%

Audience Reach

250

% of TV Population

100%

200

80%

150

60%

100

40%

50

20%

0

0%

The in-home reach5 of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ in these 25 key markets alone was 1.490 billion, 70% of the global projected reach5.
The world’s most populated country, China, achieved the highest audience reach5 of 252.3 million for 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™, which represents 19.8% of the TV population. CCTV-112, CCTV-512 and CCTV-5+12 all broadcast coverage alongside a number of provincial free-to-air broadcasters. These channels combined generated average live audiences of 9.7 million viewers, peaking at 29.7 million for the final match.
Host market Brazil recorded the second highest reach5 of the 25 key markets with 164.6 million people, 84.1% of the TV population. Coverage was broadcast across a wide variety of channels including TV Globo, Bandeirantes8, ESPN8, SporTV, Band Sports8 and Fox Sports8. Across all broadcasting channels, the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil achieved an average live audience of 45.4 million viewers for each of Brazil’s 7 matches.
Across the USA a live average audience of 27.6 million viewers watched the Final match between Germany and Argentina on ABC13, Univision14, ESPN Deportes13 and UDN14. A total unique audience of 105.3 million viewers, 35.7% of the TV population, were reached5 across the whole tournament.

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
8 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A
12 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CCTV 13 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ESPN & ABC Inc.
14 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Univision

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

17

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 19 of 79 Page ID #:3125

Indonesia achieved a unique audience reach5 of 103.4 million, with coverage broadcast on key channels including tvOne15 and ANTV16. The live matches across Indonesia attracted an average audience of 7.0 million. A peak match audience of 16.7 million viewers was achieved for Netherlands v Argentina semifinal.
Over 85 million people were reached5 in both Japan and India. In Japan the tournament reached5 97.3 million people. The national team’s 3 matches drew an average audience of 29.3 million viewers across the country; this is despite their live transmission start times of between 3am and 10am. Across India, a peak match audience of 5.1 million tuned in for live coverage of the Final match contributing to the country’s total reach5 of 85.7 million.
Elsewhere, in-home television coverage in Mexico of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ reached5 over 80 million people, over 75 million people in Russia were reached5 and the figure across Germany was over 65 million5. In other key European football markets, over 40 million people were reached5 in France, Italy and United Kingdom and nearly 33 million were reached5 across Spain.

To calculate the global reach of the event, a ratio was calculated taking in to account live average and peak audiences in each market, the universe of channels in each market and the reach in each of the measured markets shown on the previous page. This ratio was then used to extrapolate across all markets in the corresponding regions.

This methodology resulted in the event reaching a total of 2.1 billion individuals globally (based on viewing a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes); nearly a third (29%) of the world population17. However, if the
reach condition is reduced to viewers watching just one minute of coverage, the projected global reach
equates to 3.2 billion.

Individuals (millions)

1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000
800 600 400 200
0

1,526.5 758.7
Asia

Projected reach by region

20+ consecutive minutes 1+ minute

676.0 548.1

310.6 326.6

254.2 323.1

321.0 247.5

Europe

South America Africa & Middle North, Central

East

America &

Caribbean

11.6 17.6 Oceania

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes 15 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee PT Inter Sports Marketing 's sub-licensee PT Lativi Mediakarya
16 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee PT Inter Sports Marketing 's sub-licensee PT Cakrawala Andalas Televisi
17 Based on global population of 7.24 billion (UN Population Division 2014)

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

18

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 20 of 79 Page ID #:3126
It was Asia where the highest volume of reach5 was generated for 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™. A total of 758.7 million people were projected to be reached5 in this region with the largest contribution from China who accounted for a third (252.3 million) of the total reach5. Together with Indonesia, Japan and India, these 4 markets generated a total reach5 of 538.8 million, 71% of the regional total.
Across Europe there was a total audience reach5 of 548.1 million people. The major 5 European football markets of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom provided 235.8 million to this total5 (43% of the regional total). Further to these markets, Russian coverage contributed 75.7 million to the reach5 total whilst programming in Turkey reached5 nearly 40 million people. Other sizeable contributions came from Poland with 25.0 million5 and a projected reach5 of 23.6 million in Ukraine.
The host region of South America generated a reach5 of 310.6 million, largely driven by hosts Brazil (164.6 million) and other competing countries including Colombia (39.4 million) and Argentina (32.6 million). A further 247.5 million people were reached5 across North, Central America & Caribbean, primarily in USA (105.2 million), Mexico (81.5 million) and Canada (21.0 million).
Throughout Africa and Middle East an audience reach5 of 254.2 million was projected for 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™. With over 90 million projected across the Middle East and over 86 million projected from Nigeria and South Africa combined.
In addition to the in-home reach analysed in this section, it is acknowledged that there will be further reach through out-of-home coverage, including online and mobile viewing. However the large majority of individuals who accessed coverage through these media will also have watched through television inhome and therefore will be accounted for in the above analysis.

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

19

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 21 of 79 Page ID #:3127

The Germany v Argentina Final was the most watched match of 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM globally. An average live match audience of 545.4 million viewers tuned in (rising to 570.1 million when non-live programming is included as shown in the chart below); the main contributors to this were Germany and Brazil with over 34 million tuning in across all broadcasting channels in each country. The German figure on ARD was the highest TV audience of all time within the market. It is also worth noting that with the estimated live out-of-home audiences also considered, this total would be far higher.
Outside of the Final, the two semi-finals generated the highest in-home audiences of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™. The Brazil v Germany semi-final drew a live audience of 390.2 million viewers whilst the Netherlands v Argentina match attracted a live audience of 369.7 million people. A further 2 matches both featuring hosts Brazil, generated live audiences of over 300 million.
Overall, matches featuring Brazil and Germany attracted the most viewers globally with average live audiences of 299.7 million and 295.9 million respectively. Matches involving Argentina came next in the ranking with an average global live audience of 287.6 million. The average global live match audience across all 64 games was 186.7 million.
In total, 57 of the 64 matches staged at 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ produced global audiences (live and non-live combined) of over 100 million viewers.

Global average audience by match (Total audience of over 230 million shown)

Individuals (millions)

GER v ARG (Final)

545.4

24.7

BRA v GER (Semi Finals)

390.2

38.1

NED v ARG (Semi Finals)

369.7

26.5

BRA v CRO (Group Match)

339.1

23.5

BRA v CHI (Round of 16)

322.1

20.5

BRA v COL (Quarter Finals)

291.1

23.5

BRA v NED (3/4 Place)

287.2

19.6

BRA v MEX (Group Match)

288.1

17.2

NED v MEX (Round of 16)

284.5

18.0

FRA v GER (Quarter Finals)

276.8

24.0

ARG v BEL (Quarter Finals)

271.9

24.9

GER v POR (Group Match)

268.3

16.2

ESP v NED (Group Match)

252.0

20.3

ESP v CHI (Group Match)

249.0

14.7

ARG v SUI (Round of 16) GER v GHA (Group Match) NED v CRC (Quarter Finals)

241.2 232.6 218.4

18.2 15.9 27.7

Live Non-live (repeat, delayed)

GER v ALG (Round of 16) URU v ENG (Group Match)

227.2 230.3

17.0 13.5

ARG v IRN (Group Match)

224.3

10.7

3 See “Out-of-home” section for methodology and analysis

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

20

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 22 of 79 Page ID #:3128

TV Globo in Brazil generated the highest average audiences for live games, attracting on average 21.1 million viewers. This peaked at 42.9 million for Brazil’s opening match against Croatia.
NTA’s18 network in Nigeria, along with both ARD and ZDF in Germany, generated average live match audiences of over 10 million viewers (Nigeria’s figures are projected). ARD attracted an audience of 34.5 million for the Final match between Germany and Argentina whilst ZDF’s top match was the semi-final between Brazil and Germany which was watched by 32.5 million viewers.
TF119 in France and CCTV-512 in China drew average live match audiences of over 8 million viewers whilst beIN Sport in Middle East was projected an average of nearly 8 million. Rai 19 in Italy, BBC120 in United Kingdom and Telecinco21 in Spain all attracted average live audiences of over 6 million.
Overall, there were over 430 different channels broadcasting coverage of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ around the world, with 24 channels in 17 different markets achieving average audiences of more than 4 million for each live game.

0 Brazil - TV Globo Nigeria - NTA network Germany - ARD
Germany - ZDF France - TF 1
China - CCTV-5 Middle East - beIN Sport (FTA)
Italy - Rai 1 United Kingdom - BBC1
Spain - T5 Japan - TV Asahi
USA - ABC Algeria - ENTV Argentina - Canal 7 Japan - Nippon TV Indonesia - ANTV United Kingdom - ITV

Average live match audience by channel (Average of over 4.5 million shown)

5,000

10,000

15,000

8,757 8,079 7,951 7,385 6,521 6,276 5,987 5,922 5,774 5,431 5,405 5,058 4,944

11,813 11,714

Individuals (000s)

20,000

25,000

16,771

21,103

9 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee RAI 12 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CCTV 18 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Optima Sports Management International (OSMI) 19 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Télévision Française 1 SA 20 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee BBC 21 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Mediaset Espana Communicacion S.A.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

21

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 23 of 79 Page ID #:3129

A total of 98,087 hours of dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ were aired around the world. For the purposes of this report, this has been broken down into six regions (see below).
It was in the host region of South America where most coverage was aired with a total output of 25,178 hours across the 12 territories. The largest contribution to this total was by licensees in Argentina where 12 channels aired a total of 3,933 hours of dedicated coverage.
Across Europe a total of 20,144 hours were shown to audiences throughout 54 territories. Over 3,000 of these hours were shown in Italy alone across 9 broadcasting channels. And in Asia there 18,761 hours made available to audiences with China offering the most coverage, a total of 2,959 hours across 15 channels.
In Africa, AUB licensees and Pan-African broadcaster SuperSport contributed highly to the region’s total of 17,071 hours across 66 territories. A total of 12,952 hours were broadcast across North, Central America and Caribbean whilst audiences across Oceania had access to a total of 3,979 hours.

Region South America Europe Asia Africa & Middle East North, Central America and Caribbean Oceania Total

No. of territories
12 54 31 66 34 10 207

Total coverage (hh:mm) 25178:08 20144:44 18761:42 17071:15 12952:12 3979:00 98087:01

Hours of coverage Territories

30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000
5,000

Hours of coverage and territories by region 70

Hours of coverage

60

Territories

50

40

30

20

10

0
South America

Europe

0

Asia

Africa & Middle North, Central

Oceania

East

America and

Caribbean

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

22

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 24 of 79 Page ID #:3130

Total coverage of the tournament increased from 71,867 hours in 2010 to 98,087 hours in 2014, a rise of 36%. This was largely due to increased support programming (highlights / magazine) in all regions of the world as well as more repeat programming.
Live coverage of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ accounted to over 41% (40,633 hours) of the global TV coverage total. In 2014 there was a notable increase in support programming with highlights / magazine programming accounting for 29% (28,758 hours) of all TV coverage globally, compared to 20% (14,674 hours) during the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™. Repeat and delayed programming represented 24% (22,999 hours) and 6% (5,695 hours) respectively.

In-home coverage by programme type
Delayed 6%

Repeat 24%
Highlights /
Magazine 29%

Live 41%

Hours of coverage (thousands)

In-home coverage by programme type comparison

45

2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa

40 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Live

Highlights / Repeat

Delayed

Magazine

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

23

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 25 of 79 Page ID #:3131

The 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ proved more popular with men with an average across the 25 key markets of 61% of the audience being male.
In China, Australia and Thailand, over 70% of the average live audience was male. Whilst in the host market of Brazil, the difference between genders viewing live matches was far more balanced at 51% male and 49% female. Other more balanced markets included Korea Republic, Argentina and Colombia.

Live Game Audience Profile - Gender

Female

Male

23% 25% 29% 31% 33% 36% 37% 37% 37% 38% 38% 38% 39% 40% 41% 42% 42% 42% 43% 44% 45% 47% 48% 48% 49%

77% 75% 71% 69% 67% 64% 63% 63% 63% 62% 62% 62% 61% 60% 59% 58% 58% 58% 57% 56% 55% 53% 52% 52% 51%

Meanwhile, several markets attracted a slightly younger audience to their live games, including Guatemala, South Africa, Indonesia and Australia where over half the average audience were classified as young adults or children. However, the live match audiences in markets such as Korea Republic, Germany and Italy were much older.

Live Game Audience Profile - Age 22

18% 24%

22% 23%

18% 30%

24% 26%

21% 31%

30% 26%

30% 27%

21% 37%

27% 31%

36% 22%

40% 19%

32% 28%

27% 37%

33% 34%

44%

48%

46%

49%

48%

50%

48%

47%

59%

56%

49%

33% 36% 40% 37% 27% 29% 26% 30% 27% 25% 23% 25%

26% 22% 24% 24% 25% 25% 27% 29% 18% 25% 33%

25%

19%

12%

13%

21%

15%

17%

12%

15%

17%

18%

15%

33% 3%

26% 7%

23% 7%

27% 3%

23% 7%

20% 7%

22% 5%

20% 5%

18% 7%

16% 8%

17% 6%

15% 4%

14% 4%

Senior (50+)
Mid Life (3549) Young Adult (16-34) Children

22 Standard age breaks alter by market; therefore age classifications above should only be used as an indicative guide.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

24

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 26 of 79 Page ID #:3132

Further to gender and age differences, the economic status of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ viewers differed by market. Markets such as Germany, Australia, Canada, India and Poland attracted a more affluent viewer, where over 45% of the live game audience were classified as high socio-economic status, class or household earnings.

Live Game Audience Profile - Socio-Economic/Class/HH Earnings 23

11% 19% 18% 29% 21% 28% 12%

24% 19% 32% 28%

23%

40%

44%

10%

24%

38%

47%

51%

27% 36% 34%

66%

32%

33%

24%

38%

32%

49%

34%

51%

56%

43%

47%

33%

62% 16%

56%

34%

43%

31%

74%

57%

51%

55%

60%

72%

49%

49%

47%

41%

40%

39%

26%

25%

25%

25%

25%

23%

22%

20%

19%

19%

18%

16%

16%

13%

11%

34% 6%

24% 4%

Low Medium High

It is important to note that there are multiple factors that influence the live match profile of the viewers in each market, including time zone, channel platform, cost of access to channel, general interest in football as well as interest in the tournament itself (whether a team from the market is competing). In addition, the general population of a market will also have a bearing.

23 Socio-economic, class and household earning breaks and definitions alter by market; therefore the classifications above should only be used as an indicative guide. Please note, social class or earnings data is unavailable in Japan.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

25

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 27 of 79 Page ID #:3133

Out-of-home analysis
This report focusses on the in-home TV coverage and viewing, however, FIFA Marketing commissioned Ipsos Marketing to undertake analysis into the out-of-home consumption of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.
Nationally representative interviews in 16 key markets around the world took place immediately after the Final match. Respondents were asked where they watched each of the semi-final matches and the Final match and were able to select from a pre-defined list including at work, pubs, bars, restaurants, large scale public screenings, the stadium or whilst travelling.
The net results of this research showed that on average, for the Final match, there was a 9.8% uplift of the in-home audience via the various out-of-home media channels listed above.

30% 25%

2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match In-home audience uplift through out-of-home channels
24.0%

20%

15%

13.0%

15.0% 13.0%

10% 9.0% 9.0%

7.0%

10.0%

5%

14.0%

9.0%

12.0%

5.0%

5.0%

1.0%

0%

5.0% 5.0%

9.8%

Average % uplift of in-home audience
Argentina Brazil China
France Germany
India Italy Japan Mexico Russia South Africa South Korea Spain UAE UK USA Total

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

26

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 28 of 79 Page ID #:3134

Non-TV Consumption of 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM
In addition to the in-home and out-of-home television coverage considered, the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ enjoyed further distribution and usage via online, media players and apps.
There was more online coverage than any previous FIFA World Cup™ with 188 licensees offering 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage via websites, media players and apps. Not only was there more coverage but there were also more people than ever watching via these channels.
Between 2010 and 2014, internet usage has grown by nearly 50%, with close to 3 billion people online in 2014. Alongside the growth in usage, there has also been a growth in accessing digital content and, in particular, streaming live content. Consumer surveys* suggest this has increased by 36% for online TV viewing and 248% for mobile TV viewing, which is not surprising given that broadband penetration, mobile device usage and internet speed have all increased in many of the more developed markets. For the first time, broadcasters are able to provide a level of detail for digital media audience measurement that has not previously been available, and whilst this is not yet in the same level of detail on a global basis as for television, it does provide some data that allows Kantar to project the potential reach of dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ match content. Using online/mobile viewing data from 40 countries (all sourced directly from MRLs) and relating this back to the typical viewing patterns on TV, a projected 280 million people were reached by dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ match content online or on mobile. This equates to 9.6% of the global internet population in 2014. It is important to note that this does not account for shorter highlights or news clips and is purely based on official MRL data of match viewing. This is a conservative estimate given the relatively small amount of detailed data available. Some of the individual market highlights are shown below.
*Source: SportsScope 2010 & 2014

o A unique total of 3.5 million people in the USA watched their team’s round of 16 match against Belgium on WatchESPN13, a rise of over 200% on the highest figure from 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™. A further 1.8 million unique users, also a tournament high, watched across Univision’s Spanish language digital platforms. WatchESPN13 drew an average of 892,000 people to each of its matches, an increase of 174% compared to 2010. This uplift follows the TV story in the USA of increased popularity.
o In Brazil, via Globoesporte.com24, 21.6 million people accessed video streams from 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.
o 3.3 million unique viewers watched coverage of matches across the duration of the tournament on CBC.com25 across Canada. The best performing match was the semi-final match between Netherlands and Argentina with 381,000 unique video viewers.
o CNTV.cn Cbox11 offered the matches to the Chinese population generating an average unique viewing audience of 3.0 million for each of the 64 matches. This peaked at 7.6 million unique viewers for GER v POR in the group stage. To put this into context, the television reach (based on 1+ minute of viewing) in China for this match was around44 million.
o In Russia, a high of 1.3 million unique users accessed coverage of BRA v GER semi-final match.

11 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee CCTV
13 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ESPN & ABC Inc. 24 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A
25 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CBC

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

27

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 29 of 79 Page ID #:3135

o bbc.co.uk/worldcup20 attracted 15.9 million unique match video viewers across the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™, peaking at 1.1 million for BRA v GER semi-final, an uplift of 5% from the 21.7 million reach (based on 1+ minute) generated by the main BBC120 TV coverage. In total, BBC reached 50.4 million people via their TV coverage (based on 1+ minute) whilst 15.9 million unique users accessed match streaming footage across various devices. (NB. The TV audience reach figures and the broadband, mobile / app figures cannot be added together because they are based on different panels of research and are highly likely to be the same people (e.g. the above figures add up to more than the total population of the UK). There is no data currently available that distinguishes viewing exclusively on one form of media or another.)
o Chile’s strong performance in the tournament was reflected in their online audiences with an average of 68,000 unique viewers streaming live matches via Canal 13’s26 offering, rising to a peak of 241,000 for Chile’s match against Netherlands in the group stage.
o ELTA in Taiwan offered live match streaming via a website and app. The average unique live audience on the website Hichannel27, was 103,000, peaking at 508,000 for the final match.
o Yahoo! Japan28 averaged 180,000 unique viewers to their streamed matches, peaking at 641,000 for the semi-final match between Brazil and Germany. On average, 45% of accesses to 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ content on Yahoo! Japan28, were made through a mobile device.
o Italian Media Rights Licensee RAI offered live match streaming via their website generating an average of 58,000 viewers for each of the 25 available, peaking at 276,000 for the Italian team’s final group stage match against Uruguay.
o Mediaset Espana Communicacion S.A. in Spain made 25 live matches available for streaming via Cuatro21 and Telecinco21 websites. The matches drew an average live unique audience of 67,000 to each match with a high of 144,000 for the final match, GER v ARG. On average, 88% of the viewing was done via desktop/laptop devices. MediaPro offered all 64 games attracting an average live unique audience of 29,000 viewers and a peak of 61,000 for Netherlands v Costa Rica.
o In Korea Republic daily live unique viewing figures peaked on the day of Russia v Korea Republic, with 257,000 watching via MBC’s29 offering and 140,000 through KBS’s29 site. (no figures provided by SBS)
o NOS in the Netherlands provided all matches through digital channels and produced average live match unique viewing figures of 82,000 people with a high of 259,000 for the national team’s second group stage match against Australia.
o beIN Sports across Middle East and North Africa offered all 64 matches across the region. The average unique audience of a live match was 54,000 people with a peak match unique live audience of 121,000 for the opening fixture of the tournament between Brazil and Croatia.
o The top performing match in Vietnam via News Corp (ballball.com)30 was the Brazil v Germany semi-final match where 105,000 unique viewers streamed coverage.

20 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee BBC 21 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Mediaset Espana Communicacion S.A.
26 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI's sub-licensee Canal 13 Spa
27 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ELTA 28 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Dentsu
29 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee SBS International, Inc.
30 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee MP & Silva Pte. Ltd

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

28

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 30 of 79 Page ID #:3136

o Coverage across Monte Carlo TV6 and Teledoce6 websites in Uruguay drew average unique audiences of 9,000 people and 5,000 people respectively. The top performing match was Brazil v Croatia when 12,000 unique viewers tuned in.
o The device chosen to watch other media coverage of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ varied greatly from country to country. Some markets saw far more people watching via their desktop/laptop including Vietnam (98% on desktop/laptop), Poland (96%), Panama (95%), Brazil & Canada (93%) and Chile (91%).
o Whilst other markets favoured mobile/smartphone/tablet such as Malaysia (72% on mobile/smartphone/tablet), Spain & South Africa (66%), USA (62%), Costa Rica (57%), MENA (54%) and El Salvador (51%)

2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ content access by device31

Desktop/Laptop Mobile/Smartphone/Tablet

South America

82%

18%

Oceania

73%

27%

Europe

72%

28%

Asia

67%

33%

North, Central America and Caribbean

63%

37%

Africa and Middle East

40%

60%

Unique User Match Audiences - Average and Peak (Top 10 shown - based on 28 markets where relevant data was obtained)

Individuals (millions)

Russia 0.2

1.3

Netherlands

0.8

1.3

Costa Rica

0.5

1.3

Japan 0.1

0.6

Colombia 0.2

0.6

Canada 0.1

0.4

Peru 0.1

0.4

Malaysia 0.0

0.2

Spain 0.1 0.1

Average Peak

Argentina 0.0 0.1

6 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI 31 Based on available markets. Data supplied by Media Right’s Licensees. Not all Licensees were able to provide a breakdown of device access. Not
all Licensees provided, or were able to provide, data for non-TV coverage of any kind.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

29

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 31 of 79 Page ID #:3137

Global 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM final match analysis
The 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match reached 913.7 million in-home viewers based on watching just one minute of coverage, while additional “out-of-home” viewers pushed this total projected audience reach to 1.013 billion3.

Using a higher reach condition of viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes of coverage, the global audience reach of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match was 695.0 million. All reach conditions increased compared to the 2014 FIFA World Cup South Africa™ final match, but especially notable were the higher increases in the longer durations of viewing, 20+ minutes (+12.1%) and 30+ minutes (+11.4%) showing lengthier interest in the final match.
Across the 25 key markets where audited data was collated, a total of 487.8 million people were reached5 by the final match. The largest contributor was the host market of Brazil with a reach5 of 53.7 million viewers, followed by China (53.2 million), USA (39.3 million) and Germany (projected 36.6 million).
Of the available audited markets, Brazil and China combined accounted for an audience reach5 of 106.9 million, while the major European markets of France, Italy, Russia, Spain and the UK generated a combined reach5 of nearly 100 million. Additionally, reach5 figures of over 20 million were recorded in Indonesia, Mexico, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan and Russia.

To establish the global reach of the final, a ratio was calculated utilising the reach in each of the audited 25 key markets around the world. Additionally, the live average and peak audiences were considered by market along with the universe of broadcasting channels.

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

Territory

final match in-home reach5

final match in-home reach5

% change

South Africa

9,289,880

8,304,000

-10.6%

France

17,775,500

16,147,000

-9.2%

Italy

18,918,688

21,620,000

14.3%

Russia

22,120,000

21,420,000

-3.2%

Spain

21,588,000

16,277,000

-24.6%

United Kingdom

22,296,000

23,674,000

6.2%

USA

37,093,000

39,333,000

6.0%

Mexico

23,659,923

24,416,102

3.2%

Argentina

10,830,741

11,670,579

7.8%

Brazil

43,887,190

53,708,670

22.4%

China

52,530,000

53,176,000

1.2%

India

11,393,821

16,779,212

47.3%

Japan

11,495,790

21,564,400

87.6%

Korea Republic

4,376,718

6,318,000

44.4%

Australia

1,305,000

1,807,110

38.5%

Global Total

619,709,456

694,990,412

12.1%

2010 FIFA World Cup South AfricaTM

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

Reach condition

final match in-home reach

final match in-home reach

1+ minute

909,566,803

913,675,589

3+ consecutive minutes

792,668,084

840,814,688

20+ consecutive minutes

619,709,456

694,990,412

30+ consecutive minutes

566,998,277

631,884,232

3 See “Out-of-home” section for methodology and analysis 5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

% change 0.5% 6.1% 12.1% 11.4%

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

30

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 32 of 79 Page ID #:3138

The highest volume of audience reached5 by the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match was found in Europe with a total of 233.2 million viewers watching at least 20 consecutive minutes of coverage in-home. The highest contributors to the European reach5 total were Germany, United Kingdom, Italy and Russia, each of which generated figures of over 20 million. Increases compared to 2010 were found in both Italy (+14.3%) and United Kingdom (+6.2%).
Across Asia, over 170 million people were reached5 by the final match with China accounting for 31% (53.2 million). Indonesia and Japan also both contributed heavily with 28.2 million people reached5 and 21.6 million respectively. Additionally, both India and Japan enjoyed increases of over 40% compared to 4 years ago.
The host region of South America overtook Africa & Middle East as third highest contributor in 2014 (compared to 2010) with a total reach5 of 107.3 million people. Host market Brazil drew the highest reach5 (53.7 million) of any territory in the region and indeed any territory globally, with an increase of 22.4% compared to the last edition. 2014 finalists Argentina also generated an increased reach with a rise of 7.8% to 11.7 million viewers.
Elsewhere, both USA and Mexico increased their audience reach5 for the final match compared to 2010 with 39.3 million (+6.0%) and 24.4 million (+3.2%) respectively.

Individuals (millions)

250

233.2

200

150

100

50

0 Europe

170.1

2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match projected in-home reach5 by region

107.3

95.0

86.9

2.6

Asia

South America Africa & Middle North, Central Oceania

East

America &

Caribbean

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

31

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 33 of 79 Page ID #:3139

The in-home audience reach based on 1+ minutes of viewing was 913.7 million viewers; however, the global in-home average audience during the game was 570.1 million.
The highest average audiences, in audited markets, were recorded in China (over 40 million), host market Brazil & Germany (over 30 million), and USA (over 25 million). Furthermore, audited audiences of over 15 million were registered in United Kingdom, Indonesia, Italy and Mexico.
Elsewhere, a projected total audience of more than 47 million was generated by beIN Sports and its sublicensees across the Middle East region, whilst in Nigeria there was a projected average audience of over 30 million.
Competing nation Germany attracted a national all-time TV viewing record for the Final match of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™. Nearly half of the German population, on average, were tuned in to their TV inhome for the match.
The top 10 markets accounted for over half of the global in-home audience of the Final match.

2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ final match total average audience by territory (over 7 million shown, includes live, delayed and repeats)

Individuals (000s)

Middle East China

47,774 42,448

Brazil

39,930

Germany Nigeria

34,482 33,022

USA

27,724

UK

17,963

Indonesia Italy

16,511 15,926

Mexico

15,837

France Russia Argentina

14,556 12,901 12,161

Venezuela

11,971

Spain Colombia

11,300 9,978

Japan

9,726

Poland

8,935

South Africa

7,863

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

32

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 34 of 79 Page ID #:3140

Regional 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM analysis
Africa and Middle East
The projected in-home reach5 of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ across the region was 254.2 million. However, when looking at the viewing condition of 1+ minute, the projected total grows to 323.1 million.
Coverage across the Middle East and North Africa via beIN Sports and it’s sub-licensees generated a projected reach5 of over 100 million people whilst in Nigeria a reach5 of 58.5 million was projected.
Elsewhere, the audited audience reach5 in South Africa was 27.5 million across event, only 0.4 million lower than 4 years ago when they hosted the event.
Coverage in other competing markets in Africa such as Ivory Coast and Cameroon were projected reach5 audiences of 10.8 million and 4.1 million respectively.

Audience reach (million)

120 103.0
100

Projected in-home reach5 by territory Africa and Middle East (over 3 million shown)

80 58.5
60

40 27.5

20

10.8

5.9

5.8

4.1

4.0

3.4

0

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

33

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 35 of 79 Page ID #:3141

The largest average audiences across Africa and Middle East were generated in Nigeria by NTA’s18 network and by beIN Sports across the Middle East and North Africa. Each channel was projected to have attracted peak match audiences of over 30 million viewers, both finding their way into the top 10 match audiences globally.
An estimated audience of 33.8 million watched beIN Sports’ coverage of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ Final match between Germany and Argentina.
Elsewhere, average live match audiences were projected for competing markets Algeria (5.7 million), Ivory Coast (3.1 million) and Cameroon (1.2 million). Whilst measured audiences were available in South Africa, with SABC 1 generating an average live audience of 2.5 million people, peaking at 4.4 million for the Final.

Average and peak live average audience by channel Africa and Middle East (average of over 1 million shown)

Individuals(000s)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Nigeria - NTA + Regional

Pan Middle East - beIN Sports (FTA)

Algeria - ENTV

Ivory Coast - RTI

Iran - IRIB 3

South Africa - SABC 1 Kenya - KBC
Iran - TV Sports Channel

Average live audience Peak average live audience

Senegal - RTS

Cameroon - CRTV

Congo DR - RTNC

18 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Optima Sports Management International (OSMI) 32 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited (SABC)

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

34

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 36 of 79 Page ID #:3142

Over 17,000 hours of dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage were aired across the region in total. This is an increase of 30% compared to 4 years ago.
The key contributions came from Pan African broadcasters Supersport and Canal + with a combined total of nearly 5,000 hours. Supersport also aired directly into South Africa and Nigeria taking the total for this licensee alone to 6,164 hours.
Viewers across the Middle East and North Africa had access to 1,792 hours courtesy of beIN Sports. In South Africa viewers had access to 1,973 hours of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage with 381 of them coming via the higher penetration channels of SABC supplementing Supersport’s coverage.
In Nigeria audiences were not only able to watch on Supersport but also on the higher penetration NTA18 network, with totals of 833 hours and 193 hours respectively.
Elsewhere, total dedicated coverage of over 300 hours was found in Mauritius, Ghana, Zambia and Iran.
In total, the territories on the AUB distribution across the region aired over 5,600 hours of coverage.

Coverage (hh:mm)

6000:00
4893:35 4800:00

Coverage by territory - Africa and Middle East (over 300 hours shown)

3600:00

2400:00 1200:00
00:00

1973:51 1792:25 1026:15

802:44

589:58

492:00

328:00

318:00

18 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Optima Sports Management International (OSMI)

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

35

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 37 of 79 Page ID #:3143

Asia
A total in-home reach5 of 758.7 million viewers was projected for Asia, this is the highest total of all regions of the world for 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.
The biggest contributor was China with a reach5 of 252.3 million people, one third of the total in-home reach5 for Asia and 12% of the global total. Coverage was aired on multiple channels across China with a combination of national and provincial broadcasters making 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ programming available to its large population. This audience reach5 was the highest of any territory around the world.
In other markets around Asia, Indonesia generated a total reach5 of 103.4 million viewers whilst Japan reached5 97.3 million. Both markets feature in the top 5 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ audience reach5 markets globally.
Elsewhere, India produced a total audience reach5 of 85.7 million individuals whilst over 30 million people were reached5 in each of Vietnam, Thailand and Korea Republic.

Audience reach (million)

300
252.3 250

Projected in-home reach5 by territory Asia (over 12 million shown)

200

150

103.4

97.3

100

85.7

50

38.9

33.9

31.2

14.9

14.0

12.0

0

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

36

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 38 of 79 Page ID #:3144

Along with the highest level of audience reach5 in the region, China also generated the biggest average audiences too. The national broadcaster CCTV-512 drew an average audience of 8.1 million to each live match it aired from 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.
With representation on the field of play, it was Japan that attracted the single highest match audience in Asia when 34.1 million people tuned in for live coverage on NHK28 of Ivory Coast v Japan, their team’s opening fixture of the tournament. The match kicked off later in the day than all of the other 63 matches of the tournament, increasing the opportunity for audience in Japan; the game aired from 09:45 local time in Japan as opposed to from between midnight and 7am, when all other matches were available live.
Additionally to NHK28 in Japan, TV Asahi28 and Nippon TV28 both generated peak average live figures of over 20 million individuals.
Elsewhere, ANTV16 in Indonesia produced average live match figures of 5.1 million whilst tvOne15 in Indonesia and PTV33 in Pakistan drew average live match audiences of over 2 million.

Average and peak live average audience by channel Asia (average of over 2 million shown)

0 China - CCTV-5

10,000

20,000

30,000

Individuals(000s) 40,000

Japan - TV Asahi

Japan - Nippon TV

Indonesia - ANTV

Japan - NHK

Japan - BS NHK Japan - TBS
Japan - Fuji TV

Average live audience Peak average live audience

Indonesia - tvOne

Japan - TV Tokyo

Pakistan - PTV

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes 12 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee CCTV 15 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee PT Inter Sports Marketing 's sub-licensee PT Lativi Mediakarya 16 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee PT Inter Sports Marketing 's sub-licensee PT Cakrawala Andalas Televisi 28 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Dentsu 33 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Multi Screen Media Private Limited (SONY)

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

37

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 39 of 79 Page ID #:3145

A total of 18,761 hours of dedicated coverage were broadcast across Asia, 19% of the global total.
Once again, China led the way, contributing nearly 3,000 hours of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage to the total. This was shared amongst a combination of national and provincial broadcasters, totalling 15 channels. The 3 high penetration channels of CCTV showed 1,028 hours of coverage; this was complemented by 1,931 hours on provincial channels. Six of these provincial channels aired over 100 hours of dedicated coverage, among them were Guangzhou TV Competition11 and Guangdong TV Sports11.
In Vietnam, as with China, a combination of national and regional channels aired dedicated coverage, producing a country total of 1,966 hours. Of these, 360 hours were shown on the main channels of the Media Rights Licensee VTV30.
Each of Korea Republic, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia delivered over 1,000 hours of coverage. Key nationally available contributions in Korea Republic came from SBS29, MBC29 & KBS1 & 229, accounting for 641 hours of the country’s total.
Licensees in India, Mongolia, Thailand and Cambodia also featured in the top coverage markets in Asia with over 500 hours each.

4000:00 3200:00 2959:33

Coverage by territory - Asia (over 500 hours shown)

Coverage (hh:mm)

2400:00 1600:00
800:00

1966:37 1631:18 1580:52 1156:50 1136:02 720:54

703:51

633:45

584:00

00:00

11 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee CCTV 29 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee SBS International, Inc. 30 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee MP & Silva Pte. Ltd

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

38

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 40 of 79 Page ID #:3146

Europe
European broadcasters generated the second highest regional audience of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ with a total projected reach5 of 548.1 million individuals, 26% of the global projected reach5.
The highest figures within the region were generated across Russia with national broadcasters RTR and Channel One Russia contributing towards a total reach5 of 75.7 million individuals. This represents an increase of 11% compared to 4 years ago as the country gets closer to hosting the event in 2018.
Along with Russia, Germany also generated an audience reach5 that features inside the top 10 countries globally, with a projected total of 65.8 million, 12% of the regional total.
Over 40 million individuals were reached5 within each of France, Italy & United Kingdom whilst over 30 million people were reached5 in Turkey and Spain, over 20 million reached5 in Poland and over 20 million projected reach in Ukraine.
Netherlands produced an audience reach5 of 14.8 million individuals, representing 95.7% of the population, the highest proportion of a population of any territory around the world.

Audience reach (million)

80 75.7

70

65.8

Projected in-home reach5 by territory Europe (over 10 million shown)

60

50

47.2

45.3

44.5

39.9

40

32.9

30

25.0 23.6

20

14.8

10.1

10

0

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

39

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 41 of 79 Page ID #:3147

The highest average and peak audiences across the region unsurprisingly emerged from European finalists, Germany. Both ARD and ZDF drew average audiences of over 11 million individuals with ARD peaking with a live audience of 34.5 million for the Final match, a national all-time TV viewing record.
Other major European football markets also attracted strong average live match audiences including TF119 in France (8.8 million), Rai 19 in Italy (7.4 million), BBC120 in United Kingdom (6.5 million), Telecinco21 in Spain (6.3 million) and ITV in United Kingdom (4.9 million).
Elsewhere, both national channels in Russia drew average live match figures of over 4 million individuals whilst average live audiences of over 2.5 million were recorded on channels in Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Turkey.

Average and peak live average audience by channel Europe (average of over 2.5 million shown)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

Individuals(000s) 40,000

Germany - ARD

Germany - ZDF

France - TF 1

Italy - Rai 1

United Kingdom - BBC1

Spain - T5

United Kingdom - ITV Russia - Rossiya 1
Russia - Pervy Kanal

Average live audience Peak average live audience

Netherlands - Ned 1

Poland - TVP1

Spain - CUATRO

Turkey - TRT 1

9 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee RAI
19 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Télévision Française 1 SA 20 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee BBC
21 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Mediaset Espana Communicacion S.A.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

40

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 42 of 79 Page ID #:3148

Media Rights Licensees across Europe broadcast a total of 20,144 hours of dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage.
The highest proportion of this total originated in Italy where a total of 3,052 hours. 15% of the regional total, were aired. Rai showed 344 hours (176 of these across their high penetration channels Rai 19 and Rai 29). The remaining 2,708 hours were aired by Sky Italia10 across 6 different channels.
Other high contributions came from Bulgaria with over 1,000 hours aired across BNT channels, Iceland with nearly 800 hours on channels of Media Rights Licensees RUV (194 hours) and 365 Media Ltd34 (598 hours) and 747 hours aired throughout Spain on Telecinco21, Cuatro21, Energy21 and Gol TV.
A further 7 territories aired over 500 hours of dedicated programming including Portugal (741 hours), Turkey (738 hours) and Poland (733 hours).

Coverage (hh:mm)

4000:00 3200:00 3052:45

Coverage by territory - Europe (over 500 hours shown)

2400:00

1600:00 800:00

1066:58 793:51 747:09 741:09 738:53 733:43 684:49 669:27 644:26 580:39

00:00

9 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee RAI
10 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee RAI
21 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee Mediaset Espana Communicacion S.A. 34 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee EBU/RUV Iceland

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

41

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 43 of 79 Page ID #:3149

North, Central America and Caribbean
In-home coverage of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ reached5 a projected total of 247.5 million individuals across North, Central America and Caribbean, representing 12% of the global total.
The USA contributed most to the regional total with a reach5 of 105.3 million people. This is an increase of 11% compared to 4 years ago and a rise of 33% compared to 8 years ago, demonstrating a sustained period of growth of interest in the game.
High interest was also evident in Mexico where 81.5 million individuals were reached5 throughout the tournament, a rise of 14% compared to 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™.
In Canada, the audience reach5 was 21.0 million people whilst figures of over 5 million individuals are projected to have been reached5 in each of Cuba, Honduras, El Salvador and Dominican Republic.

Audience reach (million)

120 105.3
100 81.5
80
60
40 21.0
20
0

Projected in-home reach5 by territory North, Central America & Caribbean (over 2 million shown)

6.3

5.7

5.3

5.0

4.6

3.6

2.7

2.0

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

42

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 44 of 79 Page ID #:3150

In line with the reach5 figures it was USA where the highest average and peak live match audiences were recorded across North, Central America and Caribbean with ABC13 attracting an average audience of 5.9 million individuals for their live match broadcasts, peaking at 17.3 million for the Final match. ESPN13 in USA also attracted a strong peak audience when 18.2 million tuned in for USA v Portugal on the second Sunday of the tournament. Spanish language coverage on Univision in USA also performed well with an average live audience of 3.8 million.
Outside of the USA there were strong figures in Mexico where both TV Azteca 1335 and Televisa 236 both attracted average live audiences of over 4 million viewers and peak live match audiences of over 9 million. TV Azteca 735 also performed well with an average live match audience of 3.4 million.
In addition, average live match audiences of over 1 million were recorded in Canada, El Salvador and Honduras.

Average and peak live average audience by channel North, Central America & Caribbean (average of over 1 million shown)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

Individuals(000s) 20,000

USA - ABC

USA - ESPN

Mexico - Azteca 13

Mexico - Televisa Canal 2

USA - Univision

Mexico - Azteca 7 Canada - CBC USA - ESPN 2

Average live audience Peak average live audience

Mexico - Televisa Canal 5

El Salvador - Canal 4

Honduras - VTV

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes
13 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ESPN & ABC Inc. 35 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI's sub-licensee TV Azteca S.A. de C.V.
36 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI's sub-licensee Televisa S.A. de C.V.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

43

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 45 of 79 Page ID #:3151

There were a total of 12,952 dedicated hours of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage broadcast across North, Central America and Caribbean, representing a share of 13% of the global total.
Across the Caribbean there were a total 2,930 hours of coverage whilst in Mexico a total of 2,307 hours were shown across all licensed channels.
USA and Canada also broadcast over 1,000 hours each. In USA, English speaking coverage on ESPN13 channels (including ABC13) aired a total of 400 hours whilst Hispanic Univision channels broadcast a total of 1,256 hours.
Further key contributions of over 200 hours came from Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama and El Salvador.

Coverage (hh:mm)

4000:00

Coverage by territory - North, Central America & Caribbean (over 200 hours shown)

3200:00 2930:34

2400:00 1600:00
800:00 00:00

2307:06

1657:23

1147:10 802:44

476:30

333:41

289:40

255:35

229:32

226:15

13 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee ESPN & ABC Inc.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

44

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 46 of 79 Page ID #:3152

Oceania
A total projected reach5 of 11.6 million individuals were reached across Oceania by 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.
Of this reach5 total, Australia accounted for 71%, 8.2 million people, while the projected reach5 in New Zealand was 1.5 million.

Audience reach (million)

9

8.2

8

Projected in-home reach5 by territory Oceania (over 0.1 million shown)

7

6

5

4

3

2

1.5

1.3

1

0.3

0.2

0.2

0

The highest audiences were recorded in Australia by SBS137, which achieved average live match figures of 0.3 million individuals, peaking at 2.3 million people for the national team’s opening match against Chile.
TV One38 in New Zealand averaged 0.2 million for their live match broadcasts peaking at 0.4 million for the Final match between Germany and Argentina.

Average and peak live average audience by channel Oceania (average of over 5,000 shown)

Individuals(000s)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Australia - SBS 1 New Zealand - TV One Papua New Guinea - Kundu 2
Australia - SBS 2 Fiji - Mai TV
New Zealand - SKY Sport 5 French O'seas - 1ere
New Zealand - SKY Sport 4

Average live audience Peak average live audience

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes 37 Channel of the Media Rights Licensee SBS Australia 38 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee SBS Australia 's sub-licensee Television New Zealand Limited

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

45

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 47 of 79 Page ID #:3153

A total of 3,979 hours of dedicated 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ coverage were broadcasts across Oceania, a 4% share of the global total.
New Zealand provided the most coverage within the region, airing a total of 982 hours of the tournament. This total was split between free-to-air channel TV One38 with 83 hours and Sky New Zealand’s pay TV channels (Sky Sport 1 -539) with 899 hours.
A significant amount of coverage also aired across Australia where SBS showed 529 hours.

Coverage (hh:mm)

1200:00 800:00

982:02

400:00

00:00

Coverage by territory - Oceania (Top 5 shown)

802:44

529:13

370:00

185:00

38 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee SBS Australia 's sub-licensee Television New Zealand Limited 39 Channel of the main Media Rights Licensee SBS Australia 's sub-licensee Sky Network Television Network

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

46

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 48 of 79 Page ID #:3154

South America
Over 310 million individuals were projected to have been reached5 by in-home television coverage of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ across South America, this represents 15% of the global total.
By far the biggest contributor was the host market of Brazil where an audience reach5 of 164.6 million individuals was achieved. This is the second highest total of any territory globally, behind only China. The reach5 in Brazil is equivalent to 84% of the population whilst in China this figure is 20%.
Colombia and finalists Argentina also generated strong reach5 figures in South America with 39.4 million and 32.6 million respectively whilst a projection of over 20 million people were reached5 in Venezuela and over 10 million were projected in each of Peru, Chile and Ecuador.

Audience reach (million)

180 164.6 160

Projected in-home reach5 by territory South America (over 2 million shown)

140

120

100

80

60

39.4

40

32.6

20

21.4

16.7

13.4

11.4

4.5

2.9

2.7

0

5 Based on viewers watching a minimum of 20 consecutive minutes

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

47

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 49 of 79 Page ID #:3155

The single biggest contributor to audiences in South America was TV Globo in Brazil. The channel commanded an average audience of over 21 million for every live match it broadcast, peaking at 42.9 million for their national team’s opening live match against Croatia. This audience was the highest audience for a single 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ match transmission of any territory around the world.
Outside of Brazil, Canal 77 in Argentina drew strong audiences, not least because their team progressed all the way to the Final. An average audience of 5.4 million tuned into the channel’s live match broadcasts, peaking at over 10 million for their Final match against Germany.
In addition, Caracol6 in Colombia recorded average audiences in excess of 4 million, peaking at 8.5 million for their round of 16 match against fellow South Americans, Uruguay.

Average and peak live average audience by channel South America (average of over 1 million shown)

Individuals(000s)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Brazil - TV Globo

Argentina - Canal 7

Colombia - Caracol

Brazil - TV Bandeirantes

Venezuela - Venevision

Venezuela - TVes

Colombia - Canal RCN

Peru - ATV Venezuela - DirecTV
Chile - Canal 13

Average live audience Peak average live audience

Argentina - DirecTV

Ecuador - TC Television

Brazil - SporTV

Chile - TVN

Argentina - TyC Sports

6 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI 7 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Torneos y Competencias S.A.

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

48

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 50 of 79 Page ID #:3156

South America broadcast more dedicated coverage of 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ than any other region of the world. A total of 25,178 hours were shown within the region representing 26% of the global total.
The largest contributions came from licensees in Argentina where a total of 3,933 hours were shown. DirecTV6 aired the majority with 2,863 hours, whilst TyC Sports made 759 hours available. A further 247 hours were aired by the high penetration Canal 77.
In host market Brazil a total of 2,832 hours were shown across the tournament with ESPN8 channels airing 852 hours, more than 760 hours on SporTV, 599 hours on BandSports8, over 250 hours on Fox Sports8 channels, 198 hours on TV Bandeirantes8 and 164 hours on TV Globo.
DirecTV6 broadcast over 2,000 hours into each of Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Chile.

Coverage (hh:mm)

4800:00

Coverage by territory - South America (over 300 hours shown)

3600:00

3933:03 3512:47 3320:01 3186:56 3167:32 3072:15 2832:37

2400:00

1200:00 00:00

802:44 385:43 355:02 301:25

6 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee OTI 7 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Torneos y Competencias S.A. 8 Sub-licensee of the main Media Rights Licensee Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

49

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 51 of 79 Page ID #:3157
Appendix

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

50

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 52 of 79 Page ID #:3158

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM Broadcast summary by territory

Africa and Middle East

Total

Territory

Coverage

(hh:mm)

Algeria

50:00

Angola

170:25

Benin

164:00

Burkina Faso

189:00

Burundi

164:00

Cameroon

168:00

Cape Verde

164:00

Chad

164:00

Congo Brazzaville

168:00

Congo DR

170:00

Ethiopia

164:00

French Overseas Territories

802:44

Gabon

164:00

Ghana

492:00

Guinea-Conakry

164:00

Iran

318:00

Ivory Coast

164:00

Kenya

164:00

Liberia

155:30

Madagascar

164:00

Malawi

164:00

Mali

164:00

Mauritius

589:58

Mozambique

164:00

Namibia

164:00

Niger

164:00

Nigeria

1026:15

Pan Africa

4893:35

Pan Middle East

1792:25

Rwanda

164:00

Senegal

164:00

Seychelles

164:00

Sierra Leone

164:00

South Africa

1973:51

Swaziland

164:00

Tanzania

164:00

Togo

160:30

Zambia

328:00

Zimbabwe

179:00

Africa & Middle East total

17071:14

Total Programmes
26 109 66 91 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 453 66 198 66 129 66 66 61 66 66 66 430 66 66 66 922 3,888 1,433 66 66 66 66 2,804 66 66 63 132 74 12,397

Average TVR%
27.4 11.7 19.1 13.9 19.1 20.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 3.1 19.1 6.7 19.1 3.5 20.4 19.1 20.0 19.1 19.1 19.1 3.2 19.1 19.1 19.1 2.0 0.7 0.3 19.1 19.1 18.6 19.1 0.7 19.1 19.1 19.8 9.6 16.3 4.1

Live Coverage (hh:mm)
50:00 145:50 148:00 148:00 145:30 145:30 148:00 148:00 148:00 150:00 148:00 316:20 148:00 444:00 148:00 152:00 148:00 148:00 148:00 148:00 148:00 148:00 256:49 148:00 148:00 148:00 386:45 918:29 522:40 148:00 148:00 145:30 148:00 283:37 148:00 148:00 148:00 296:00 143:00 7906:01

Live Programmes
26 66 58 58 57 57 58 58 58 58 58 149 58 174 58 64 58 58 58 58 58 58 111 58 58 58 121 330 256 58 58 57 58 131 58 58 58 116 56 3,163

Average Live TVR%
27.4 19.1 21.0 21.0 21.3 22.4 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 8.7 21.0 7.4 21.0 6.7 22.5 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 10.7 21.0 21.0 21.0 13.2 5.7 4.2 21.0 21.0 20.8 21.0 5.3 21.0 21.0 21.0 10.5 21.1 15.7

Total Audience Reach (20+ consec. mins) 11,712,149 2,831,036 604,916 1,424,122 998,873 4,139,767 189,896 247,298 195,700 3,406,884 2,920,445 376,076 227,268 5,927,563 1,588,167 20,499,414 10,774,033 5,790,899 1,855,997 2,706,807 584,590 994,993 859,002 1,394,321 313,306 1,052,741 58,475,343 2,365,549 70,762,643 148,644 4,030,751 53,360 252,932 27,541,800 147,543 2,106,717 607,057 1,980,347 2,109,315 254,198,262

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

51

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 53 of 79 Page ID #:3159

Asia
Territory
Afghanistan Bangladesh Brunei Cambodia China Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan Korea Republic Kyrgyzstan Laos Macau Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal North Korea Pakistan Pan Asia Philippines Singapore Sri Lanka Taiwan Thailand Timor Leste Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Vietnam Asia total

Total Coverage (hh:mm)
134:45 304:00 227:26 584:00 2959:33 295:31 720:54 1136:02 460:12 1631:18 164:00 164:00 486:57 1580:52 344:45 703:51 472:00 164:00 164:00 380:10 332:00 448:00 1156:50 419:10 235:00 633:45 164:00 164:00 164:00 1966:37 18761:42

Total Programmes
60 143 152 211 2,299 282 746 677 216 1,259 66 66 299 967 130 335 223 66 66 495 194 323 717 204 108 537 66 66 66 1,672 12,711

Average TVR%
2.1 1.9 0.8 1.6 0.3 3.4 0.1 0.8 1.7 0.2 2.3 1.9 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.8 1.4 1.9 2.1 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.3 2.2 1.9 1.9 0.2 0.6

Live Coverage (hh:mm)
126:15 272:00 148:00 329:33 882:49 211:18 147:32 441:30 168:09 468:47 148:00 148:00 228:50 337:37 314:16 242:45 198:00 148:00 148:00 250:00 113:00 144:51 186:50 214:15 127:00 344:07 146:00 148:00 148:00 1115:39 8047:06

Live Programmes
56 127 58 114 395 108 69 171 65 158 58 58 112 136 114 106 95 58 58 113 57 58 72 83 54 131 58 58 58 527 3,385

Average Live TVR%
2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 0.7 2.0 0.5 1.7 3.3 1.1 2.6 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.6 1.2 3.0 2.1 2.4 1.3 3.8 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.5 1.1 2.4 2.1 2.1 0.3 1.4

Total Audience Reach (20+ consec. mins) 7,667,600 5,985,000 268,187 9,198,803 252,277,000 3,511,012 85,733,200 103,428,000 97,331,022 31,155,000 2,451,208 2,767,686 283,607 12,001,353 73,751 1,055,287 14,012,753 10,365,967 3,100,908 14,944,339 157,538 587,000 2,675,162 2,319,208 8,389,710 33,935,498 107,275 2,577,900 11,457,333 38,880,800 758,699,108

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

52

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 54 of 79 Page ID #:3160

Europe
Territory
Albania Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia-Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Kazakhstan Kosovo Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Malta Moldova Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Europe total

Total Coverage (hh:mm)
355:00 135:33 242:55 221:45 439:54 475:46 222:21 1066:58 228:04 267:51 191:27 284:10 197:46 231:02 644:26 210:12 243:46 580:39 403:33 793:51 187:19 257:34 3052:45 360:41 268:00 345:46 236:37 273:10 374:41 212:02 270:10 191:56 323:12 733:43 741:09 288:22 474:24 276:23 180:35 213:18 747:09 239:49 684:49 738:53 669:27 365:33 20144:44

Total Programmes
205 64 397 122 270 453 155 904 128 245 197 284 106 106 443 123 221 334 254 560 81 143 3,514 176 128 238 173 127 244 152 179 170 374 459 461 208 248 210 196 193 959 212 783 523 492 221 16,435

Average TVR%
2.5 5.6 3.9 2.5 0.7 6.3 5.4 1.0 6.8 3.5 2.1 4.4 3.7 5.3 5.3 3.5 7.3 2.5 2.4 5.2 5.8 3.0 0.3 1.9 2.8 1.2 2.5 3.8 5.0 2.0 3.0 13.8 4.0 1.4 2.7 2.8 1.1 5.4 2.6 5.0 0.8 5.6 6.0 0.5 0.5 4.7 2.7

Live Coverage (hh:mm)
264:30 120:33 113:21 187:00 139:50 256:05 123:06 265:13 125:01 139:24 119:07 144:21 149:35 172:54 171:37 138:33 118:37 232:20 161:01 140:00 165:12 90:50 258:16 316:40 268:00 133:41 141:16 258:35 121:44 123:52 133:10 134:51 138:40 338:30 225:31 126:52 124:24 137:55 122:42 122:25 163:35 129:03 349:46 183:20 299:51 166:47 8057:55

Live Programmes
128 56 57 89 64 127 56 124 56 66 56 69 66 64 95 64 62 97 66 65 57 46 121 123 128 58 65 119 61 58 60 66 65 121 101 65 55 66 58 58 83 64 179 78 134 66 3,682

Average Live TVR%
2.9 6.2 8.0 2.9 2.4 11.9 11.8 3.0 11.5 7.0 3.8 9.1 5.1 7.4 11.4 4.0 15.3 5.5 6.7 18.3 7.7 8.2 3.6 2.3 2.8 2.8 3.8 4.0 9.3 3.0 5.6 18.2 10.3 3.9 8.9 5.6 3.1 8.4 4.5 8.3 3.9 9.0 10.6 2.8 1.0 8.7 6.5

Total Audience Reach (20+ consec. mins) 2,325,192 1,709,700 5,352,045 3,398,771 4,792,250 7,733,411 3,464,200 4,995,712 3,215,824 511,252 6,770,412 4,228,000 876,798 3,197,823 47,165,000 891,248 65,831,015 7,818,237 6,275,283 160,028 2,833,315 3,132,038 45,346,000 8,262,500 1,191,319 1,473,078 2,188,416 1,303,336 282,442 2,095,389 413,064 14,800,900 3,878,000 25,044,400 7,309,442 10,138,000 75,740,000 4,844,606 3,441,284 1,322,829 32,927,000 6,107,048 5,389,874 39,882,923 23,575,667 44,481,000 548,116,070

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

53

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 55 of 79 Page ID #:3161

North, Central America & Caribbean

Territory

Total Coverage (hh:mm)

Total Programmes

Anguilla, Montserrat & Nevis

164:00

66

Antigua & Barbuda

164:00

66

Aruba

164:00

66

Barbados

164:00

66

Bermuda

164:00

66

Canada

1147:10

601

Cayman Islands

164:00

66

Costa Rica

476:30

275

Cuba

164:00

66

Curaçao & Bonaire

164:00

66

Dominican Republic

164:00

66

El Salvador

226:15

80

French Overseas Territories

802:44

453

Guatemala

255:35

133

Honduras

333:41

129

Jamaica

164:00

66

Mexico

2307:06

1,584

Nicaragua

289:40

128

Pan Caribbean

2930:34

1,975

Panama

229:32

122

St. Lucia

164:00

66

St. Vincent

164:00

66

Trinidad & Tobago

164:00

66

Turks & Caicos

164:00

66

USA

1657:23

1,431

North, Central America & Caribbean total

12952:11

7,835

Average TVR%
7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 1.2 7.3 3.5 7.3 7.3 7.3 17.2 2.6 3.6 8.4 7.3 1.0 3.8 1.3 2.9 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 0.2
2.3

Live Coverage (hh:mm)
148:00 148:00 148:00 148:00 148:00 518:58 148:00 272:21 148:00 148:00 148:00 171:30 316:20 132:07 333:41 148:00 392:32 259:34 950:36 196:32 148:00 148:00 148:00 148:00 557:50
6174:02

Live Programmes
58 58 58 58 58 205 58 120 58 58 58 58 149 70 129 58 174 112 405 89 58 58 58 58 248
2,571

Average Live TVR%
7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 1.6 7.9 5.4 7.9 7.9 7.9 19.6 4.2 6.4 8.4 7.9 2.0 4.0 2.9 3.3 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 0.7
5.1

Total Audience Reach (20+ consec. mins) 14,733 41,203 41,827 131,099 34,960 20,986,000 24,971 3,563,874 6,323,978 66,174 5,047,321 5,251,337 534,698 4,617,164 5,741,325 1,204,864 81,473,080 2,710,820 1,594,666 2,016,117 88,024 56,185 586,825 93,642 105,255,000
247,499,887

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

54

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 56 of 79 Page ID #:3162

Oceania
Territory
American Samoa Australia Cook Islands Fiji French Overseas Territories New Zealand Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Oceania total

Total Coverage (hh:mm)
185:00 529:13 185:00 185:00 802:44 982:02 185:00 185:00 185:00 370:00 185:00 3979:00

Total Programmes
97 540 97 97 453 560 97 97 97 194 97 2,426

Average TVR%
1.2 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.8

Live Coverage (hh:mm)
140:00 126:38 140:00 140:00 316:20 257:14 140:00 140:00 140:00 280:00 140:00 1960:13

Live Programmes
58 65 58 58 149 88 58 58 58 116 58 824

Average Live TVR%
1.7 1.2 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.4

Total Audience Reach (20+ consec. mins) 12,627 8,165,460 10,907 250,710 169,824 1,452,593 3,843 1,263,981 33,672 172,020 19,508 11,555,144

South America
Territory
Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador French Overseas Territories Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela South America total

Total Coverage (hh:mm) 3933:03
301:25 2832:37 3072:15 3167:32 3320:01 802:44 154:00 385:43 3186:56 154:00 355:02 3512:47 25178:07

Total Programmes
2,750 145 2,133 2,014 2,106 2,292 453 66 221 2,400 66 209 2,339 17,194

Average TVR%
1.2 6.3 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.8 7.3 3.3 0.9 9.2 3.6 1.5 1.2

Live Coverage (hh:mm)
955:32 179:55 912:16 1029:04 1057:34 1081:21 316:20 138:00 272:20 948:29 138:00 277:32 1182:08 8488:33

Live Programmes
420 70 419 428 429 477 149 58 112 418 58 96 508 3,642

Average Live TVR%
2.9 8.3 2.2 1.5 1.8 1.5 5.1 7.9 4.5 1.8 10.1 4.5 3.4 2.8

Total Audience Reach (20+ consec. mins) 32,563,530 2,949,139 164,602,136 13,390,991 39,413,970 11,441,966 187,672 497,289 4,482,587 16,721,875 302,698 2,681,613 21,394,659 310,630,124

Global total

98087:01

68,998

2.1

40633:52

17,267

5.8

2,130,698,597

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

55

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 57 of 79 Page ID #:3163

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM reach analysis by viewing condition

Territory
Brazil South Africa China India Japan Korea Republic France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Australia Argentina Global total

1+ minute reach

2010 FIFA World Cup

2014 FIFA World Cup

South AfricaTM

BrazilTM

167,392,892 29,070,430 609,396,000 106,474,176 121,983,105 42,661,324 53,060,700 53,244,952 110,460,000 42,574,000 53,381,000 161,544,000 76,118,073 8,852,000 36,053,612 3,203,442,519

172,936,917 31,359,900 744,067,000 214,333,000 113,169,666 37,868,000 53,549,000 50,107,000 111,300,000 38,218,000 53,249,000 153,630,000 90,242,985 12,471,290 34,663,125 3,190,806,281

% change
3% 8% 22% 101% -7% -11% 1% -6% 1% -10% 0% -5% 19% 41% -4% 0%

Territory
Brazil South Africa China India Japan Korea Republic France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Australia Argentina Global total

3+ consecutive minutes reach

2010 FIFA World Cup

2014 FIFA World Cup

South AfricaTM

BrazilTM

164,877,867 28,983,505 498,280,000 84,903,670 118,278,906 41,715,490 51,663,645 51,674,896 97,020,000 41,542,000 51,819,000 129,660,000 75,693,365 7,479,000 35,423,733 2,833,248,376

170,549,961 30,459,000 497,945,000 159,218,800 109,848,660 36,016,000 51,872,000 48,858,000 99,400,000 36,719,000 50,730,000 130,636,000 87,880,753 10,820,350 34,167,938 2,743,684,486

% change
3% 5% 0% 88% -7% -14% 0% -5% 2% -12% -2% 1% 16% 45% -4% -3%

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

56

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 58 of 79 Page ID #:3164

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM reach analysis by viewing condition

Territory
Brazil South Africa China India Japan Korea Republic France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Australia Argentina Global total

20+ consecutive minutes reach

2010 FIFA World Cup

2014 FIFA World Cup

South AfricaTM

BrazilTM

157,512,436 27,949,380 328,718,000 44,894,503 108,699,081 39,416,956 44,891,913 46,614,585 68,460,000 39,384,000 46,817,000 94,489,000 71,723,645 5,574,000 33,633,135 2,211,577,468

164,602,136 27,541,800 252,277,000 85,733,200 97,331,022 31,155,000 47,165,000 45,346,000 75,740,000 32,927,000 44,481,000 105,255,000 81,473,080 8,165,460 32,563,530 2,130,698,597

% change
5% -1% -23% 91% -10% -21% 5% -3% 11% -16% -5% 11% 14% 46% -3% -4%

Territory
Brazil South Africa China India Japan Korea Republic France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Australia Argentina Global total

30+ consecutive minutes reach

2010 FIFA World Cup

2014 FIFA World Cup

South AfricaTM

BrazilTM

154,278,832 27,275,580 275,621,000 35,242,482 103,717,572 38,233,263 42,206,571 44,300,360 60,480,000 37,845,000 44,435,000 86,149,000 68,690,017 5,047,000 32,607,107 2,023,163,070

161,439,066 25,954,500 198,886,000 67,361,800 91,710,858 28,381,000 45,053,000 43,522,000 67,620,000 31,404,000 42,379,000 97,442,000 78,144,916 7,206,130 31,608,809 1,948,917,933

% change
5% -5% -28% 91% -12% -26% 7% -2% 12% -17% -5% 13% 14% 43% -3% -4%

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

57

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 59 of 79 Page ID #:3165

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM final match audience summary

Territory
South Africa France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Argentina Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Global Total

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM final match in-home total average audience 7,862,977 14,294,000 15,926,086 12,901,243 11,299,972 17,963,000 23,895,450 15,836,850 12,160,508 35,762,879 42,447,925 5,103,841 9,726,433 2,759,185 1,304,000 561,817,266

% change v. 2010
-12% 1% 5% -5% -19% 0% -2% -24% 41% 7% 12% -14% 13% 25% 45% 6%

Territory
South Africa France Italy Russia Spain United Kingdom USA Mexico Argentina Brazil China India Japan Korea Republic Australia Global Total

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM final match in-home reach 8,304,000 16,147,000 21,620,000 21,420,000 16,277,000 23,674,000 39,333,000 24,416,102 11,670,579 53,708,670 53,176,000 16,779,212 21,564,400 6,318,000 1,807,110 694,990,412

% change v. 2010
-11% -9% 14% -3% -25% 6% 6% 3% 8% 22% 1% 47% 88% 44% 39% 12%

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

58

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 60 of 79 Page ID #:3166

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM Media Rights Licensees

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST Afghanistan Algeria

FIFA FIFA beIN SPORTS

FIFA Angola

AUB

Bahrain

FIFA

FIFA Benin
AUB

Botswana

FIFA

AUB

FIFA Burkina Faso
AUB

FIFA Burundi
AUB

FIFA Cameroon
AUB

FIFA Cape Verde
AUB

Central African Republic

FIFA

AUB

Ariana Radio & Television Network (ATN) beIN SPORTS ENTV - Etablisement Public de Télévision African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International TPA - Televisão Publica de Angola beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International ORTB - Radiodiffusion et Television Du Benin CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International RTB - Radiodifussion Télévision du Burkina Faso African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International RTNB - Radio Television National Burundi African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International CRTV - Camberoon Radio & Television African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International RTC - Radio TV du Cap-Vert African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

59

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 61 of 79 Page ID #:3167

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST

FIFA Chad

AUB

Comoros

FIFA

FIFA Congo Brazzaville
AUB

FIFA Côte d'Ivoire
AUB

Democratic Republic of

FIFA

Congo

AUB

Djibouti

FIFA

Egypt

FIFA

Equatorial Guinea

FIFA

AUB

Eritrea

FIFA

AUB

FIFA Ethiopia

AUB

French Overseas

FIFA

Territories (Africa) TF1

FIFA Gabon
AUB

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International ONRTV - Office National de Radio et Television du Tchad beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International RTI - Radiofidfusion Television Ivoirienne African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International beIN SPORTS beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International ETS - Ethiopian Radio and Television Agency TF1 - Télévision Française 1 SA France Télévision beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International RTG - Radiodiffusion Télévision Gabonaise

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

60

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 62 of 79 Page ID #:3168

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST

Gambia

FIFA

AUB

FIFA Ghana
AUB

Guinea Bissau
Guinea Conakry
Iran Iraq Jordan Kenya Kuwait Lebanon Lesotho
Liberia Libya

FIFA
AUB
FIFA
AUB FIFA beIN SPORTS FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB FIFA FIFA
FIFA
AUB
FIFA
AUB FIFA

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International GBC - Ghana Broadcasting Corporation Metro TV Ltd African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International RTG - Radiodiffusion Télévision Guinéenne beIN SPORTS IRIB - Iranian National TV beIN SPORTS beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International KBC - Kenya Broadcasting Corporation beIN SPORTS beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International LBS - Liberia Broadcasting System beIN SPORTS

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

61

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 63 of 79 Page ID #:3169

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST
FIFA Madagascar
AUB

FIFA Malawi
AUB

FIFA Mali

AUB

Mauritania

FIFA

FIFA Mauritius

AUB

Morocco

FIFA

FIFA Mozambique
AUB

FIFA Namibia
AUB

FIFA Niger
AUB

Nigeria

FIFA

Oman

FIFA

Palestine

FIFA

Qatar

FIFA

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International
ORTM - Office de la Radio Televivsion Publiques de Madagascar
African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International ORTM - Office de Radio Diffusion Television du Mali beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International MBC- Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International TVM - Televisão de Mocambique African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International NBC - Namibian Broadcasting Corporation African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International ORTN - L'Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision du Niger Supersport International (PTY) Limited OSMI - Optima Sports Management International Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International beIN SPORTS beIN SPORTS beIN SPORTS

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√

√ √ √

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

62

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 64 of 79 Page ID #:3170

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST

FIFA Rwanda

AUB

Saudi Arabia

FIFA

FIFA Senegal
AUB

FIFA Seychelles
AUB

Sierra Leone

FIFA

AUB

Somalia

FIFA

FIFA

South Africa

SABC

Sudan

FIFA

FIFA Swaziland

AUB

Syria

FIFA

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International Rwanda Broadcasting Agency beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International RTS - Radiodiffusion Télévision Sénégalaise African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International SBC - Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International beIN SPORTS SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited Supersport International (PTY) Limited Radio 2000 Radio 5FM Music Radio CKI FM Radio Good Hope FM Radio Ikwekwezi FM Radio Lesedi FM Radio Ligwalagwala FM Radio Lotus FM Radio Metro FM Radio Motsweding FM Radio Munghana Lonene FM Radio Phalaphala FM Radio RSG Radio SAfm Radio Thobela FM Radio Ukhozi FM Radio Umhlobo Wenene FM Radio X-K fm beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International Swaziland Television Broadcasting Authority beIN SPORTS

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

63

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 65 of 79 Page ID #:3171

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST

FIFA Tanzania

AUB

Tunisia

FIFA

FIFA Togo

AUB

UAE

FIFA

Uganda

FIFA

AUB

Yemen

FIFA

FIFA Zambia
AUB

Zanzibar

FIFA

FIFA Zimbabwe
AUB

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE
African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International TBS - Tanzania Broadcasting Services beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International TVT - Télévision Togolaise beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International beIN SPORTS African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International MUVI TV ZNBC - Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) Supersport International (PTY) Limited Canal+ Afrique BBC World Service Africa Radio France International CFI - Canal France International ZBC - Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation

RIGHTS PROVISION

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

64

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 66 of 79 Page ID #:3172

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

AMERICAS

Antigua & Barbuda

FIFA

IMC

Anguilla

FIFA

FIFA

Argentina TyC

Antilles (Netherlands) Aruba Bahamas Barbados Belize Bermuda
Bolivia

FIFA FIFA IMC FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA FIFA
Tarrague (Esmas)
OTI
OTI/Red Untiel

Fragola Overseas

IMC - International Media Content Ltd. Kelcom International IMC - International Media Content Ltd. TyC - Torneos y Competencias S.A. Tele Red Imagen SA Channel 7 Futbol para Todos Tele Red Imagen SA DirecTV Latin America Telecom Personal SA ARTEAR (Channel 13 Buenos Aires) (Highlights only) ESPN Sur S.R.L. (Highlights only) incl. FM 107.9 & AM 630 Radio Rivadavia TELEFE (Television Federal / Channel 11) (Highlights only) Pensado para Televisión S.A. (PPT) (Highlights only) Telearte S.A. (Channel 9) (Highlights only) America TV S.A. (Channel 2 & America 24) (Highlights only) C5N (Grupo Indalo) (Highlights only) Canal 26 (Eventos Producciones S.A.) (Highlights only) C5N (Telepiu S.A.) (Highlights only) Fox Cable Network incl. Radio 1030 AM Radio Del Plata (Highlights only) Radiodifusora del Centro S.A. (Cadena 3) AM 950 - Radio 9 La Deportiva (Emociones y Pasiones S.A) Radio América (AM 1190 America) Radio Vorterix (FM 103.1) Radio La Red (Red Celeste y Blanca S.A.) DirecTV Latin America Radio Hoyer NV IMC - International Media Content Ltd. TeleAruba N.V. IMC - International Media Content Ltd. IMC - International Media Content Ltd. IMC - International Media Content Ltd. IMC - International Media Content Ltd.
OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C.
Tarrague (Esmas) Millicom Spain S.L. / Tigo TSB - Red Unitel (Canal 2) Red Uno de Bolivia Ecor Ltda. Alfonso Arevalo Aranibar y Jose Ronald Dordova Lopez Coteor Ltda. Cosett Ltda. Cotes Ltda. Cooperativa de Telecommunicaciones Potosi "Cotap" Ltda. Cotas Ltda. Giros Electronicoas Elegir S.R.L. (Fragola Overseas) Cotel Ltda. Comteco Ltda.

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

65

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 67 of 79 Page ID #:3173

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

AMERICAS FIFA

Brazil

TV Globo

British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Canada
Chile

FIFA FIFA FIFA CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC CBC FIFA
OTI
OTI/Canal 13
OTI/TVN Chile Tarrague (Esmas)

Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (TV Globo) SporTV (Globosat) Rádio e Televisão Bandeirantes Ltda. BandSports ESPN do Brasil Fox Sports Brasil Rádio Itatiaia Ltda. Rádio 105 FM Rádio Amazonas - Rádio 1010.FM (Rádio TV do Amazonas Ltda.) Rádio Bandeirantes (Rádio e Televisão Bandeirantes Ltda. ) Rádio Brasil Sul Ltda. Rádio Clube do Pará PRC 5 Limitada - EPP Rádio CBN (Rádio Excelsior S.A.) Radio EBC - Empresa Brasil de Comunicação Rádio Familia 104.5 FM Rádio Gaúcha S.A. Rádio Globo S.A. - Rio de Janeiro Rádio Globo - Sao Paulo Rádio Jornal do Commercio (Rádio Miracema do Norte) Rádio Jovem Pan (Radio Panamericana S.A.) Rádio Liberdade de Caruaru Ltda. Radio Manchete 760AM (Nasseh Comunicação Ltda.) Rádio Metropole (Empresa Metropolitana de Radiodifusão Ltda.) Rádio Olinda Pernambuco Ltda. Rádio Paiquerê Ltda. Rádio Sociedade (Rádio Fundaçao Santo Antonio) Rádio Transamérica de São Paulo Ltda. Rádio Tupi S.A. Rádio Verdes Mares Ltda. IMC - International Media Content Ltd. IMC - International Media Content Ltd. CBC - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Bold TV SRC - Radio Canada TLN - Telelatino Network TVA Sports Rogers Sportsnet Fairchild Bragg Ccommunications Inc. TSN Radio OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Tarrague (Esmas) Television Nacional de Chile (Canal 7) Canal 13 Spa Cdf / Canal de Futbol Radio Agricultura Radio Cooperativa Radio Bio Bio ADN Radio DirecTV Latin America Telefonica Chile, Telefonica Moviles Chile, Telefonica Empresas Chile

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
√

√ √ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

66

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 68 of 79 Page ID #:3174

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

AMERICAS
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba Curaçao Dominica Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador French Overseas Territories (Americas) Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana Haiti

FIFA
OTI
OTI/DirecTV Tarrague (Esmas) FIFA
OTI OTI/Repretel OTI/Televisora de Costa Rica Tarrague (Esmas) FIFA
FIFA FIFA FIFA
OTI
OTI/Canal 2 & OTI/Canal 10 OTI/Canal 10
FIFA OTI Tarrague (Esmas) FIFA TF1 FIFA FIFA
OTI
OTI/Canal 3 Tarrague (Esmas) FIFA FIFA

OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Tarrague (Esmas) Caracol Television S.A. Caracol Radio RCN TV RCN Radio DirecTV Latin America Win Sports S.A.S. (Extended Highlights) Millicom Spain S.L. / Tigo
OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C.
Tarrague (Esmas) Representaciones Televisivas Repretel S.A. (Canal 6) Televisora de Costarica S.A. (Canal 7 / Teletica) Radio Monumental
Radio Colombia
Millicom Spain S.L. / Tigo IMC - International Media Content Ltd. IMC - International Media Content Ltd. Radio Hoyer NV IMC - International Media Content Ltd. IMC - International Media Content Ltd.
OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C.
Tarrague (Esmas) Television del Pacifico Teledos S.A. (Canal 2 / Gamavision) Telecentro Cadena Ecuatoriana de Television (Channel 10) DirecTV Latin America
Television y Radio de Ecaudor EP RTVE Ecuador
OROMAR (Sistemas Globales de Comunicacion HCGLOBAL S.A.)
OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C.
Tarrague (Esmas) Telecorporacion Salvadorena (Canal 2, 4, 6) Millicom Spain S.L. / Tigo TF1 - Télévision Française 1 SA France Télévision beIN SPORTS IMC - International Media Content Ltd.
OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C.
Tarrague (Esmas) Radio Television Guatemala S.A. (Canal 3) Televisiete S.A. (Canal 7) Teleonce S.A. (Canal 11) Trecevision S.A. (Canal 13) Radio Cadena Sonora
Radio Red Deportibva /RCN Guatemala (Inversiones Also, S.A.)
Millicom Spain S.L. / Tigo IMC - International Media Content Ltd. IMC - International Media Content Ltd.

√ √

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
√

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

67

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 69 of 79 Page ID #:3175

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

AMERICAS Honduras
Jamaica Mexico Montserrat Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru Puerto Rico Suriname St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia

FIFA
OTI
OTI/Canal 5 Tarrague (Esmas) FIFA IMC FIFA
OTI FIFA FIFA
OTI
FIFA
OTI OTI/Corporacion Medcom S.A. FIFA
OTI
OTI/TV Cerro Cora
OTI/TV Accion/Telefuturo
Television Cerro Cora, S.A. Tarrague (Esmas) FIFA
OTI OTI/ATV OTI Tarrague
FIFA
FIFA IMC FIFA FIFA

OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Tarrague (Esmas) Telesistema Hondureño S.A. de C.V. (Canal 3 y 7) Compania Televisora Hondureña S.A. de C.V. (Canal 5) Corporacion Centroamericana de Comunicacion S.A. de C.V. (VICA or Canal 2, 9, 13) Radio HRN (Emisoras Unidas) Radio América (Audiovideo) Millicom Spain S.L. / Tigo IMC - International Media Content Ltd. CVM Television Ltd. OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Tarrague (Esmas / Televisa Deportes) Televisa S.A. de C.V. TV Azteca S.A. de C.V. IMC - International Media Content Ltd. OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Tarrague (Esmas / Televisa Deportes) Televicentro de Nicaragua S.A. (Canal 2) Radio y Television Nicaraguense, S.A. (Ratensa / Canal 10) OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Tarrague (Esmas / Televisa Deportes) Televisora Nacional, S.A. (Canal 2 & TV MAX) Corporacion Medcom Panama, S.A. (Canal 4, Cable Onda Sports, RPC, Telelmetro)
Cable Onda S.A.
OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Tarrague (Esmas / Televisa Deportes) Television Cerro Cora, S.A. (Canal 9) TV Accion S.A. / Telefuturo (Canal 4) Radio La Red Radio La Union Tigo Sports Radio Cardinal AM (Teledifusora Paraguaya S.A.) Radio Monumental Radio Monte Carlo Radio Montecarlo (Division 970 AM) Millicom Spain S.L. / Tigo OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C. Tarrague ATV - Andina de Radiodifusion S.A.C. (Canal 9) DirecTV Latin America Radio RPP S.A.C. DirecTV Latin America Telefonica Moviles SA ESPN Inc. Futbol de Primera Univision (incl. Telefutura & Galavision) IMC - International Media Content Ltd. Surinaamse Televisie Stichting IMC - International Media Content Ltd. IMC - International Media Content Ltd.

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

68

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 70 of 79 Page ID #:3176

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

AMERICAS St. Vincent Trinidad & Tobago Turks & Caicos
Uruguay

FIFA IMC FIFA IMC FIFA FIFA
OTI
OTI/Monte Carlo TV/SAETA/Canal 12

USA US Virgin Islands
Venezuela

Tarrague (Esmas) FIFA FIFA FIFA
OTI
OTI/Venevision Tarrague (Esmas)

IMC - International Media Content Ltd. Kelcom International IMC - International Media Content Ltd. One Caribbean Media Limited IMC - International Media Content Ltd.
OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C.
Tarrague (Esmas) Montecarlo TV S.A. (Canal 4)
SAETA - Sociedad Anonima Emisoras de Television y Anexos (Canal 10)
Sociedad de Televisora Larranaga S.A. / Teledoce (Canal 12) CX22 Radio Universal (Difusora del Plata, S.A.) CS8 Radio Sarandi - 690 AM Internacional AM 1480 (Rivera) Radio Cristal (Lidasol S.A. Radio El Espectador 810 & 92.5 FM (Lanos S.A.) Radio Oriental 770 Radio Sonora (S.A.D.R.E.P.) Regueira y Barros S.H. (Hombre de Football) Somerland S.A. Miguel M. Racioppi Antel (Baral Group, LLC) ESPN Inc. Futbol de Primera Univision (incl. Telefutura & Galavision) ESPN Inc. IMC - International Media Content Ltd.
OTI - Organizacion de Telecomunicaciones Iberoamericanas, A.C.
Tarrague (Esmas) Continental T.V. C.A. (Meridiano TV)
Corporacion Venezolana de Television C.A. (Venevision / Canal 4)
Fundacion Venezolana Social TV (TVES) DirecTV Latin America Union Radio Medios A.C. Vivo Play Holding

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√ √ √
√ √ √ √ √

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

69

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 71 of 79 Page ID #:3177

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

ASIA Brunei
Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia

FIFA M-League Measat
FIFA SONY
Seven3 Rockers
FIFA SONY FIFA FIFA

China, Peoples Republic of CCTV

Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region) India

FIFA
ELTA
FIFA FIFA SONY FIFA

Indonesia, Republic of ISM

FIFA

Japan

Dentsu

Korea DPR Kyrgyzstan

FIFA
FIFA Saran Media Limited

M-League Marketing Sdn Bhd Astro (Measat Broadcast Network Systems) Kristal Astro Sdn Bhd Radio Television Brunei MSM - Multi Screen Media Private Limited (SONY) Seven3 Rockers Private Limited BTV Maasranga TV (Maasranga Communications Ltd) Gazi TV MSM - Multi Screen Media Private Limited (SONY) Seven3 Rockers Private Limited CBS - Cambodian Broadcasting System Co. Ltd. CCTV - China Central Television CNTV.cn Iqiyi.com LETV.com SINA.com SOHU.com Tencent YoukuTudou Inc. ELTA Technoloogy Co. Ltd. TVBS (Liann Yee Production Co. Ltd) PTS ChungHwa Telecom (Northern Taiwan Business Group Chunghwa Telecom Co. Lrd)
TVB - Television Broadcast Limited
MSM - Multi Screen Media Private Limited (SONY) All India Radio PT Inter Sports Marketing (ISM) PT Cakrawala Andalas Televisi (ANTV) PT Lativi Mediakarya (TV ONE) PT Visi Media Asia Tbk (VIVA) Kompas TV / PT Digital Vision Nusantara (K Vision) PT Bhakti Artha Persada (Channel name: domikado) PT TSB - Teknologi Siaran Budiana PT Radio Citra Bahana Limbangan PT Telekomunikasi Selular Radio Republik Indonesia Dentsu Inc. JC - Japan Consortium JC/Fuji TV JC/NHK JC/NTV JC/TV Asahi JC/TBS JC/TV Tokyo Legends Stadium Logtail Live Station Jorte Yahoo! Japan NextTV Forum (4K matches only) Perform Media Japan K (Goal.com) SBS International, Inc. ABU - Asian Broadcasting Union Saran Media Limited NTS - New Broadcasting Network

√ √ √ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √

√ √

√ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√ √

√ √

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

70

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 72 of 79 Page ID #:3178

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

ASIA Laos Macau Malaysia
Maldives
Mongolia Myanmar Nepal
Pakistan Philippines Singapore South Korea
Sri Lanka Tajikistan Thailand Timor-Leste Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Vietnam

FIFA FIFA FIFA
M-League
Esprit Media FIFA SONY Seven3 Rockers FIFA
Emerge Media
FIFA FIFA SONY
Seven3 Rockers
FIFA SONY
Seven3 Rockers
FIFA FIFA SingNet FIFA
SBS
FIFA SONY Seven3 Rockers FIFA FIFA RSBS FIFA FIFA
Saran Media Limited
FIFA FIFA
MP & Silva Pte. Ltd

TVLAO Co. Ltd. Teledifusão de Macau S.A. M-League Marketing Sdn Bhd Astro (Measat Broadcast Network Systems) Esprit Media Sdn Bhd Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) (The Government of Malaysia) MSM - Multi Screen Media Private Limited (SONY) Seven3 Rockers Private Limited MBC - Maldives Broadcasting Corporation Emerge Media LLC Mobicom Mass.mm Radio FMs 99.7 & Radio FM 105.5 Sky Net (Shwe Than Ltwin Media Company Ltd) MSM - Multi Screen Media Private Limited (SONY) Seven3 Rockers Private Limited Nepal Television Kantipur Television MSM - Multi Screen Media Private Limited (SONY) Seven3 Rockers Private Limited PTV Ten Sports / Taj TV ABS CBN (Balls TV) SingNet Pte. Ltd. (SingTel) Mediacorp TV Singapore Pte. Ltd. SBS International, Inc. KBS - Korean Broadcasting System MBC - Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation MSM - Multi Screen Media Private Limited (SONY) Seven3 Rockers Private Limited SLRC (Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation) Saran Media Limited RS International Broadcasting & Sports Management Co. Ltd (RSBS) Advance Info Service Public Company Limited RTTL, E.P. Saran Media Limited State Committee for Television, Radio broadcasting and Cinematography of Turkmenistan Saran Media Limited MP & Silva Pte. Ltd VTV Television News Corp (ballball.com)

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

71

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 73 of 79 Page ID #:3179

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

EUROPE Albania Andorra Armenia
Austria

FIFA EBU EBU/RTV Albania FIFA TF1 FIFA FIFA EBU EBU/PTV Armenia FIFA EBU
EBU/ORF

Azerbaijan Belarus
Belgium

FIFA EBU EBU/Ictimai FIFA EBU EBU/BTRC Belarus FIFA
EBU
EBU/RTBF

Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia Cyprus
Czech Republic Denmark (incl. Greenland & Faroe Island) Estonia

EBU/VRT
FIFA EBU
EBU/BHRT
FIFA EBU
EBU/BNT Bulgaria
FIFA EBU EBU/HRT Croatia FIFA EBU EBU/CYBC Cyprus FIFA EBU
EBU/CTV Ceska
FIFA
SVT Sweden
FIFA EBU EBU/ERR Estonia

EBU - European Broadcasting Union RTV - Radiotelevisioni Shiqptar Digit-Alb (Supersport SS HD) Radio Tirana TF1 - Télévision Française 1 SA beINI SPORTS MediaPro (Gol TV) EBU - European Broadcasting Union PTV - Public Television of Armenia Armenia TV & H2 ARM Radio - Public Radio of Armenia EBU - European Broadcasting Union ORF - Oesterreichischer Rundfunk Krone Multimedia - krone.at Servus TV / Redbull Mediahouse ATV ProSiebenSat.1 PULS4 Ö1, Ö2, Ö3, FM4 EBU - European Broadcasting Union Ictimai Idman (idmantv.az) EBU - European Broadcasting Union BTRC - Belaruskaja Tele-Radio Companija 1st Channel Radio Station "Belarus" / Radio "Stolitsa" / Radius FM EBU - European Broadcasting Union RTBF - Radio-Television Belge de la communaute Francaise VRT - Vlaamse Radi en Televisieomroep RTL (News only) Antenne Centre (News only) Vivacité / La Premiére VTM & TVL (News only) Radio 1, Radio 2, MNM & Studio Vivacité / La Premiére EBU - European Broadcasting Union BHRT - Radio -Televizija Bosne i Hercegovine FTV & RTRS (News only) BH Radio 1 EBU - European Broadcasting Union BNT - Balgarska Nationala Televizija Mobitel EAD - mtel.bh / tv.mtel.bg Bulgarian National Radio Horizont Channel (BG BNR) EBU - European Broadcasting Union HRT - Hrvatska Radiotelevizija Hrvatski Radio EBU - European Broadcasting Union CYBC - Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation CYBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 EBU - European Broadcasting Union CTV - Ceska Televize TV NOVA Cesky Rozhlas 1 - Radiozurnal (CZ CR) SVT Sweden DR DK Danmarks Radio TV TV 2 Denmark EBU - European Broadcasting Union ERR - Eesti Rahvusringhääling - Estonian Public Broadcasting Vikerradio

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

72

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 74 of 79 Page ID #:3180

TERRITORY
EUROPE Finland France Georgia
Germany
Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Kazakhstan Kosovo

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

FIFA SVT Sweden FIFA TF1
FIFA
FIFA EBU EBU/GT Georgia FIFA SportA
SportA/ARD/ZDF
FIFA
FIFA
FIFA EBU EBU/MTV Hungary FIFA EBU EBU/RUV Iceland FIFA EBU EBU/RTE Ireland
FIFA EBU
EBU/IBA FIFA RAI FIFA FIFA EBU FIFA EBU EBU/RTK Kosovo

SVT Sweden YLE Finland TF1 - Télévision Française 1 SA beIN SPORTS Europe 1 Telecompagnie SAS Radio France RMC - Radio Monte Carlo RTL France (Ediradio SA) RTV Slovenija Radio Slovenija GT - Georgian Public Broadcasting Public Radio - 1 Channel / Radio Two - Georgian Radio SportA ARD ZDF RTL Television Germany (Highlights only) SKY Deutschland (Highlights only) ProSiebenSat.1 (Highlights only) Magine TV BILD.de (Highlights only) DFB (Highlights only) Radio Antenne Bayern GmbH & Co. KG Radio BSC Broadcast Sachsen GmbH & Co. KG Radio Center Berlin Radio Hamburg GmbH & Co. KG Radio NRW GmbH Radio / Tele FFH GmbH EBU - European Broadcasting Union EDT Radio Real FM Radio Novasports (Organismos Meson Mazikis Epikoinonias SA EBU - European Broadcasting Union MTV - Magyar Televizio DIGI Sport Magyar Radio 1 MR1 EBU - European Broadcasting Union RUV - Rikisutvarpid (Icelandic National Broadcasting Service) 365 Media Ltd (Stod 2 Sport) RUV - Ràs 2 EBU - European Broadcasting Union RTE - Radio Telefis Eireann TV3 TG4 RTE Radio One & 2 FM EBU - European Broadcasting Union IBA - Israel Broadcasting Authority Charlton (Sport 1/2/HD) CH2 (Reeshet - reshet.tv) IBA Radio "Kol Israel", Reshet Bet RAI - Radiotelevisione Italiana Sky Italia SRL RTL 102.5 Hit Radio S.R.L. EBU - European Broadcasting Union Kazakhstan TV & Radio (First Channel Eurasia & KasSport) EBU - European Broadcasting Union RTK - Radio Television Kosovo Digit-Alb (SS Kosova HD) Radio Kosova

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√ √

√ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

73

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 75 of 79 Page ID #:3181

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

TERRITORY
EUROPE Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia
Malta
Moldova Monaco Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway Poland
Portugal
Romania

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

FIFA EBU EBU/Latvian TV FIFA
EBU
FIFA EBU EBU/LT Lithuania FIFA FIFA EBU EBU/MKRTV Macedonia FIFA EBU
EBU/PBS Malta
FIFA EBU EBU/TRM Moldova FIFA TF1 FIFA EBU EBU/RTCG Montenegro FIFA EBU
EBU/NOS
FIFA SVT Sweden FIFA EBU EBU/TVP Poland
FIFA
EBU
EBU/RTP Portugal
FIFA EBU EBU/TVR Romania

EBU - European Broadcasting Union LV - Latvian TV Latvian Radio (LV LR) EBU - European Broadcasting Union

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
√ √ √ √ √

SRG SSR (incl. SF, TSR, RSI, Raddio DRS, RSR, RSI Radio, Radio Rhaeto-Romania)

√

√

√

√

EBU - European Broadcasting Union LT - Lietuvos Radijas ir Televizija LRT Radijas, LRT Opus, LRT Klasika RTL France (Ediradio SA) EBU - European Broadcasting Union MKRTV - Macedonian Radio and Television Macedonian Radio (MRA1, MRA2, MRA3) EBU - European Broadcasting Union PBS - Public Broadcasting Services One TV Net TV Smash TV Favourite TV Radio Malta EBU - European Broadcasting Union TRM - Teleradio-Moldova Radio Moldova - Radio Moldova International TF1 - Télévision Française 1 SA beIN SPORTS EBU - European Broadcasting Union RTCG - Radio Television Montenegro Radio Montenegro EBU - European Broadcasting Union NOS - Nederlande Omroep Stichting SBS RTL FOX Sport1 NOS Radio 1, 2 & 3 / NOS Radio (Langs de Lijn) SVT Sweden NRK Norway TV2 Norway EBU - European Broadcasting Union TVP - Telewizja Polska SA Sport1 Polish Radio EBU - European Broadcasting Union Radio Noticias Radio Renascença RTP - Radio e Televisao Portugal COFINA (CMTV) Sport TV RTP Radio - Antena 1 EBU - European Broadcasting Union TVR - Televiziunea Romana Radio Romania Broadcasting Corporation

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

74

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 76 of 79 Page ID #:3182

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

EUROPE Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom Vatican State

FIFA EBU
EBU/RTR/Channel One RTR FIFA RAI FIFA EBU EBU/RTS Serbia FIFA EBU EBU/RTVS Slovakia FIFA EBU EBU/RTVS Slovenia
FIFA
FIFA SVT Sweden FIFA EBU FIFA EBU EBU/TRT Turkey FIFA EBU
EBU/NTU Ukraine
EBU/NTU/TRBC
FIFA FIFA RAI

EBU - European Broadcasting Union

√ √ √ √

RTR - Rossijskoe Teleradio (All Russian State TV and Radio Broadcasting Company)

√

√

√

√

Channel One Russia

√ √ √ √

NTV+

√

Radio Mayak

√

Sportbox (www.sportbox.ru)

√

RAI - Radiotelevisione Italiana

√ √ √ √

Sky Italia SRL

√ √

√

EBU - European Broadcasting Union

√ √ √ √

RTS - Radiotelevizija Srbije

√ √ √ √

Radio Belgrade

√

EBU - European Broadcasting Union

√ √ √ √

RTVS - Radio and Television Slovakia

√ √ √ √

Radio Slovensko - Radio Regina - Radio FM - Radio Patria Radio Devin

√

EBU - European Broadcasting Union

√ √ √ √

RTVS - Radiotelevizija Slovenja

√ √ √ √

RTV Slovenija Radio Slovenija

√

MediaPro (Gol TV)

√

√ √

Mediaset Espana Communicacion S.A.

√

√ √

Radio Cadena Cope

√

Radio Cadena SER

√

Radio Onda Cero

√

Radio Radio Marca

√

Radio RNE

√

SVT Sweden

√ √ √ √

TV 4 Sweden

√ √ √ √

Sveriges Radio

√ √ √

EBU - European Broadcasting Union

√ √ √ √

SRG SSR (incl. SF, TSR, RSI, Raddio DRS, RSR, RSI Radio, Radio Rhaeto-Romania)

√

√

√

√

EBU - European Broadcasting Union TRT - Turkiye Radyo-Televizyon Kurumu RTR Radio 1, TRT FM EBU - European Broadcasting Union NTU - Natsionalna Telekompanya Ukrainy 1st Channel Ukraine TV (TRBC - Television and Radio Broadcasting Company Ukraine, LLC) Football TV & Football Plus TV (TRBC - Television and Radio Broadcasting Company Ukraine, LLC) Digital Screens (oll.TV) (TRBC - Television and Radio Broadcasting Company Ukraine, LLC) 1st Channel ("The First") and 2nd ("Promin" - engl "Ray") UA NRU Radio Company - Studio "1+1" (News only)) Radio Company "Era" (News only) "Hrvis-Kind" (2+2) (News only) TV Channel "NTN" (News only) BBC ITV talkSPORTS Limited RAI - Radiotelevisione Italiana Sky Italia SRL

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

75

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 77 of 79 Page ID #:3183

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

OCEANIA American Samoa Australia Cook Islands
Federated State of Micronesia
Fiji
French Overseas Territories (Oceania) Guam Kiribati
Nauru
Niue New Zealand
Northern Mariana Island Palau Papua New Guinea
Samoa

FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva Click Pacific FIFA
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva Click Pacific
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva Click Pacific Mai TV
FIFA
TF1 FIFA
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva FIFA
SBS Australia
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva FIFA SBS Australia
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva
FIFA
SBS Australia MP & Silva Click Pacific

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE

RIGHTS PROVISION

ESPN Inc. SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited Samoa Quality Broadcasting Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited Elijah Communications T/A Cook Islands Television SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited Mai TV Fiji TV TF1 - Télévision Française 1 SA France Télévision beIN SPORTS ESPN Inc. SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Sky Network Television Network TVNZ - Television New Zealand Limited ESPN Inc. SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation MP & Silva SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited Samoa Quality Broadcasting Limited

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √

√

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

76

T V Radio Mobile Broadband Internet

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 78 of 79 Page ID #:3184

TERRITORY

LICENSOR

OCEANIA Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
NEWS ONLY Worldwide NEWS MATCH DAY-1 ONLY

FIFA SBS Australia MP & Silva Click Pacific
FIFA SBS Australia MP & Silva FIFA SBS Australia MP & Silva FIFA SBS Australia MP & Silva
FIFA FIFA

worldwide

FIFA

IN-FLIGHT & IN-SHIPS

worldwide excl. Japan

FIFA

MEDIA RIGHTS LICENSEE
SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SATSOL Telekom Television Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited SBS - Special Broadcasting Services Corporation Click Pacific Limited MP & Silva Click Pacific Limited
CNN - Cable News Network Deutsche Welle
Agence France Press APTN BBC World Service Perform Group Reuters Limited SNTV
IMG Media Limited (TWI / Futbol Mundial)

RIGHTS PROVISION

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √ √ √

√

√

√

√

√ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
√

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

77

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 171-6 Filed 02/20/20 Page 79 of 79 Page ID #:3185
Glossary of terms
Audience reach: the net number of unique individuals that watched an event for a minimum of a stated number of consecutive minutes. For the purposes of this report, 20 consecutive minutes has been used, as a recognised industry standard for engagement with football, however three minute reach has also been quoted throughout. Average audience: in audited markets, an audience is measured each minute throughout the day. The average audience is the sum of each audience for each minute during a broadcast, divided by the duration of coverage in minutes. Channel(s): the television station which the Media Rights Licensee used to show the event in-home. Dedicated coverage: the television time the event is aired for, based on specific devoted event coverage including live games, repeats, event highlights and magazine shows. Dedicated coverage therefore excludes clips shown in news bulletins and in non-dedicated magazine coverage such as FIFA Futbol Mundial or World Sport. Estimated audience: as many markets remain unaudited around the globe, estimated audiences are employed to predict the audience for coverage. For this event, the methodology outlined in the “In-home data sources and methodology” section was used. In-home viewing: the audience measurement based on all viewers from within the home, including guests. Market Share %: the audience expressed as a percentage of the total viewing audience watching television during a particular time period Media Rights Licensee (MRL): an organisation which has been granted certain media rights to the 2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM in relation to the live and continuous transmission of the international TV signal of each match in a particular territory or territories. Peak average audience: the highest average audience of any single programme from all broadcasts. Peak match audience: the highest match audience, where all programmes for a match are considered (i.e. all live, delayed and repeat programmes). TVR%: the audience expressed as a share of the total possible television viewers in a particular market. Unique Visitors: the number of different people who access the video content. It is based upon one or more of the following types of information garnered from visitors: their IP address, their member name (if the particular site uses membership or if the visitor is part of a commercial service’s panel), or their “cookies” (personal identification information).

2014 FIFA World Cup BrazilTM

78

 
 ACCO,(AGRx),DISCOVERY,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:19−cv−01717−RGK−AGR

Alex Morgan et al v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc. Assigned to: Judge R. Gary Klausner Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg Related Case: 2:20−mc−00017−RGK−AGR Cause: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Alex Morgan

represented by Diana Hughes Leiden Winston and Strawn LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071−1543 213−615−1700 Fax: 213−615−1750 Email: dhleiden@winston.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian D Netter Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 202−263−3000 Fax: 202−263−3300 Email: bnetter@mayerbrown.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cardelle B Spangler Winston and Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 312−558−5600 Fax: 312−558−5700 Email: cspangler@winston.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David G Feher Winston and Strawn LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166−0005 212−294−6700 Fax: 212−294−4700 Email: dfeher@winston.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeanifer E Parsigian Winston and Strawn LLP 101 California Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415−591−1000 Fax: 415−591−1400 Email: jparsigian@winston.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey L Kessler Winston and Strawn LLP

Plaintiff Megan Rapinoe

200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 212−294−6700 Fax: 212−294−4700 Email: jkessler@winston.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman Winston and Strawn LLP 333 South Grand Avenue 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−615−1700 Fax: 213−615−1750 Email: ltsukerman@winston.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Saharsky Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 202−263−3000 Fax: 202−263−3300 Email: nsaharsky@mayerbrown.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian D Netter (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Saharsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Becky Sauerbrunn
Plaintiff Carli Lloyd

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian D Netter (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Saharsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian D Netter (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address)

Plaintiff Morgan Brian
Plaintiff Jane Campbell

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Saharsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Danielle Colaprico
Plaintiff Abby Dahlkemper

Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tierna Davidson
Plaintiff Crystal Dunn
Plaintiff

Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Ertz
Plaintiff Adrianna Franch
Plaintiff Ashlyn Harris

represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler

Plaintiff Tobin Heath
Plaintiff Lindsey Horan

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian D Netter (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Saharsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address)

Plaintiff Rose Lavelle
Plaintiff Allie Long

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Merritt Mathias
Plaintiff Jessica McDonald

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Samantha Mewis
Plaintiff Alyssa Naeher

Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian D Netter (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Saharsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kelley OHara
Plaintiff Christen Press

David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian

Plaintiff Mallory Pugh
Plaintiff Casey Short

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Emily Sonnett
Plaintiff Andi Sullivan

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff McCall Zerboni
V. Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.

represented by Diana Hughes Leiden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cardelle B Spangler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G Feher (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanifer E Parsigian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lev Tsukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jamie L Wine Latham and Watkins LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022−4834 212−906−2904 Fax: 212−751−4864 Email: jamie.wine@lw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian M Stolzenbach Seyfarth Shaw LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 312−460−5000 Fax: 312−460−7000 Email: bstolzenbach@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Chantelle C Egan Seyfarth Shaw LLP 560 Mission Street Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−397−2823 Fax: 415−397−8549 Email: cegan@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020
Cheryl A Luce Seyfarth Shaw LLP

233 South Wacker Drive Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606 312−460−5000 Fax: 312460−7000 Email: cluce@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Ellen E McLaughlin Seyfarth Shaw LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 312−460−5000 Fax: 312−460−7000 Email: emclaughlin@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Giovanna A Ferrari Seyfarth Shaw LLP 560 Mission Street 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−397−2823 Fax: 415−397−8549 Email: gferrari@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020
Kara L Goodwin Seyfarth Shaw LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 312−460−5000 Fax: 312−460−7000 TERMINATED: 06/17/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Kristen M Peters Seyfarth Shaw LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067−3021 310−277−7200 Fax: 310−201−5219 Email: kmpeters@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020
Kuan Huang Latham and Watkins LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022−4834 212−906−1200 Fax: 212−751−4864 Email: kuan.huang@lw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kyllan B Kershaw Seyfarth Shaw LLP 1075 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309−3958 404−885−6766 Fax: 404−892−70056 Email: kkershaw@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020 PRO HAC VICE

Interested Party Richard M. Nichols

Michele D Johnson Latham and Watkins LLP 650 Town Center Drive 20th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626−1925 714−540−1235 Fax: 714−755−8291 Email: michele.johnson@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noah A Finkel Seyfarth Shaw LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 312−460−5000 Fax: 312−460−7000 Email: nfinkel@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Sarah M Gragert Latham and Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004−1304 202−637−2200 Fax: 202−637−2201 Email: sarah.gragert@lw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharilee K Smentek Seyfarth Shaw LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 312−460−5000 Fax: 312−460−7000 Email: ssmentek@seyfarth.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2020 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Richard M. Nichols 802 Glendale Drive Keller, TX 76248 415−314−0066 PRO SE
Jeffrey L Kessler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor
Stephen P Wallace TERMINATED: 03/24/2020

Date Filed 03/08/2019

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973−23339973 − Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiffs Julie Ertz, Alyssa Naeher, Danielle Colaprico, Emily Sonnett, Megan Rapinoe, Allie Long, Kelley OHara, Alex Morgan, Merritt Mathias, Christen Press, Rose Lavelle, Ashlyn Harris, Andi Sullivan, Casey Short, Jane Campbell, McCall Zerboni, Becky

03/08/2019 03/08/2019 03/08/2019 03/08/2019

Sauerbrunn, Tierna Davidson, Adrianna Franch, Samantha Mewis, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Abby Dahlkemper, Carli Lloyd, Mallory Pugh, Crystal Dunn, Jessica McDonald, Morgan Brian. (Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Morgan Brian(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Jane Campbell(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Danielle Colaprico(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Abby Dahlkemper(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Tierna Davidson(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Crystal Dunn(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Julie Ertz (pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Adrianna Franch(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Ashlyn Harris(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Tobin Heath(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Lindsey Horan(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Rose Lavelle(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Carli Lloyd(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Allie Long (pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Merritt Mathias(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Jessica McDonald(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Samantha Mewis(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Alex Morgan(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Alyssa Naeher(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Kelley OHara(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Christen Press(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Mallory Pugh(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Megan Rapinoe(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Becky Sauerbrunn(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Casey Short(pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Emily Sonnett (pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party Andi Sullivan (pty:pla), Attorney Diana Hughes Leiden added to party McCall Zerboni(pty:pla))(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
2 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Exhibit A to Complaint) as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,, 1 . (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Exhibit (non−trial),, 2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,, 1 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
5 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni, identifying Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Carli Lloyd, Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Casey

03/08/2019 03/08/2019
03/08/2019
03/08/2019 03/08/2019 03/11/2019 03/11/2019

Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni, and United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
6 NOTICE (First ) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
7 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Jeffrey L. Kessler to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−23340129) filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
8 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney David G. Feher to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−23340235) filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
9 NOTICE of Filing of Motion for Transfer of Action with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
10 NOTICE (Second) filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
11 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Manuel L. Real and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (lh) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
12 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request,, 4 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons

03/11/2019
03/11/2019 03/11/2019
03/11/2019 03/12/2019 03/12/2019 03/14/2019

cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (lh) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
13 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Cardelle B. Spangler. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (lh) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
14 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Exhibit (non−trial),, 2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,, 1 filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
15 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Cardelle B. Spangler to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−23352397) filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
16 NOTICE (Third) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
17 21−Day Summons Issued re Complaint 1 as to Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (gk) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
18 ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL ACTION pursuant General Order 19−03. ORDER case transferred from Judge Manuel L. Real to the calendar of Judge R. Gary Klausner for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:19−cv−01717 RGK(AGRx). Signed by Judge Manuel L. Real and Judge R. Gary Klausner. (rn) (Entered: 03/13/2019)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Julie Ertz, Alyssa Naeher, Danielle Colaprico, Emily Sonnett, Megan Rapinoe, Allie Long, Kelley OHara, Alex Morgan, Merritt Mathias, Christen Press, Rose Lavelle, Ashlyn Harris, Andi Sullivan, Casey Short, Jane Campbell, McCall Zerboni, Becky Sauerbrunn, Tierna Davidson, Adrianna Franch, Samantha Mewis, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Abby Dahlkemper, Carli Lloyd, Mallory Pugh, Crystal Dunn, Jessica McDonald, Morgan Brian, upon Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. served on 3/12/2019, answer due 4/2/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Registered Agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons returned.

03/14/2019
03/14/2019
03/14/2019
03/27/2019 03/27/2019 03/28/2019 03/28/2019 03/28/2019 03/28/2019 03/28/2019

(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
20 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Jeffrey L. Kessler to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni and designating Diana Hughes Leiden as local counsel 7 by Judge R. Gary Klausner (lc) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
21 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney David G. Feher to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerbon and to Appear Pro Hac Vice 8 by Judge R. Gary Klausner (lc) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
22 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Cardelle B. Spangler to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoeand designating Diana Hughes Leiden as local counsel 15 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (lc) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
23 [DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER ON 3/29/2019, SE DOCKET ENTRY NO. 31] APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Cheryl A. Luce to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−23451756) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Attorney Kristen M Peters added to party United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (pty:dft)) (Peters, Kristen) Modified on 3/29/2019 (jp). (Entered: 03/27/2019)
24 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Ellen E. McLaughlin to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−23452014) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
25 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to United States Soccer Federation, Inc. answer now due 5/2/2019, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,, 1 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc..(Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
26 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending Panel Decision on Multidistrict Litigation (Unopposed) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 4/29/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
27 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., identifying None. (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
28 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. identifying None as Corporate Parent. (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
29 NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Cheryl A. Luce to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−23451756) 23 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 83−2.1.3.3(a) Application not complete: state and/or federal courts

03/29/2019 03/29/2019
03/29/2019 04/05/2019
04/08/2019 04/24/2019
04/29/2019 04/30/2019

to which the applicant has been admitted are not listed. (lt) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
30 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 24 Non−Resident Attorney Ellen E McLaughlin APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., designating Kristen M Peters as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
31 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Cheryl A. Luce to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−23451756) 23 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The document is stricken and counsel is ordered to file an amended or corrected document by 4/5/2019. (jp) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
32 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Cheryl A. Luce to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Previously Paid on 3/27/2019, Receipt No. 0973−23451756) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
33 NOTICE (Fourth) filed by Plaintiff Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
34 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 32 Non−Resident Attorney Cheryl A Luce APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., designating Kristen M Peters as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
35 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Defendant United States Soccer Federation Inc.'s Motion to Stay Case Pending Panel Decision on Multidistrict Litigation 26 , calendared for hearing on April 29, 2019, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/24/2019)
36 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Extend Time to File Answer to 6/13/2019 re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,, 1 filed by defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kristen M. Peters, # 2 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 04/29/2019)
37 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian on behalf of Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni (Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Morgan Brian(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Jane Campbell(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Danielle Colaprico(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Abby Dahlkemper(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Tierna Davidson(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Crystal Dunn(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Julie Ertz (pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Adrianna Franch(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Ashlyn Harris(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Tobin Heath(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Lindsey Horan(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Rose Lavelle(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Carli Lloyd(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Allie Long (pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Merritt Mathias(pty:pla), Attorney

04/30/2019 04/30/2019 05/01/2019 05/01/2019 05/06/2019 05/08/2019 05/17/2019 05/19/2019
05/23/2019

Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Jessica McDonald(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Samantha Mewis(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Alex Morgan(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Alyssa Naeher(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Kelley OHara(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Christen Press(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Mallory Pugh(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Megan Rapinoe(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Becky Sauerbrunn(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Casey Short(pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Emily Sonnett (pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party Andi Sullivan (pty:pla), Attorney Jeanifer E Parsigian added to party McCall Zerboni(pty:pla))(Parsigian, Jeanifer) (Entered: 04/30/2019)
38 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Motion to Stay Case (DE 26 ) by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Defendant's motion (DE 26 ). (lom) (Entered: 04/30/2019)
39 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS'COMPLAINT TO 14 DAYS AFTER THE JPML RULES ON THE PENDING MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTIONS 36 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (lom) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
40 Second STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to All Defendants, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,, 1 filed by defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kristen M. Peters, # 2 Proposed Order)(Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
41 ORDER GRANTING SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 40 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' First AmendedComplaint is extended to MAY 6, 2019. (lom) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
42 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,,,,,, 1 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc..(McLaughlin, Ellen) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
43 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Kara L. Goodwin to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−23703357) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
44 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 43 Non−Resident Attorney Kara L Goodwin APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of United States Soccer Federation, Inc., designating Kristen M Peters as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
45 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge R. Gary Klausner. A Scheduling Conference has been placed on calendar for August 19, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. The Conference will be held pursuant to F.R.Civ. P. 16(b). Trial counsel must be present and there are no telephonic appearances. Counsel are ordered to file a joint statement providing a brief factual summary of the case, including the claims being asserted. The parties are reminded of their obligations to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan not later than 21 days prior to the scheduling conference, and to file a joint statement with the Court not later than 14 days after they confer, as required by F.R. Civ.P. 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. Failure to comply may lead to the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to give notice of the scheduling conference to each party that makes an initial appearance in the action after this date. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 8/12/2019. (sw) (Entered: 05/19/2019)
46 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 7/15/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to the First−To−File Rule, # 2 Proposed Order) (McLaughlin, Ellen) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

05/24/2019 05/29/2019
05/30/2019 06/10/2019
06/10/2019 06/12/2019 06/17/2019 06/17/2019 06/25/2019 07/01/2019

47 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Defendant's Motion to Transfer Case to Northern District of California 46 , noticed for hearing on 07/15/2019 at 9:00 am, HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO 07/01/2019 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/24/2019)
48 STIPULATION to Continue Motion to Transfer Venue from July 1, 2019 to July 15, 2019 filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeffrey L. Kessler, # 2 Declaration of Ellen E. McLaughlin, # 3 Proposed Order)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
49 DENIED BY ORDER OF THE COURT by Judge R. Gary Klausner, re Stipulation to Continue Hearing 48 . The motion will be taken under submission and there no appearances by counsel will be necessary. (jp) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
50 OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California 46 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeanifer E. Parsigian, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Jeanifer E. Parsigian, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Jeanifer E. Parsigian, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Jeanifer E. Parsigian, # 5 Proposed Order)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
51 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL NO. 2890, that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied. (jp) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
52 Notice of Electronic Filing re Objection/Opposition (Motion related),,, 50 e−mailed to Kara Goodwin, KGoodwin@seyfarth.com bounced due to No longer with firm. The primary e−mail address associated with the attorney record has been deleted. Pursuant to Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lmh) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/12/2019)
53 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Cheryl A Luce counsel for Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Kara L. Goodwin is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Luce, Cheryl) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
54 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California 46 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (McLaughlin, Ellen) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
55 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Defendant's Motion to Transfer Case to Northern District of California 46 , calendared for hearing on July 1, 2019, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/25/2019)
56 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (DE 46) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The court DENIES Defendant's Motion (DE 46 ). (jp) (Entered: 07/01/2019)

08/09/2019
08/19/2019 08/20/2019 08/20/2019 08/28/2019 08/28/2019
08/30/2019 09/11/2019

57 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial two to four weeks, filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni.. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
58 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge R. Gary Klausner. Amended Pleadings due by 10/1/2019. Discovery cut−off 2/6/2020. Motions due by 2/20/2020. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/20/2020 at 09:00 AM. Jury Trial set for 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM. Court Reporter: Sheri Kleeger. (cch) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
59 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 3 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Case ordered to a private mediator based upon a stipulation of the parties or by the court order. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than March 6, 2020. (cch) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
60 ORDER RE JURY TRIAL by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Pretrial Conference set for 4/20/2020 at 09:00 AM. Jury Trial set for 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM. (cch) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
61 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Chantelle C Egan on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Attorney Chantelle C Egan added to party United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (pty:dft))(Egan, Chantelle) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
62 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Brian Stolzenbach to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−24344155) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PROPOSED) ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
63 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 62 Non−Resident Attorney Brian Stolzenbach APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of United States Soccer Federation, Inc, designating Kristen M Peters as local counsel. (lom) (Entered: 09/04/2019)
64 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 10/21/2019 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Jeffrey Kessler, # 2 Exhibit 1 (Kessler Bio) to Kessler Decl., # 3 Exhibit 2 (Spangler Bio) to Kessler Decl., # 4 Exhibit 3 (Feher Bio) to Kessler Decl., # 5 Exhibit 4 (Notice of Collective Action) to Kessler Decl., # 6 Exhibit 5 (Consent to Join Form) to Kessler Decl., # 7 Declaration Cardelle Spangler, # 8 Exhibit 1 (2013−2016 USWNT CBA) to Spangler Decl., # 9 Exhibit 2 (2017−2021 USWNT CBA Excerpts) to Spangler Decl., # 10 Exhibit 3 (2011−20118 USMNT CBA Excerpts) to Spangler Decl., # 11 Exhibit 4 (MDL No. 2890 dckt 15; USSF Resp to MFT) to Spangler Decl., # 12 Exhibit 5 (MDL No. 2890 dckt 1−1; Corrected Decl. Berhalter) to Spangler Decl., # 13 Exhibit 6 (MDL No. 2890 dckt 15−1; Decl. King) to Spangler Decl., # 14 Exhibit 7 (Comparison of Field Surfaces for WNT and MNT between January 2014 and June 2016) to Spangler Decl., # 15 Declaration Mark Levinstein, # 16 Declaration Jessica McDonald, # 17 Declaration Christen Press, # 18 Declaration Carli Lloyd, # 19 Exhibit A (2019.02.05 Lloyd Notice of Right to Sue) to Lloyd Decl., # 20 Declaration Becky Sauerbrunn, # 21 Exhibit A (2019.02.05 Sauerbrunn Notice of Right to Sue) to Sauerbrunn Decl., # 22 Declaration Alex Morgan, # 23 Exhibit A (2019.02.05 Morgan Notice of Right to Sue) to Morgan Decl., # 24 Declaration Megan Rapinoe, # 25 Exhibit A (2019.02.05 Rapinoe Notice of Right to Sue) to Rapinoe Decl., # 26 Proposed Order) (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/11/2019)

09/27/2019 09/27/2019 09/30/2019 10/03/2019 10/04/2019
10/04/2019 10/07/2019
10/07/2019

65 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Noah A. Finkel to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−24515720) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
66 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. At the request of Plaintiffs, the Court sets a telephonic discovery conference for Friday, October 4, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. A joint agenda that lists the discovery issues must be filed on or before noon on Thursday, October 3, 2019. No argument should be included in the joint agenda. When filing the joint agenda, counsel are directed to use the "Discovery Motions − Order re Discovery Matter" event. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/27/2019)
67 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 64 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ellen McLaughlin, # 2 Declaration of Pinky Raina, # 3 Declaration of Jay Berhalter, # 4 Proposed Order)(McLaughlin, Ellen) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
68 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Joint Report Re: Discovery Dispute filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 10/4/2019 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
69 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE & ORDER RE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDER settling 68 Joint Report Re: Discovery Dispute held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall (1) collect the text messages from the 28 individual plaintiffs as stated on the record and (2) produce nonprivileged responsive text messages for seven individual plaintiffs as follows: the six individual plaintiffs who participated in the collective bargaining process plus one non−duplicative individual plaintiff who is a class representative in another litigation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic discovery conference is scheduled for October 23, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. (see document for further details) Court Recorder: XTR 10/04/2019. (hr) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
71 MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION filed by Non−Party Richard M. Nichols. (Attachments: # 1 Lodged Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibits) (hr) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
70 [DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER ORDER DATED 10/08/2019, SEE DOCKET ENTRY NO. 74 ] −REPLY In Support of Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 64 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF REBECCA ROUX, # 2 DECLARATION OF ALEX MORGAN, # 3 DECLARATION OF CARLI LLOYD) (Kessler, Jeffrey). Modified on 10/8/2019 (jp). (Entered: 10/07/2019)
72 NOTICE (Fifth) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Consent Form)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 10/07/2019)

10/08/2019
10/08/2019
10/08/2019
10/09/2019 10/09/2019 10/10/2019
10/10/2019 10/10/2019 10/15/2019
10/16/2019 10/16/2019 10/16/2019

73 MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS): BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg, re: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTION 71 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant shall file an opposition on or before October 22, 2019. 2. Non−Party Nichols may file a reply on or before October 29, 2019. 3. The hearing date is continued to Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom "550" in the Roybal Courthouse. 4. The subpoena to Mr. Nichols is stayed pending a ruling on the motion to quash. (hr) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
74 ORDER TO STRIKEELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS by Judge R. Gary Klausner: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Reply in support of Motion to Certifiy Class 70 , for the following reasons: Single spaced text LR 11−3.6 Reply may be refiled by 12:00 noon on 10/09/2019. (jp) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
75 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 64 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alex Morgan, # 2 Declaration of Carli Lloyd, # 3 Declaration of Becca Roux)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
76 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc..(Egan, Chantelle) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
77 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 65 Non−Resident Attorney noah A Finkel APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., designating Kristen M Peters as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
78 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. At the request of Defendant, the Court sets a telephonic discovery conference for Wednesday, October 16, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/10/2019)
79 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg re Stipulation for Protective Order 76 . (see document for details) (hr) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
80 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Giovanna A Ferrari on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Attorney Giovanna A Ferrari added to party United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (pty:dft))(Ferrari, Giovanna) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
81 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 64 , calendared for hearing on October 21, 2019, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/15/2019)
82 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. IT IS ORDERED that third party Mr. Nichols' motion to quash subpoena and for protection 71 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. (See Order for Further Details) Court Recorder: XTR 10/16/2019. (kl) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
83 MOTION RE: INFORMAL DISCOVERY DISPUTE (kl) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
84 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Case is called. Counsel state their appearances. The court conducted a telephonic discovery conference at the request of the parties regarding Topic No. 1 in Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant United States Soccer

10/17/2019 10/21/2019 10/22/2019 10/22/2019 10/23/2019 10/23/2019 10/23/2019

Federation (USSF). The court and counsel conferred as stated on the record. (See Order for Further Details). Settling Motion 83 . Court Recorder: XTR 10/16/2019. (kl) (Entered: 10/16/2019)
85 SCHEDULING NOTICE Per Judge Rosenberg's Order 69 , a telephonic discovery conference is set for for Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. A joint agenda that lists the discovery issues must be filed on or before noon on Tuesday, October 22, 2019. No argument should be included in the joint agenda. When filing the joint agenda, counsel are directed to use the "Discovery Motions − Order re Discovery Matter" event. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/17/2019)
86 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cheryl A. Luce, # 2 Proposed Order) (McLaughlin, Ellen) (Entered: 10/21/2019)
87 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Joint Report Re: Discovery Dispute filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 10/23/2019 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (Parsigian, Jeanifer) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
88 OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Sur−Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 86 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
89 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni for Court Reporter. Court will contact Dina Metz at dmetz@winston.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 10/23/2019)
90 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Ex Parle Application for Leave to file Sur−Reply(DE 86 ) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Ex Parte Application. (SEE CIVIL MINUTE FOR SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 10/23/2019)
91 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE settling 87 Joint Report held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' request for a further order on production of text messages, whatsapp messages, etc. from the remaining 21 plaintiffs is DENIED AS PREMATURE. 2. A telephonic status conference is set on October 30, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. 3. Plaintiffs' request for an order requiring Defendant to add eight custodians (Kay Bradley, John Collins, Aaron Heifetz, Pinky Raina, Tonya Wallach, Neil Buethe, Steve Hoffman, and Michael Gressle) for Defendant's production of electronically stored information ("ESI") is GRANTED IN PART as follows: (see document for further details). Court Recorder: XTR 10/23/2019. (hr) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

10/25/2019 10/28/2019 10/28/2019
10/30/2019
10/30/2019
11/01/2019 11/08/2019 11/11/2019 11/14/2019 11/14/2019

92 SCHEDULING NOTICE Per Judge Rosenberg's Order 91 , a telephonic status conference is set for for Wednesday, October 30, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. PDT. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/25/2019)
93 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Soccer−Related Income From Sources Other Than U.S. Soccer filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Egan, Chantelle) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
94 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Soccer−Related Income From Sources Other Than U.S. Soccer 93 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni, Interested Party Richard M. Nichols. (Attorney Jeffrey L Kessler added to party Richard M. Nichols(pty:ip))(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
95 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. At the Court's own motion, the telephonic status conference previously set for for Wednesday, October 30, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. PDT 91 is RESCHEDULED to Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. PDT. The call−in information will remian the same. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/30/2019)
96 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg: Case is called. Counsel. For the reasons stated on the record, the court ruled as follows: Issue No. 2: Defendants shall complete production of documents, including ESI, for Mr. Langel by 11/8/2019. Defendants shall complete production of ESI for Mr. Burhalter, Mr. Cordero and Mr. Gulati by 11/12/2019 with the exception of their respective phones. Defendants shall complete production of non−ESI documents by 11/12/2019. Defendants shall complete the remainder of their rolling production by 11/22/2019. The court granted Plaintiffs request to complete production of the text messages by 11/22/2019. Court Recorder: XTR 10/30/2019. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION). (jp) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
97 Joint STIPULATION for Discovery as to Expert Deadlines and Non−Discoverability of Certain Expert Materials and Communications filed by Plaintiff Alex Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
98 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (DE 64 ) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Parties must meet and confer regarding the class notice and collective notice and submit final agreed upon notices to the court within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this Order. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 11/08/2019)
99 ORDER GRANTING Stipulation Regarding Expert Discovery Deadlines and Non−Discoverability of Certain Expert Materials and Communications 97 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 11/12/2019)
100 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Kyllan B. Kershaw to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−24781988) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
101 NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Kyllan B. Kershaw to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−24781988) 100 . The following error(s) was/were

11/15/2019 11/15/2019 11/15/2019 11/19/2019 11/20/2019
11/20/2019 11/20/2019 11/22/2019
11/27/2019 11/29/2019

found: Local Rule 83−2.1.3.3(a) Application not complete: state and/or federal courts to which the applicant has been admitted are not listed. (lt) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
102 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Sharilee K. Smentek to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−24792161) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
103 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Denying 100 Non−Resident Attorney Kyllan B. Kershaw APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. Terming Attorney Kyllan B Kershaw. (et) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
104 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Kyllan B. Kershaw to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Previously Paid on 11/14/2019, Receipt No. 0973−24781988) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
105 STIPULATION to Correct Telephone Conference,,, 96 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order re correction to minute order)(Egan, Chantelle) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
106 ORDER CORRECTING AND REPLACING MINUTE ORDER 96 by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. For the reasons stated on the record, the court ruled as follows: Issue No. 2: Defendant shall complete production of the following documents, including ESI, in its possession, custody, or control by November 8, 2019, so the parties may prepare for John Langel's deposition on November 21, 2019: (1) proposals and correspondence exchanged between the United States Women's National Team Players Association (WNTPA) and U.S. Soccer in connection with their negotiations for the 2013−2016 collective bargaining agreement between those parties (see document for further details) (hr) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
107 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Granting 102 Non−Resident Attorney Sharilee K. Smentek APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., designating Kristen M. Peters as local counsel. (et) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
108 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Granting 104 Non−Resident Attorney Kyllan B. Kershaw APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., designating Kristen M. Peters as local counsel. (et) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
109 STIPULATION for Order Re: Proposed Class Notices filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
110 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. At the request of Plaintiffs, the Court sets a telephonic discovery conference for Monday, December 2, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. PST. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/27/2019)
111 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Order for Discovery Matter filed by Plaintiff Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 12/2/2019 at 11:00 AM

12/01/2019 12/02/2019 12/02/2019 12/04/2019
12/05/2019
12/05/2019 12/06/2019 12/06/2019 12/06/2019

before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (Parsigian, Jeanifer) (Entered: 11/29/2019)
112 ORDER on Stipulation 109 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court hereby APPROVES the Title VII Class Action Notice (Exhibit 1 to the Joint Stipulation) and the Notice of Pendency of an FLSA Lawsuit (Exhibit 2 to theJoint Stipulation). (et) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
113 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE settling 111 Joint Report Re: Discovery Dispute held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Plaintiffs agreed to serve their proposed search terms today. Defendant agreed to evaluate Plaintiffs' proposed search terms. The court set a further hearing to address the results on Thursday, December 5, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel are ordered to contact the courtroom deputy clerk, Mr. Lozada, if the hearing can be advanced to an earlier date and time. Court Recorder: XTR 12/02/2019. (hr) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
114 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Per Judge Rosenberg's Order (Dkt. 113 ), a telephonic discovery conference has been set for 11:00 a.m. PST on Thursday, December 5, 2019. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/02/2019)
115 STIPULATION to Amend Title VII Class Period Order on Motion to Certify Class Action, 98 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 64 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Spangler, Cardelle) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
116 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. A telephonic discovery conference is set on Monday, December 9, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. 2. By Friday, December 6, 2019, no later than noon, Plaintiffs shall file a Status Report that describes the particular Document Request Numbers at issue. 3. By Friday, December 6, 2019, Defendants shall file, under seal if appropriate, a Status Report that contains the search terms proposed by Plaintiffs and the data regarding hits for each search terms (directly and including families). (see document for further details) Court Recorder: XTR 12/05/2019. (hr) (Entered: 12/05/2019)
117 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Per Judge Rosenberg's Order (Dkt. 116 ), a telephonic discovery conference has been set for 11:00 a.m. PST on Monday, December 9, 2019. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/05/2019)
118 STATUS REPORT Regarding ESI Search Terms filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Alphabetical Listing of Term Hits (6/11/15 to Present), # 2 Exhibit B − Numerical Listing of Term Hits (6/11/15 to Present), # 3 Exhibit C − Alphabetical Listing of Term Hits (1/1/12 to Present), # 4 Exhibit D − Numerical Listing of Term Hits (1/1/12 to Present))(Luce, Cheryl) (Entered: 12/06/2019)
119 PLAINTIFFS' REPORT of DISCOVERY DISPUTE [Dkt. 117] filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Parsigian, Jeanifer) (Entered: 12/06/2019)
120 Text Only Entry: Pursuant to Local Rule 5−4.4.2, counsel for plaintiff shall immediately submit the proposed order in connection with Docket Entry 115 (to the

12/06/2019
12/06/2019 12/09/2019 12/09/2019 12/09/2019

Judge's generic email address) in Word or Word Perfect format. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/06/2019)
121 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Lev Tsukerman counsel for Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Adding Lev Tsukerman as counsel of record for Plaintiffs' for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs' Lev Tsukerman. (Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Morgan Brian(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Jane Campbell(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Danielle Colaprico(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Abby Dahlkemper(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Tierna Davidson(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Crystal Dunn(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Julie Ertz (pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Adrianna Franch(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Ashlyn Harris(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Tobin Heath(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Lindsey Horan(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Rose Lavelle(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Carli Lloyd(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Allie Long (pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Merritt Mathias(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Jessica McDonald(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Samantha Mewis(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Alex Morgan(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Alyssa Naeher(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Kelley OHara(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Christen Press(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Mallory Pugh(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Megan Rapinoe(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Becky Sauerbrunn(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Casey Short(pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Emily Sonnett (pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party Andi Sullivan (pty:pla), Attorney Lev Tsukerman added to party McCall Zerboni(pty:pla))(Tsukerman, Lev) (Entered: 12/06/2019)
123 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND TITLE VIICLASS PERIOD 115 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court hereby amends the Rule 23(b) (3) class definition set forth in its Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 98 ) to: "All WNT players whowere members of the WNT at any time from June 11, 2015 through the date of classcertification." (et) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
122 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerbonito Status Report, 118 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Parsigian, Jeanifer) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
124 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. IT IS ORDERED that a further discovery conference is set on Wednesday, December 11, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs' proposed search terms by tomorrow December 10, 2019. Defense counsel shall be prepared to address the timing of production of documents responsive to pay* w/5 equal* at the hearing on December 11, 2019. (See Order for Further Details) Court Recorder: XTR 12/09/2019. (kl) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
125 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Per Judge Rosenberg's Order (Dkt. 124 ), a telephonic discovery conference has been set for 2:00 p.m. PST on Wednesday, December 11, 2019. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/09/2019)

12/11/2019 12/11/2019 12/13/2019 12/16/2019 12/17/2019 12/30/2019 01/03/2020 01/07/2020

126 STATUS REPORT Regarding Minutes of Telephonic Discovery Conference (Doc. No. 124) filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Parsigian, Jeanifer) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
127 STATUS REPORT Regarding ESI Search Terms filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Emails Exchanged With Plaintiffs' Counsel, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Defendant's Proposed Compromise)(Luce, Cheryl) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
128 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall run the search terms in Attachment A to this order in the existing database of documents Defendant has already compiled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall confer on or before December 17, 2019 regarding an estimated time for commencement of a rolling production of responsive, nonprivileged documents and for completion of the rolling production. (see document for further details) Court Recorder: XTR 12/11/2019. (hr) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
129 NOTICE (Sixth) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
130 NOTICE (Seventh) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
131 NOTICE (Eighth) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 12/30/2019)
132 NOTICE (Ninth) filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/03/2020)
133 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. At the request of Plaintiffs, the Court sets a telephonic discovery conference for Friday, January 10, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. A joint agenda that lists the discovery issues must be filed on or before noon on Thursday, January 9, 2020. No argument should be included in the joint agenda. When filing the joint agenda, counsel are directed to use the "Discovery Motions − Order re Discovery Matter" event. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/09/2020 01/10/2020 01/10/2020 01/10/2020
01/10/2020 01/13/2020 01/14/2020
01/14/2020

134 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Joint Report re: Discovery Dispute filed by Plaintiffs Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 1/10/2020 at 11:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Parsigian, Jeanifer) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
135 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION for Order for Joint Report re: Discovery Dispute 134 . The following error(s) was/were found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (kl) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
136 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: MOTION for Order for Joint Report re: Discovery Dispute 134 by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. The hearing date has been rescheduled. Motion set for hearing on 1/10/2020 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (kl) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
137 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE re: 134 Joint Report held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. IT IS ORDERED that: 1. On or before January 14, 2020 by noon, Plaintiff shall identify the Requests for Production of Documents that are the subject of Issue No. 1 in the Joint Report. 2. The court sets a further telephonic discovery conference to address Issue No. 1 on Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. PST. 3. On or before January 17, 2020, Defendants shall produce the annual national team budgets and related documents identified during the conference. (see document for further details) Court Recorder: XTR 01/10/2020. (hr) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
138 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Per Judge Rosenberg's Order (Dkt. 137 ), a telephonic discovery conference is set for 1:00 p.m. PST on Thursday, January 16, 2020. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/10/2020)
139 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. for Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Laura Thixton at lthixton@seyfarth.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the transcription company. (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
140 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni for Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Dina Metz at dmetz@winston.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the transcription company. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
141 STATUS REPORT Regarding Minutes of Telephonic Discovery Conference (Doc. No. 137) filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/16/2020 01/16/2020 01/17/2020 01/17/2020 01/17/2020
01/18/2020
01/18/2020 01/21/2020 01/22/2020 01/23/2020

142 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Case is called. Counsel state their appearances. The telephonic discovery conference is continued to Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. PST. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Recorder: XTR 01/16/2020. (kl) (Entered: 01/16/2020)
143 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Per Judge Rosenberg's Order (Dkt. 142 ), a telephonic discovery conference is set for 10:00 a.m. PST on Friday, January 17, 2020. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/16/2020)
144 STATUS REPORT Regarding Further Telephonic Discovery Conference, filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Parsigian, Jeanifer) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
145 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. At the Court's own motion the telephonic discovery conference previously scheduled for 10:00 a.m. (Dkt. 143) is RESCHEDULED to 10:15 a.m. PST on Friday, January 17, 2020. The call−in information will remain the same. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/17/2020)
146 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg re: Status Report 144 . Plaintiffs' request that Defendant produce a Rule 30(b)(6) designee(s) on the following topic is GRANTED. The topic is the following: (see document for details). The court DENIED Plaintiffs' request for an order requiring Defendant to produce documents responsive to RFP No. 57. The remaining RFP Nos. in the Status Report filed on January 14, 2020 appear to be moot in light of Defendants recent document productions and/or representations on the record. Court Recorder: XTR 01/17/2020. (hr) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
148 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 1/10/2020. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: JAMS Certified Transcription, phone number (661) 609−4528. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 2/10/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/18/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/17/2020. (ha) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
149 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 1/10/2020 re Transcript 148 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/22/2020)
147 NOTICE (Tenth) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
150 NOTICE (Eleventh) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by Plaintiffs Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
151 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Authorizing Electronic and Text Notifications and Setting March 30, 2020 as Opt−In Deadline for FLSA Conditional Class filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby

01/24/2020 01/24/2020 01/28/2020
01/28/2020 01/30/2020
01/31/2020 01/31/2020 01/31/2020

Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden, # 2 Proposed Order) (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/23/2020)
152 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Authorizing Electronic and Text Notifications and Setting March 30, 2020 as Opt−In Deadline for FLSA Conditional Class 151 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Finkel, Noah) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
153 NOTICE (Twelfth) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
154 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: ORDER Re: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Order Authorizing Electronic and Text Notifications and Setting March 30, 2020 as Opt−in Deadline for FLSA Conditional Class 151 . the Comt GRANTS in part Plaintiffs ' Application. Plaintiffs may notify thefollowing potential opt−in plaintiffs of their EPA claims via an email transmitting the Notice of Pendency of an Equal Pay Act Lawsuit and Opt−In Consent Fo1m: 1. Taylor Smith;2. Heather O'Reilly; 3. Ashley Hatch; 4. Lynn Williams; 5. Lauren Baines;6. Haley Hanson; 7. Jaelen Hinkle; 8. Sydney Leroux;9. Briana Pinto; 10. Hope Solo; 11. Abby Wambach. These potential opt−in plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date the email is trnnsmitted to opt−in to the FLSA collective action. (lc) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
155 NOTICE (Thirteenth) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/28/2020)
156 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. At the request of Defendant, the Court sets a telephonic discovery conference for Friday, January 31, 2020, at noon PST. A joint agenda that lists the discovery issues must be filed on or before 10:00 a.m. PST on Friday, January 31, 2020. No argument should be included in the joint agenda. When filing the joint agenda, counsel are directed to use the "Discovery Motions − Order re Discovery Matter" event. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/30/2020)
157 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Order for Joint Report re: Discovery Dispute filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 1/31/2020 at 12:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (Smentek, Sharilee) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
158 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE settling 157 Joint Report re: Discovery Dispute held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. Court and counsel conferred as stated on the record. See Order, Dkt. No. 60 at 2. Court Recorder: CS 01/31/2020. (hr) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
159 NOTICE (Fourteenth) of Filing of Consent to Join Forms filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi

02/03/2020
02/05/2020
02/06/2020 02/06/2020
02/06/2020 02/12/2020
02/13/2020 02/20/2020

Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
160 STIPULATION for Order to Set the Depositions of Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Meghan Klingenberg After the Close of Discovery filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
161 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. At the request of Defendant, the Court sets a telephonic discovery conference for Thursday, February 6, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. PST. The court will conduct a telephonic discovery conference only as to those items about which counsel have conferred in good faith. Counsel should be prepared to address whether any requested relief (1) was or was not disclosed in time to allow for meaningful "meet and confer" among counsel, or (2) can or cannot practicably be accomplished by the close of discovery even if granted. Counsel are to contact Judge Rosenberg's Courtroom Deputy, Karl Lozada, at agr_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov for the call−in information. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/05/2020)
162 MOTION RE: INFORMAL DISCOVERY DISPUTE (hr) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
163 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE settling 162 Motion Re: Informal Discovery Dispute held before Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. The court is satisfied, based on Plaintiffs' counsel's responses to the court's inquiries, that the issue about Document Request No. 25 is moot and that Plaintiffs' positions with respect to Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 5, 10 and 13 are clear. The court declined to order any supplemental written responses. Defendant raised an issue about two plaintiffs' written responses to an interrogatory about the identity of players who voted to ratify a specific collective bargaining agreement. The Court finds that the matter is untimely. (see document for further details) Court Recorder: XTR 02/06/2020. (hr) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
164 ORDER GRANTING Stipulation to Set the Depositions of Visa U.S.A., Inc., and Meghan Klingenberg After the Close of Discovery 160 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (jp) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
165 Joint STIPULATION to Exceed Page Limitation as to Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
166 ORDER GRANTING Stipulation to Expand page Limits for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions 165 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 02/13/2020)
167 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 3/30/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeanifer E. Parsigian, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Philip A. Miscimarra Expert Report, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Carlyn Irwin Expert Report, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Dr. Justin McCrary Expert Report, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Carlos Cordeiro Deposition Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit 5 − ESPN Article, # 7 Exhibit 6 − Dr. Finnie B. Cook Expert Report, # 8 Proposed Order)

02/20/2020 02/20/2020 02/20/2020

(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
168 APPLICATION to file document Exhibits 8, 11, 12, 20, 26, 27, 28 and 31 to the Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document (Exhibit 8), # 3 Redacted Document (Exhibit 11), # 4 Redacted Document (Exhibit 12), # 5 Redacted Document (Exhibit 20), # 6 Redacted Document (Exhibit 26), # 7 Redacted Document (Exhibit 27), # 8 Redacted Document (Exhibit 28), # 9 Redacted Document (Exhibit 31))(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
169 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Exhibits 8, 11, 12, 20, 26, 27, 28 and 31 to the Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal 168 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 8), # 2 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 11), # 3 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 12), # 4 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 20), # 5 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 26), # 6 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 27), # 7 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 28), # 8 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 31))(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
170 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants liability under the Equal Pay Act, for compensation−based discrimination under Title VII, and Defendants First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth affirmative defenses filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 3/30/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, # 2 Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Tom King Deposition Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit 2 − 2013−2016 Memorandum of Understanding, # 5 Exhibit 3 − 2005−2012 Collective Bargaining Agreement, # 6 Exhibit 4 − 2017−2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement, # 7 Exhibit 5 − 2011−2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement, # 8 Exhibit 6 − John Langel Depostion Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit 7 − 2004 John Langel Letter, # 10 Exhibit 8 − Redacted Document, # 11 Exhibit 9 − Excerpts from CBA Meeting Notes, # 12 Exhibit 10 − Sunil Gulati 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts, # 13 Exhibit 11 − Redacted Document, # 14 Exhibit 12 − Redacted Document, # 15 Exhibit 13 − ESPN Article, # 16 Exhibit 14 − Praptika Raina Deposition Excerpts, # 17 Exhibit 15 − WNT Match Spreadsheet, # 18 Exhibit 16 − Jill Ellis Deposition Excerpts, # 19 Exhibit 17 − Alex Morgan Excerpts, # 20 Exhibit 18 − Carli Lloyd Deposition Excerpts, # 21 Exhibit 19 − Sunil Gulati Deposition Excerpts, # 22 Exhibit 20 − Redacted Document, # 23 Exhibit 21 − MNT Match Spreadsheet, # 24 Exhibit 22 − USSF's 1.31.2020 Supplemental Responses, # 25 Exhibit 23 − USSF Organization Chart, # 26 Exhibit 24 − Excerpts from 2020 AGM Book of Reports, # 27 Exhibit 25 − USSF 5.31.2016 Letter to EEOC, # 28 Exhibit 26 − Redacted Document, # 29 Exhibit 27 − Redacted Document, # 30 Exhibit 28 − Redacted Document, # 31 Exhibit 29 − Megan Rapinoe Deposition Excerpts, # 32 Exhibit 30 − Rich Nichols Deposition Excerpts, # 33 Exhibit 31 − Redacted Document, # 34 Exhibit 32 − Net Revenue Chart, # 35 Exhibit 33 − Sunil Gulati Deposition Excerpts, # 36 Request for Judicial Notice, # 37 Exhibit 1 − USSF Website re WNT, # 38 Exhibit 2 − Congress Webpage, # 39 Exhibit 3 − MNT PA Statement, # 40 Exhibit 4 − EEOC Webpage, # 41 Exhibit 5 − USSF Safe Soccer Framework, # 42 Proposed Order) (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

02/20/2020

171 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 3/30/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Defendant's Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, # 3 Declaration Gulati Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 1 to Gulati Declaration − Britanica World Cup, # 5 Exhibit 2 − to Gulati Declaration − 2010 MWC Television Audience Report, # 6 Exhibit 3 to Gulati Declaration − 2014 MWC Television Audience Report, # 7 Exhibit 4 to Gulati Declaration − 2018 MWC Television Audience Report, # 8 Exhibit 5 to Gulati Declaration − 2011 WWC TElevision Audience Report, # 9 Exhibit 6 to Gulati Declaration − 2015 WWC Television Audience Report, # 10 Exhibit 7 to Gulati Declaration − 2019 WWC Television Audience Report, # 11 Exhibit 8 to Gulati Declaration − 2010 Prize Money Memorandum, # 12 Exhibit 9 to Gulati Declaration − 2011 Prize Money Memorandum, # 13 Exhibit 10 to Gulati Declaration − 2014 Prize Money Memorandum, # 14 Exhibit 11 to Gulati Declaration − 2015 Prize Money Memorandum, # 15 Exhibit 12 to Gulati Declaration − 2019 Prize Money Memorandum, # 16 Exhibit 13 to Gulati Declaration − 3−19−13 MOU, # 17 Exhibit 14 to Gulati Declaration − 11−1−12 WNTPA Proposal, # 18 Exhibit 15 to Gulati Declaration − 12−4−12 Gleason Email Financial Proposal, # 19 Exhibit 15a to Gulati Declaration − 12−3−12 USSF Proposed financial Terms, # 20 Exhibit 16 to Gulati Declaration − Gleason 2005−2011 Revenue, # 21 Declaration Tom King Declaration, # 22 Exhibit 1 to King Declaration − Men's CBA, # 23 Exhibit 2 to King Declaration − Stolzenbach to Levinstein Email, # 24 Exhibit 3 to King Declaration − 2005 WNT CBA, # 25 Exhibit 4 to King Declaration − 3−19−13 WNTPA Executed MOU and Correspondence, # 26 Exhibit 5 to King Declaration − 2017 CBA, # 27 Exhibit 6 to King Declaration − 1−4−16 Nichols Email and Proposal, # 28 Exhibit 7 to King Declaration − 5−9−16 AGM Budget File, # 29 Exhibit 8 to King Declaration − 6−1−16 WNTPA MAG Memo, # 30 Exhibit 9 to King Declaration − 7−6−16 US Soccer Proposal on Minimum Number of Games−Players, # 31 Exhibit 10 to King Declaration − USSF Produced Version of WNTPA 2−8−17 Compensation Proposal, # 32 Exhibit 11 to King Declaration − USSFs 2−9 Comp Proposal, # 33 Exhibit 12 to King Declaration − Proposed Partnership Bnus, # 34 Exhibit 13 to King Declaration − WNTPA 2−14 Comp Proposal, # 35 Exhibit 14 to King Declaration − WNTPA 2−15 Comp Proposal, # 36 Exhibit 15 to King Declaration − WNTPA 3−9 Comp Proposal, # 37 Exhibit 16 to King Declaration − 3−16 USSF Financial Proposal, # 38 Exhibit 17 to King Declaration − 3−29 WNTPA Financial Proposal, # 39 Exhibit 18 to King Declaration − WNT Rankings and Results, # 40 Exhibit 19 to King Declaration − MNT Rankings and Results, # 41 Exhibit 20 to King Declaration − WNT Surface and Flights, # 42 Exhibit 21 to King Declaration − MNT Surface and Flights, # 43 Declaration Carlyn Irwn Declaration, # 44 Exhibit 1 to Irwin Declaration − Expert Report, # 45 Declaration Changelle Egan Declaration, # 46 Exhibit 1 − EEOC Charges, # 47 Declaration Praptika Raina Declaration, # 48 Exhibit Lloyd Transcript Excerpts, # 49 Exhibit Lloyd Exhibit 15 − 8−31−15 Lloyd Email to JWeil, # 50 Exhibit Rapinoe Transcript Excerpts, # 51 Exhibit Rapinoe Exhibit 29 − Transcript of Video, # 52 Exhibit Rapinoe Exhibit 32 − Caitlin Murray Tweet, # 53 Exhibit Klingenberg Transcript Excerpts, # 54 Exhibit Klingenberg Exhibit 7 − American Voices Article, # 55 Exhibit Langel 2016 Transcript Excerpts, # 56 Exhibit Roux Transcript Excerpts, # 57 Exhibit Roux Exhibit 5 − Constitution and Bylaws, # 58 Exhibit Roux Exhibit 18 − 10−8−19 Roux Declaration, # 59 Exhibit Roux Exhibit 37 − 3−29−17 Proposed WNT CBA Financial Terms, # 60 Exhibit Nichols Transcript Excerpts, # 61 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 4 − 7−15−16 Judgment and 6−3−16 Opinion and Order, # 62 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 17 − 12−24−15 Nichols Emaiul to Levine, # 63 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 19 − 1−4−16 Nichols Email to Levine, # 64 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 31 − 6−20−16 − Nichols Email to Levine, # 65 Exhibit Nichols Exhibit 33 − 7−22−16 Nichols Email to Levine, # 66 Exhibit Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 67 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 1 − Langel Bio, # 68 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 4 − 11−1−12 Langel Memo, # 69 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 6 − 11−24−14 Langel Email to Gulati, Flynn and Levine, # 70 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 14 − 12−6−12 − Langel Email to Gulati and Levine, # 71 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 15 − 12−10−12 Levine Letter to Langel, # 72 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 19 − 2−20−13 Levine Email to Langel and Uselton, # 73 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 20 − 2−19−13 Levine Letter to Lange, # 74 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 21 − 2−28−13 − Langel MEmo to Levine, # 75 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 23 − 3−5−13 Levine Email to Langel and Gulati, # 76 Exhibit Langel Exhibit 25 − 3−8−13 Gulati Email to Langel, # 77 Exhibit Supplemental Interrogatory

02/21/2020 02/21/2020 02/24/2020 02/24/2020 02/26/2020
03/02/2020 03/03/2020 03/04/2020

Responses, # 78 Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
172 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni, re Sealed Declaration in SupportDeclaration,,,, 169 served on 2/20/2020. (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
173 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Alex Morgan. correcting NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants liability under the Equal Pay Act, for compensation−based discrimination under Title VII, and Defendants First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth affirmative defenses 170 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 6, # 3 Exhibit 10)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
174 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Exhibits 8, 11, 12, 20, 26, 27, 28 and 31 to the Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal 168 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc..(Smentek, Sharilee) (Entered: 02/24/2020)
175 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Exhibits 8, 11, 12, 20, 26, 27, 28 and 31 to the Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal 168 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Designating Party's Declaration ISO Appl to file Under Seal etc.)(Smentek, Sharilee) (Entered: 02/24/2020)
176 MEDIATION REPORT Filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni: Mediation held on August 13 and 14, 2019. The parties are unable to reach an agreement at this time. Counsel: Please evaluate the effectiveness of the ADR Program by completing a survey on your mediation experience. To access the survey, click on the following link: MediationParticipantSurvey(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
178 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiffs' Application to Seal [DE 168 ] by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting in part and denying in part 168 APPLICATION to Seal Document. (See document for details.) Re: Sealed Declaration in Support 169 . (sbou) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
177 STIPULATION for Order Regarding the Local Rule 16−2 Pretrial Meeting of Counsel and Expert Deposition filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
179 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. correcting NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants liability under the Equal Pay Act, for compensation−based discrimination under Title VII, and Defendants First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth affirmative

03/04/2020 03/04/2020 03/04/2020 03/05/2020 03/09/2020
03/09/2020

defenses 170 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Plaintiffs' MSJ, # 2 Corrected Plaintiffs' SUF, # 3 Corrected Exhibit 32 to Diana Leiden Declaration)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
180 EXHIBIT 8, 11 and 12 to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants liability under the Equal Pay Act, for compensation−based discrimination under Title VII, and Defendants First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth affirmative defenses 170 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8 − Tom King Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit 11 − Carlos Cordeiro Deposition Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit 12 − Email dated 12/21/2017)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
181 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibits 20 and 31 to the Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants liability under the Equal Pay Act, for compensation−based discrimination under Title VII, and Defendants First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth affirmative defenses 170 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal, 178 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 20 − Jay Berhalter Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit 31 − Business Review Meeting Excerpts)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
183 ORDER GRANTING Stipulation Regarding the Local Rule 16−2 Pretrial Meeting of Counsel and Expert Deposition 177 by Judge R. Gary Klausner as follows: The Local Rule 16−2 pretrial meeting of counsel may take place after the current deadline of 3/11/2020 and instead, on 3/17/2020; and The deposition of Defendant's expert Dr. Justin McCrary may take place after the 4/3/2020 expert deposition deadline on 4/9/2020. (jp) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
182 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni, re Sealed Document,,, 181 served on 3/4/2020. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
184 APPLICATION to file document Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 64 to the Further Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden under seal filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document (Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's MSJ), # 3 Redacted Document (Exhibits 35−38 to Further Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration), # 4 Redacted Document (Exhibits 40−46 to Further Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration), # 5 Redacted Document (Exhibit 48 to Further Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration), # 6 Redacted Document (Exhibits 50−61 to Further Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration), # 7 Redacted Document (Exhibit 64 to Further Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration))(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
185 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 35,

03/09/2020

36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 64 to the Further Declaration o 184 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document (Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's MSJ), # 2 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 35), # 3 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 36), # 4 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 37), # 5 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 38), # 6 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 40), # 7 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 41), # 8 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 42), # 9 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 43), # 10 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 44), # 11 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 45), # 12 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 46), # 13 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 48), # 14 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 50), # 15 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 51), # 16 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 52), # 17 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 53), # 18 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 54), # 19 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 55), # 20 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 56), # 21 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 57), # 22 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 58), # 23 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 59), # 24 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 60), # 25 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 61), # 26 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 64))(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
186 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants liability under the Equal Pay Act, for compensation−based discrimination under Title VII, and Defendants First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth affirmative defenses 170 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Def's Statement of Genuine Disputes in Respnse to Pls' Statement of Uncontroverted Facts ISO their Mtn for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Declaration Egan Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Egan Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 4 Declaration Gulati Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 5 Exhibit Exh. 1 to Gulati Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 6 Exhibit Exh. 2 to Gulati Decl., # 7 Exhibit Exh. 3 to Gulati Decl., # 8 Exhibit Exh. 4 to Gulati Decl., # 9 Exhibit Exh. 5 to Gulati Decl., # 10 Exhibit Exh. 6 to Gulati Decl., # 11 Exhibit Exh. 7 to Gulati Decl., # 12 Exhibit Exh. 8 to Gulati Decl., # 13 Exhibit Exh. 9 to Gulati Decl., # 14 Exhibit Exh. 10 to Gulati Decl., # 15 Exhibit Exh. 11 to Gulati Decl., # 16 Exhibit Exh. 12 to Gulati Decl., # 17 Exhibit Exh. 13 to Gulati Decl., # 18 Exhibit Exh. 14 to Gulati Decl., # 19 Exhibit Exh. 15 to Gulati Decl., # 20 Exhibit Exh. 15a to Gulati Decl., # 21 Exhibit Exh. 16 to Gulati Decl., # 22 Declaration Second Gulati Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 23 Exhibit Exh. 1 to Second Gulati Decl., # 24 Declaration Hopfinger Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 25 Declaration Irwin Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 26 Exhibit Exh. 1 to Irwin Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 27 Declaration 2nd Irwin Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 28 Exhibit Exh. 1 to 2nd Irwin Decl., # 29 Declaration King Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 30 Exhibit Exh. 1 to King Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 31 Exhibit Exh. 2 to King Decl., # 32 Exhibit Exh. 3 to King Decl., # 33 Exhibit Exh. 4 to King Decl., # 34 Exhibit Exh. 5 to King Decl., # 35 Exhibit Exh. 6 to King Decl., # 36 Exhibit Exh. 7 to King Decl., # 37 Exhibit Exh. 8 to King Decl., # 38 Exhibit Exh. 9 to King Decl., # 39 Exhibit Exh. 10 to King Decl., # 40 Exhibit Exh. 11 to King Decl., # 41 Exhibit Exh. 12 to King Decl., # 42 Exhibit Exh. 13 to King Decl., # 43 Exhibit Exh. 14 to King Decl., # 44 Exhibit Exh. 15 to King Decl., # 45 Exhibit Exh. 16 to King Decl., # 46 Exhibit Exh. 17 to King Decl., # 47 Exhibit Exh. 18 to King Decl., # 48 Exhibit Exh. 19 to King Decl., # 49 Exhibit Exh. 20 to King Decl., # 50 Exhibit Exh. 21 to King Decl., # 51 Declaration 2nd King Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 52 Exhibit Exh. 1 to 2nd King Decl., # 53 Exhibit Exh. 2 to 2nd King Decl., # 54 Declaration McCrary Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 55 Exhibit Exh. 1 to McCrary Decl., # 56 Exhibit Exh. 2 to McCrary Decl., # 57 Declaration Moses Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 58 Exhibit Exh. 1 to Moses Decl., # 59 Declaration Raina Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 60 Declaration 2nd Raina Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 61 Declaration Sauer

03/09/2020 03/09/2020

Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 62 Declaration Stewart Decl. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 63 Exhibit Cordeiro Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 64 Exhibit Ellis Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 65 Exhibit King Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 66 Exhibit Klingenberg Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 67 Exhibit Exh. 7 to Klingenberg Transcript Excerpts, # 68 Exhibit Langel 2016 Transcript Excerpts, # 69 Exhibit Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 70 Exhibit Exh. 1 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 71 Exhibit Exh. 4 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 72 Exhibit Exh. 6 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 73 Exhibit Exh. 14 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 74 Exhibit Exh. 15 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 75 Exhibit Exh. 19 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 76 Exhibit Exh. 20 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 77 Exhibit Exh. 21 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 78 Exhibit Exh. 23 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 79 Exhibit Exh. 25 to Langel Transcript Excerpts, # 80 Exhibit Lloyd Transcript Excerpts, # 81 Exhibit Exh. 15 to Lloyd Transcript Excerpts, # 82 Exhibit Morgan Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 83 Exhibit Nichols Tanscript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 84 Exhibit Exh. 4 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 85 Exhibit Exh. 6 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 86 Exhibit Exh. 8 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 87 Exhibit Exh. 10 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 88 Exhibit Exh. 12 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 89 Exhibit Exh. 17 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 90 Exhibit Exh. 19 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 91 Exhibit Exh. 31 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 92 Exhibit Exh. 33 to Nichols Tanscript Excerpts, # 93 Exhibit O'Hara Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 94 Exhibit Rapinoe Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 95 Exhibit Exh. 29 to Rapinoe Transcript Excerpts, # 96 Exhibit Exh. 32 to Rapino Transcript Excerpts, # 97 Exhibit Roux Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 98 Exhibit Exh. 5 to Roux Transcript Excerpts, # 99 Exhibit Exh. 6 to Roux Transcript Excerpts, # 100 Exhibit Exh. 18 to Roux Transcript Excerpts, # 101 Exhibit Exh. 19 to Roux Transcript Excerpts, # 102 Exhibit Exh. 21 to Roux Transcript Excerpts, # 103 Exhibit Exh. 37 to Roux Transcript Excerpts, # 104 Exhibit Sauerbrunn Transcript Excerpts, # 105 Exhibit Exh. 7 to Sauerbrunn Transcript Excerpts ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 106 Exhibit Exh. ISO Opposition to Pls' Mtn for Part. Summary Judgment, # 107 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Denying Pls' Mtn for Partial Summary Judgment)(Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
187 Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims 171 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Genuine Disputes, # 2 Objections to Evidence, # 3 Declaration of Cardelle B. Spangler, # 4 Exhibit 1 to Cardelle B. Spangler Declaration (Letter Dated August 3, 2016), # 5 Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden, # 6 Exhibit 34 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration (Dr. Finnie Cook Expert Rebuttal Report), # 7 Redacted Document −Exhibits 35−38 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 39 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration (John Langel Depo Transcript Excerpts), # 9 Redacted Document −Exhibits 40−46 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 47 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration (Dr. Caren Goldberg Expert Report), # 11 Redacted Document −Exhibit 48 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 49 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration (USSF 2017 Form 990), # 13 Redacted Document −Exhibits 50−61 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration, # 14 Exhibit 62 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration (USSF Answer to Plaintiffs' First Set Interrogatories), # 15 Exhibit 63 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration (Christen Press Depo Transcript Excerpts), # 16 Redacted Document −Exhibit 64 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration)(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
188 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony 167 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Egan Decl. ISO Opposition to Mtn to

03/10/2020
03/13/2020 03/13/2020 03/13/2020 03/16/2020 03/16/2020
03/16/2020 03/16/2020

Exclude Expert Testimony, # 2 Exhibit Exh. 1 to Egan Decl., # 3 Exhibit Exh. 2 to Egan Decl., # 4 Exhibit Exh. 3 to Egan Decl., # 5 Exhibit Exh. 4 to Egan Decl., # 6 Exhibit Exh. 5 to Egan Decl., # 7 Exhibit Exh. 1 to Egan Decl. Exh. 5, # 8 Exhibit Exh. 2 to Egan Decl. Exh. 5, # 9 Exhibit Exh. 3 to Egan Decl. Exh. 5, # 10 Exhibit Exh. 4 to Egan Decl. Exh. 5, # 11 Exhibit Exh. 5 to Egan Decl. Exh. 5, # 12 Exhibit Exh. 6 to Egan Decl., # 13 Exhibit Exh. 7 to Egan Decl., # 14 Exhibit Exh. 8 to Egan Decl., # 15 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Denying Mtn to Exclude Expert Testimony)(Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
189 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni, re Sealed Declaration in SupportDeclaration,,,,,,, 185 served on 3/9/2020 and 3/10/2020. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 03/10/2020)
190 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION to file document Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 64 to the Further Declaration o 184 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc..(Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
191 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. correcting NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims 171 Errata to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Errata − O'Hara Transcript Excerpts)(Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
192 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. correcting MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 186 Errata to Exhibit 1 of Carlyn Irwin's Second Declaration in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Errata − Corrected Exhibit 1 to Carlyn Irwin Second Declaration)(Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
193 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Stipulation Re: Expert Depositions of Dr. Robert Noll and Caren Goldberg, Ph.D., and Defendant's Deadline to File Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
194 REPLY In Support of A Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony 167 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeanifer E. Parsigian, # 2 Exhibit 7 to Jeanifer E. Parsigian Declaration − Excerpts of Appendix E)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
195 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jamie L Wine counsel for Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Adding Jamie L. Wine as counsel of record for Defendant United States Soccer Federation Inc. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation Inc.. (Attorney Jamie L Wine added to party United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (pty:dft))(Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
196 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michele D Johnson counsel for Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Adding Michele D. Johnson as counsel of record for Defendant United States Soccer Federation Inc. for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation Inc.. (Attorney Michele D Johnson added to party United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (pty:dft))(Johnson, Michele) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/16/2020
03/16/2020 03/16/2020 03/16/2020 03/19/2020 03/19/2020 03/20/2020

197 REPLY In Support of A Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants liability under the Equal Pay Act, for compensation−based discrimination under Title VII, and Defendants First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth affirmative defenses 170 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Evidentiary Objections, # 2 Supplemental Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, # 3 Statement of Additional Genuine Disputes, # 4 Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden, # 5 Exhibit 65 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration − Washington Post Article, # 6 Exhibit 66 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration − The New York Times Article, # 7 Exhibit 67 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration − Carlos Cordeiro Letter, # 8 Exhibit 68 to Diana Hughes Leiden Declaration − Rebecca Roux Deposition Excerpts)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
198 REPLY in support NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims 171 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Reply To Statement of Genuine Disputes, # 2 Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Deposition of Rebecca Roux, # 4 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order re Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections)(Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
199 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. correcting Reply (Motion related),,,,, 197 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Plaintiffs' Reply In Support Of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
219 EMERGENCY MOTIONS to Intervene by "USA, ex rel; Stephen P Wallace, aka Private Attorney General", and for a Temporary Stay While President Donald J. Trump Reviews Case for Settlement via an Executive Order, with Brief in support filed by Intervenor Stephen P Wallace. (jp) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
200 Text Only Entry: Pursuant to Local Rule 5−4.4.2, counsel for defendant shall immediately submit the proposed order in connection with Docket Entry 193 (to the Judge's generic email address) in Word or Word Perfect format. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/19/2020)
201 ORDER GRANTING The Stipulation Re: Expert Depostions of Dr. Robert Noll and Caren Goldberg, Ph.D., and Defendant's Deadline to File Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony 193 by Judge R. Gary Klausner as follows: (1) The deposition of Plaintiffs expert Dr. Robert Noll will take place after the 4/3/2020 expert discovery deadline on 4/21/2020. (2) The deposition of Plaintiffs expert Caren Goldberg, Ph.D. will take place after the 4/3/2020 expert discovery deadline on or before 4/9/2020; and (3) The filing deadline for Defendants Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony be extended from 3/20/2020 to 4/13/2020, and Plaintiffs' Opposition thereto from 4/10/2020 to 4/17/2020. (jp) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
202 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (1) to Exclude Evidence of Sum Revenues filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020
03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020

203 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (2) to Preclude Use Of USSF Payments To Union To Argue Payments Are Wages To Plaintiffs filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
204 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (No. 2) to Exclude Evidence of Head Coaches' Salaries filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
205 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (3) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To Payments By Third Parties To Plaintiffs filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
206 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (4) to Exclude Testimony And Argument About Plaintiffs' NWSL−Related Compensation filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
207 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (5) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To CBA And Negotiations As A Defense To EPA And Title VII Liability filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
208 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (No. 4) to Exclude Evidence and Argument at Trial Related to Unpled Allegations of Disparate Forms of Discrimination filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
209 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (6) to Preclude Reference To USSF's Non−Profit Status filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
210 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (1) to Exclude Pre−2012 Negotiations and Langels 2004 Complaint and Documents Referenced Therein filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Exhibit 56, # 2 Exhibit B − John Langel Deposition Excerpt at p. 48, # 3

03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 03/20/2020

Exhibit C − John Langel Deposition Excerpts at pp. 250−253, 259−262, # 4 Exhibit D − Exhibit Langel−40, # 5 Proposed Order)(Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
211 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (7) to Exclude Defendant's Late Disclosed Witnesses filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
212 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (3) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony of Dr. Finnie Cook filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Cook Report, # 2 Exhibit B − Cook Rebuttal Report, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stolzenbach, Brian) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
213 DECLARATION of Wesley J. Horton in Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (No. 4) to Exclude Evidence and Argument at Trial Related to Unpled Allegations of Disparate Forms of Discrimination 208 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts of Deposition of Alex Morgan, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Excerpts of Deposition of Kelley O'Hara)(Horton, Wesley) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
214 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (8) to Preclude Justifications Based On Non−Job−Related "Factors Other Than Sex" filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
215 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (9) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To Other International Soccer Team Payments filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
216 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (10) to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 5/5/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner.(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
217 DECLARATION of Jeanifer E. Parsigian in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (1) to Exclude Evidence of Sum Revenues 202 , MOTION IN LIMINE (10) to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony 216 , MOTION IN LIMINE (4) to Exclude Testimony And Argument About Plaintiffs' NWSL−Related Compensation 206 , MOTION IN LIMINE (7) to Exclude Defendant's Late Disclosed Witnesses 211 , MOTION IN LIMINE (8) to Preclude Justifications Based On Non−Job−Related "Factors Other Than Sex" 214 , MOTION IN LIMINE (5) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To CBA And Negotiations As A Defense To EPA And Title VII Liability 207 , MOTION IN LIMINE (3) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To Payments By Third Parties To Plaintiffs 205 , MOTION IN LIMINE (2) to Preclude Use Of USSF Payments To Union To Argue Payments Are Wages To Plaintiffs 203 , MOTION IN LIMINE (6) to

03/20/2020
03/24/2020 03/24/2020 03/30/2020

Preclude Reference To USSF's Non−Profit Status 209 , MOTION IN LIMINE (9) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To Other International Soccer Team Payments 215 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Jay Berhalter 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Collective Bargaining Meeting Notes, # 3 Exhibit 3 − EEOC Letter dated 5−31−2016, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Tom King 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Sunil Gulati 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit 6 − 2017−2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement, # 7 Exhibit 7 − 2011−2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Alex Morgan Deposition Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit 9 − Megan Rapinoe Deposition Excerpts, # 10 Exhibit 10 − 2013−2016 MOU, # 11 Exhibit 11 − Sunil Gulati Deposition Excerpts, # 12 Exhibit 12 − Philip Miscimarra Expert Report, # 13 Exhibit 13 − Jay Berhalter Deposition Excerpts, # 14 Exhibit 14 − USSF's Proposed Witness List, # 15 Exhibit 15 − USSF's Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, # 16 Exhibit 16 − Email Correspondence dated January 15−20, 2020, # 17 Exhibit 17 − USSF's Amended and Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, # 18 Exhibit 18 − Justin McCrary Expert Report dated 3−6−2020, # 19 Exhibit 19 − Justin McCrary Expert Report dated 2−2−2020, # 20 Exhibit 20 − Carlyn Irwin Expert Report, # 21 21 − USSF's Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
218 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION IN LIMINE (1) to Exclude Evidence of Sum Revenues 202 , MOTION IN LIMINE (10) to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony 216 , MOTION IN LIMINE (4) to Exclude Testimony And Argument About Plaintiffs' NWSL−Related Compensation 206 , MOTION IN LIMINE (7) to Exclude Defendant's Late Disclosed Witnesses 211 , MOTION IN LIMINE (8) to Preclude Justifications Based On Non−Job−Related "Factors Other Than Sex" 214 , MOTION IN LIMINE (5) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To CBA And Negotiations As A Defense To EPA And Title VII Liability 207 , MOTION IN LIMINE (3) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To Payments By Third Parties To Plaintiffs 205 , MOTION IN LIMINE (2) to Preclude Use Of USSF Payments To Union To Argue Payments Are Wages To Plaintiffs 203 , MOTION IN LIMINE (6) to Preclude Reference To USSF's Non−Profit Status 209 , MOTION IN LIMINE (9) to Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To Other International Soccer Team Payments 215 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motions In Limine Nos. 1−10)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
220 (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Emergency Motion to Intervene by Stephen P.Wallace by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court DENIES Wallace's ex parte application 219 . "An ex parte application is a means of obtaining extraordinary relief and is appropriate in only rare circumstances." Wallace has failed to demonstrate that his request for relief "cannot be calendared in the usual manner." (jp) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
221 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The following motions, on calendar for hearing on March 30, 2020, have been taken off the motion calendar and under submission: Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 170 ; Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims 171 ; and Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony 167 . No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/24/2020)
222 Witness List filed by Plaintiff Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Richard M. Nichols, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan.. (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2020)

03/30/2020 03/30/2020 03/30/2020 03/31/2020
03/31/2020
04/01/2020 04/01/2020 04/01/2020
04/02/2020 04/07/2020

223 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan. (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
224 JOINT Exhibit List filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni.. (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
225 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
226 Joint APPLICATION to file document redacted version of the parties' Joint Witness List under seal filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Document (Exhibit A − Joint Witness List))(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
227 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF Joint APPLICATION to file document redacted version of the parties' Joint Witness List under seal 226 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document (Exhibit A − Joint Witness List))(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
228 (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Joint Application to Seal [DE 226] by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court GRANTS in part the Joint Application 226 . (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
229 REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ATTORNEY Seyfarth Shaw as counsel of record filed by defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Peters, Kristen) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
230 Joint STIPULATION to Clarify The Summary Judgment Record filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
231 Witness List filed by Plaintiffs [Redacted Joint Witness List] Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni.. (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
232 Joint EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Guidance Regarding Case Schedule filed by plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn

04/07/2020 04/07/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/13/2020 04/13/2020
04/14/2020

Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
233 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Kuan Huang to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC−26004817) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Michele) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
234 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Sarah M. Gragert to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC−26004878) filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Johnson, Michele) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
235 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner GRANTING Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney Jamie Lynne Wine for Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., in place and stead of Brian M Stolzenbach, Chantelle C Egan, Cheryl A Luce, Ellen E McLaughlin, Giovanna A Ferrari, Kyllan B Kershaw, Noah A Finkel, Sharilee K Smentek, and Kristen M Peters of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP 229 . (jp) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
236 ORDER GRANTING Joint Stipulation Clarifying the Summary Judgment Record 230 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
237 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 233 Non−Resident Attorney kuan Huang APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., designating Michele D Johnson as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
238 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 234 Non−Resident Attorney Sarah M Gragert APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc., designating Michele D Johnson as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
239 (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Joint Ex Parte Application for Order for Guidance Regarding Case Schedule [DE 232 ] by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The 4/20/2020 Pretrial Conference is continued until 6/1/2020. (2) The 5/5/2020 Trial Date is continued until 6/16/2020. (jp) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
240 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (No. 5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Caren Goldberg filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 6/16/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
241 DECLARATION of Wesley J. Horton in Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (No. 5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Caren Goldberg 240 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Expert Report of Caren Goldberg, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Supplemental Expert Report of Caren Goldberg, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Deposition Transcript of Caren Goldberg, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Morgan Deposition, Exhibit 9, Charge of Discrimination, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Transcript of Proceedings in Prentice v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., # 6 Exhibit 6 − Order in Ravina v. Columbia University, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Deposition Transcript of Jay Berhalter, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Deposition Transcript of Carlos Cordeiro)(Horton, Wesley) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
242 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Changes to Case Deadlines filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kessler, Jeffrey)

04/15/2020 04/17/2020 04/17/2020
04/17/2020 04/17/2020

(Entered: 04/14/2020)
243 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Unopposed Application to File Under Seal 184 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
244 SEALED DOCUMENT Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal 243 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni.(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
245 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibits 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, and 64 to the Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal 243 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 35), # 2 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 36), # 3 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 37), # 4 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 38), # 5 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 40), # 6 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 41), # 7 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 42), # 8 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 43), # 9 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 44), # 10 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 45), # 11 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 46), # 12 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 48), # 13 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 50), # 14 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 51), # 15 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 52), # 16 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 53), # 17 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 54), # 18 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 55), # 19 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 56), # 20 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 57), # 21 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 58), # 22 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 59), # 23 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 60), # 24 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 61), # 25 Unredacted Document (Exhibit 64))(Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
246 ORDER GRANTING Joint Stipulation Regarding Changes to Case Deadlines 242 by Judge R. Gary Klausner, the Court grants the Parties' Joint Stipulation that: (1) Plaintiffs may file an additional motion in limine addressing Defendant'sdefense that Plaintiffs' Equal Pay Act "claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that certain workweeks were performed entirely within foreign countries" on 4/17/2020, and opposition and reply deadlines shall be the same as the Parties other motions in limine; (2) Plaintiffs will serve objections to Defendant's jury instructions on 5/19/2020; (3) The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Opposition to Defendant's motionin limine regarding Dr. Goldberg's testimony will be May 4, 2020 andthe deadline for Defendant to file its Reply thereto will be 5/26/2020;and (4) The deadline for the Parties to file oppositions to all other motions inlimine will be 5/15/2020. (jp) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
247 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (11) to Preclude Defendant From Relying On 29 U.S.C § 213(f) As A Defense To Plaintiffs' Equal Pay Act Claims filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 6/16/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Jeanifer E. Parsigian, # 2 Exhibit 22 − Expert Opinion Second Supplemental Report of Carlyn Irwin, # 3 Exhibit 23 − Carlyn Irwin Deposition Transcript Excerpts, # 4 Proposed Order)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/20/2020 05/01/2020
05/01/2020 05/04/2020 05/04/2020 05/08/2020 05/08/2020 05/15/2020

248 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni, re Sealed Document,, 244 , Sealed Document,,,,,,, 245 served on 4/17/2020. (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
249 NOTICE filed by plaintiffs' Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Notice of Amendment to Plaintiffs' Witness List and Exhibit List (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeanifer E. Parsigian, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Jeanifer E. Parsigian Declaration [Email Exchange Ending with March 26, 2020 Email], # 3 Exhibit 2 to Jeanifer E. Parsigian Declaration [Email Exchange Ending with April 8, 2020 Email], # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 233)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
250 (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE 170 ; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 171 ) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion and GRANTS in part Defendant's Motion. Plaintiffs' Title VII claim for discriminatory working conditions survives only insofar as it is based on (1) travel conditions (specifically charter flights and hotel accommodations), and (2) personnel and support services (specifically, medical and training support). (jp) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
251 (IN CHAMBERS) Order Regarding Outstanding Motions by Judge R. Gary Klausner: The parties shall file a joint statement not to exceed 5 pages no later than 5/15/2020. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (jp) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
252 OPPOSITION re: MOTION IN LIMINE (No. 5) to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Caren Goldberg 240 filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni, Interested Party Richard M. Nichols. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Diana Leiden, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Leiden Decl)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
253 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Entry of Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. Motion set for hearing on 6/8/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
254 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay pending Re: June 16, 2020 Trial Pending The Resolution Of Plaintiffs' Rule 54(b) Motion and Any Appeal filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Diana Hughes Leiden, # 2 Proposed Order) (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
255 STATEMENT Regarding Pending Motions filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha

05/15/2020 05/15/2020 05/15/2020 05/18/2020 05/20/2020
05/21/2020 05/21/2020 05/29/2020 06/02/2020 06/02/2020
06/23/2020

Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni Joint Statement Regarding Pending Motions re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held 251 . (Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
256 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Pretrial Conference is HEREBY CONTINUED to 08/31/2020 at 9:00 am; and the Jury Trial is HEREBY CONTINUED to 09/15/2020 at 9:00 am. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/15/2020)
257 STIPULATION to Continue Pretrial Deadlines filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
258 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY THE JUNE 16, 2020 TRIAL PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF PLAINTIFFS RULE 54(b) MOTION AND ANY APPEAL by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (yl) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
259 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Entry of Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) 253 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
260 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Petrial Deadlines filed by Plaintiffs Morgan Brian, Jane Campbell, Danielle Colaprico, Abby Dahlkemper, Tierna Davidson, Crystal Dunn, Julie Ertz, Adrianna Franch, Ashlyn Harris, Tobin Heath, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Carli Lloyd, Allie Long, Merritt Mathias, Jessica McDonald, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Alyssa Naeher, Kelley OHara, Christen Press, Mallory Pugh, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, Casey Short, Emily Sonnett, Andi Sullivan, McCall Zerboni. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kessler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
261 ORDER GRANTING Joint Stipulation Regarding Pretrial Deadlines 260 by Judge R. Gary Klausner that the deadline for the Parties to file oppositions to Motions in Limine will be 8/7/2020, with Parties' replies thereto due 8/21/2020. (jp) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
262 DENIED BY ORDER OF THE COURT by Judge R. Gary Klausner re Joint Stipulation to Continue Pretrial Deadlines 257 . THE STIPULATION IS DENIED AS MOOT. (jp) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
263 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of Amendment to Plaintiffs' Witness List and Exhibit List Notice (Other),,, 249 filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. Motion set for hearing on 6/29/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
264 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of Amendment to Plaintiffs' Witness List and Exhibit List Notice 263 , was filed after the motion cut−off date ordered by the Court. The Court will construe the document an objection and will not place the matter on the Court's motion calendar. (jp) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
265 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) 253 , calendared for hearing on June 8, 2020 has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/02/2020)
266 (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment [DE 253 ] by Judge R. Gary Klausner. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs' request for Rule 54(b) certification. (SEE CIVIL MINUTES FOR FURTHER SPECIFICS). (et) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

07/02/2020 07/02/2020 07/08/2020 07/08/2020 07/29/2020
08/06/2020

267 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Brian D. Netter to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Tobin Heath, Carli Lloyd, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC−27052499) filed by Plaintiffs Tobin Heath, Carli Lloyd, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
268 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Nicole A. Saharsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Tobin Heath, Carli Lloyd, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn (Pro Hac Vice Fee − $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC−27052673) filed by Plaintiffs Tobin Heath, Carli Lloyd, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Leiden, Diana) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
269 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 267 Non−Resident Attorney Brian D Netter APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Tobin Heath, Carli Lloyd, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, designating Diana Hughes Leiden as local counsel. (jp) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
270 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: granting 268 Non−Resident Attorney Nicole A. Saharsky APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs Tobin Heath, Carli Lloyd, Samantha Mewis, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Becky Sauerbrunn, designating Diana Hughes Leiden as local counsel. (et) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
271 SCHEDULING NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Because of the unavailability of jurors during this pandemic, the Court will only be able to conduct bench trials at this time. Consequently, the Pretrial Conference is continued to January 11, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., and the Jury Trial is continued to January 26, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. If the parties wish to proceed with a bench trial on the current trial date of September 15, 2020, a stipulation to waive jury should be filed no later than August 6, 2020.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/29/2020)
272 Joint STIPULATION for Order to Continue Pretrial Deadlines filed by Defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wine, Jamie) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

 
 Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:1

1 Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice forthcoming) jkessler@winston.com
2 Ddfaevhiedr@G.wFienhsteorn(.pcroomhac vice forthcoming) 3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue 4 New York, New York 10166
Telephone: (212) 294- 6700 5 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700

6 CcsapradnegllleerB@. wSpinasntgolne.rc(opmro hac vice forthcoming) 7 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Drive 8 Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-5600 9 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700

10 Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606) dhleiden@winston.com
11 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
12 Los Angeles, California 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1700
13 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

WESTERN DIVISION

17 ALEX MORGAN, MEGAN RAPINOE,

18

BECKY SAUERBRUNN, CARLI LLOYD, MORGAN BRIAN, JANE CAMPBELL,

Case No. 2:19-CV-01717

DANIELLE COLAPRICO, ABBY

PLAINTIFFS’ COLLECTIVE

19 DAHLKEMPER, TIERNA DAVIDSON,

ACTION COMPLAINT FOR

20

CRYSTAL DUNN, JULIE ERTZ, ADRIANNA FRANCH, ASHLYN HARRIS, TOBIN

VIOLATIONS OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT AND

21

HEATH, LINDSEY HORAN, ROSE LAVELLE, ALLIE LONG, MERRITT

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR

MATHIAS, JESSICA MCDONALD,

VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII

22 SAMANTHA MEWIS, ALYSSA NAEHER, OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

23

KELLEY O’HARA, CHRISTEN PRESS, MALLORY PUGH, CASEY SHORT, EMILY

OF 1964

24

SONNETT, ANDI SULLIVAN AND MCCALL ZERBONI,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

25

Plaintiffs/Claimants,

26 vs.

27 UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION,

INC.,

28

Defendant/Respondent.

COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

1. The United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (“USSF”) is the single,

3 common employer of female and male professional soccer players who play on the

4 United States Senior Women’s National Soccer Team (“WNT”) and the United States

5 Senior Men’s National Soccer Team (“MNT”). Despite the fact that these female and

6 male players are called upon to perform the same job responsibilities on their teams

7 and participate in international competitions for their single common employer, the

8 USSF, the female players have been consistently paid less money than their male

9 counterparts. This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of

10 the male players – with the female players, in contrast to male players, becoming

11 world champions.

12

2. The USSF has claimed that its mission is to “promote and govern soccer

13 in the United States in order to make it the preeminent sport recognized for excellence

14 in participation, spectator appeal, international competitions and gender equality.”

15 (Emphasis added.) In reality, the USSF has utterly failed to promote gender equality.

16 It has stubbornly refused to treat its female employees who are members of the WNT

17 equally to its male employees who are members of the MNT. The USSF, in fact, has

18 admitted that it pays its female player employees less than its male player employees

19 and has gone so far as to claim that “market realities are such that the women do not

20 deserve to be paid equally to the men.” The USSF admits to such purposeful gender

21 discrimination even during times when the WNT earned more profit, played more

22 games, won more games, earned more championships, and/or garnered higher

23 television audiences.

24

3. During his 2017 campaign for president of the USSF, current President

25 Carlos Cordeiro, who had been a member of the USSF’s Board of Directors since

26 2007 and Vice President of the USSF from 2016 to February 2018, admitted, “Our

27 women’s teams should be respected and valued as much as our men’s teams, but our

28 female players have not been treated equally.” The USSF, however, has paid only lip

1
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:3

1 service to gender equality and continues to practice gender-based discrimination

2 against its champion female employees on the WNT in comparison to its less

3 successful male employees on the MNT.

4

4. This collective and class action is brought by current female employees

5 of the USSF who play on the WNT for violations of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29

6 U.S.C. § 206(d) et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

7 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), on behalf of themselves and all other similarly

8 situated current and former WNT players who the USSF has subjected to its

9 continuing policies and practices of gender discrimination. The USSF discriminates

10 against Plaintiffs, and the class that they seek to represent, by paying them less than

11 members of the MNT for substantially equal work and by denying them at least equal

12 playing, training, and travel conditions; equal promotion of their games; equal support

13 and development for their games; and other terms and conditions of employment

14 equal to the MNT.

15

5. This action seeks an end to the USSF’s discriminatory practices, and an

16 award to make Plaintiffs and the class whole, as well as to provide for liquidated and

17 punitive damages and all other appropriate relief.

18

PARTIES

19

6. Alex Morgan is a woman who resides in Maitland, Florida during the

20 National Women’s Soccer League season and in Manhattan Beach, California during

21 the off-season. During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Morgan has been

22 employed by the USSF as a member of the WNT.

23

7. Megan Rapinoe is a woman who resides in Seattle, Washington. During

24 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Rapinoe has been employed by the USSF as a

25 member of the WNT.

26

8. Becky Sauerbrunn is a woman who resides in Portland, Oregon. During

27 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Sauerbrunn has been employed by the USSF as

28 a member of the WNT.

2
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:4

1

9. Carli Lloyd is a woman who resides in Medford, New Jersey. During

2 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Lloyd has been employed by the USSF as a

3 member of the WNT.

4

10. Morgan Brian is a woman who resides in Chicago, Illinois. During times

5 relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Brian has been employed by the USSF as a member

6 of the WNT.

7

11. Jane Campbell is a woman who resides in Houston, Texas. During times

8 relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Campbell has been employed by the USSF as a

9 member of the WNT.

10

12. Danielle Colaprico is a woman who resides in Freehold, New Jersey.

11 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Colaprico has been employed by the

12 USSF as a member of the WNT.

13

13. Abby Dahlkemper is a woman who resides in Menlo Park, California.

14 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Dahlkemper has been employed by the

15 USSF as a member of the WNT.

16

14. Tierna Davidson is a woman who resides in Menlo Park, California.

17 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Davidson has been employed by the

18 USSF as a member of the WNT.

19

15. Crystal Dunn is a woman who resides in Rockville Centre, New York.

20 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Dunn has been employed by the USSF

21 as a member of the WNT.

22

16. Julie Ertz is a woman who resides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During

23 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Ertz has been employed by the USSF as a

24 member of the WNT.

25

17. Adrianna Franch is a woman who resides in Beaverton, Oregon. During

26 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Franch has been employed by the USSF as a

27 member of the WNT.

28

3
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:5

1

18. Ashlyn Harris is a woman who resides in Altamonte Springs, Florida.

2 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Harris has been employed by the USSF

3 as a member of the WNT.

4

19. Tobin Heath is a woman who resides in Portland, Oregon. During times

5 relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Heath has been employed by the USSF as a member

6 of the WNT.

7

20. Lindsey Horan is a woman who resides in Golden, Colorado. During

8 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Horan has been employed by the USSF as a

9 member of the WNT.

10

21. Rose Lavelle is a woman who resides in Cincinnati, Ohio. During times

11 relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Lavelle has been employed by the USSF as a member

12 of the WNT since 2017.

13

22. Allie Long is a woman who resides in Tacoma, Washington. During

14 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Long has been employed by the USSF as a

15 member of the WNT.

16

23. Merritt Mathias is a woman who resides in Portland, Oregon. During

17 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Mathias has been employed by the USSF as a

18 member of the WNT.

19

24. Jessica McDonald is a woman who resides in Chapel Hill, North

20 Carolina. During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff McDonald has been

21 employed by the USSF as a member of the WNT.

22

25. Samantha Mewis is a woman who resides in Dorchester, Massachusetts.

23 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Mewis has been employed by the USSF

24 as a member of the WNT.

25

26. Alyssa Naeher is a woman who resides in Charlotte, North Carolina.

26 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Naeher has been employed by the

27 USSF as a member of the WNT.

28

4
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:6

1

27. Kelley O’Hara is a woman who resides in Atlanta, Georgia. During

2 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff O’Hara has been employed by the USSF as a

3 member of the WNT.

4

28. Christen Press is a woman who resides in Palos Verdes, California.

5 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Press has been employed by the USSF

6 as a member of the WNT.

7

29. Mallory Pugh is a woman who resides in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

8 During times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Pugh has been employed by the USSF

9 as a member of the WNT.

10

30. Casey Short is a woman who resides in Chicago, Illinois. During times

11 relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Short has been employed by the USSF as a member

12 of the WNT.

13

31. Emily Sonnett is a woman who resides in Marietta, Georgia. During

14 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Sonnett has been employed by the USSF as a

15 member of the WNT.

16

32. Andi Sullivan is a woman who resides in Rockville, Maryland. During

17 times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Sullivan has been employed by the USSF as a

18 member of the WNT.

19

33. McCall Zerboni is a woman who resides in Raleigh, North Carolina

20 during the National Women’s Soccer League season and in San Juan Capistrano,

21 California with her family during the off-season. During times relevant to this

22 lawsuit, Plaintiff Zerboni has been employed by the USSF as a member of the WNT.

23

34. Defendant USSF is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation domiciled in

24 the State of New York, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and with operations

25 throughout the United States, including in Los Angeles County, California. At all

26 times relevant hereto, the USSF employed more than 500 people including, but not

27 limited to, Plaintiffs and all current and former members of the WNT and the MNT,

28

5
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:7

1 all of whom performed their employment services as players in training camps and

2 games throughout the United States, including in Los Angeles County, California.

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

35. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

5 because Plaintiffs assert federal claims under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.

6

36. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c)

7 because a Plaintiff resides in this district; all Plaintiffs perform work in this district,

8 including attending training camps for extensive periods of time and playing WNT

9 games; the USSF conducts substantial business throughout this district, including, but

10 not limited to, maintaining the U.S. Soccer National Training Center in Carson,

11 California where USSF, among other things, evaluates WNT players at training camps

12 and hosts WNT games; and events giving rise to claims herein occurred in this district

13 including, but not limited to, WNT players attending training camps and playing

14 games.

15

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16

37. The USSF is the common employer of the players on the WNT and the

17 MNT. It centrally manages and controls every aspect of the senior national team

18 program for both teams and their female and male members. This includes, for

19 example, selecting and hiring their members as employees; setting and providing them

20 with their pay; hiring their coaches, trainers, nutritionists, doctors, massage therapists,

21 administrators and other staff people; deciding the number of games the employees

22 play, the location of games, the opponents for games, the tournaments in which they

23 participate, and nature, timing and funding for promotion of the games; determining

24 the surface of the fields on which their employees play; scheduling times and

25 locations for training camps; granting access to practice fields, locker rooms and

26 exercise equipment during camps; setting ticket prices for home games; and deciding

27 whether to charter a flight for employees or require they travel commercially for

28

6
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:8

1 games. Every aspect of the players’ employment on both teams is commonly

2 controlled by and dictated by the USSF, as the common employer.

3

38. This centralized management and control has permitted the USSF to

4 perpetuate gender-based discrimination against Plaintiffs and the class they seek to

5 represent in nearly every aspect of their employment.

6

39. This is the case even though the WNT has achieved unmatched success

7 in international soccer leading to world championships and substantial profits for the

8 USSF and even though Plaintiffs are required to perform the same job duties that

9 require equal skill, effort and responsibilities performed under similar working

10 conditions as the male MNT players.

11

A. The WNT Has Achieved Unmatched Success in International Soccer

12

Leading to Substantial Profits for the USSF as Plaintiffs’ Employer.

13

40. The WNT has enjoyed unparalleled success in international soccer. The

14 team has won three World Cup titles, most recently in 2015, four Olympic Gold

15 Medals and numerous other international competitions. It is the three-time winner of

16 the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Team of the Year Award and has been Sports

17 Illustrated’s Athlete of the Year. The WNT is currently ranked number one in the

18 world, a position it has held ten out of the last eleven years.

19

41. The July 5, 2015 World Cup title game garnered approximately 23

20 million viewers, making it the most watched soccer game in American TV history.

21 The post-Cup Victory Tour drew tens of thousands of fans to soccer stadiums across

22 the United States, a trend that continued years after that historic achievement.

23

42. The WNT’s success on the field has translated into substantial revenue

24 generation and profits for the USSF. In fact, during the period relevant to this case,

25 the WNT earned more in profit and/or revenue than the MNT.

26

43. For example, for FY2016 (April 1, 2015-March 31, 2016), the USSF

27 budgeted a combined net loss for the national teams of $429,929. But thanks largely

28 to the success of the female players on the WNT, the USSF revised its projections

7
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:9

1 upward to include a $17.7 million profit. The net profit for the WNT outstripped net

2 profit for the MNT because the female players on the WNT were more successful in

3 competition than the male players on the MNT – while being paid substantially less.

4

B. Plaintiffs Are Required to Perform the Same Job Duties that Require

5

Equal Skill, Effort and Responsibilities Performed under Similar

6

Working Conditions as MNT Players.

7

44. Notwithstanding the unbridled on-field success and financial

8 contributions of the WNT players, the USSF has and continues to have a policy and

9 practice of discriminating against Plaintiffs based upon their gender by treating them

10 substantially less favorably than members of the MNT with regard to pay and other

11 terms and conditions of employment despite the USSF requiring Plaintiffs to perform

12 the same job duties that require equal skill, effort and responsibilities performed under

13 similar working conditions as MNT players.

14

45. As their common employer, the USSF, for example, has and continues to

15 require that Plaintiffs and male players on the MNT be available for training and any

16 games requested by the USSF; maintain a high level of competitive soccer skills and

17 physical conditioning such that they can compete as elite soccer players; not use

18 illegal or banned drugs or any other harmful substances; serve as a spokesperson for

19 soccer and devote reasonable best efforts to promoting and developing the sport of

20 soccer in the U.S.; grant all reasonable requests by the USSF to promote games and to

21 participate in a reasonable number of media interviews and other media sessions;

22 participate in autograph sessions; devote whatever time is reasonable and necessary to

23 perform their duties as players and spokespeople; comport themselves, at all times, in

24 a manner befitting their positions as members of the WNT and MNT and

25 spokespersons and representatives of the USSF and the sport of soccer; and comply

26 with the USSF’s reasonable rules and regulations.

27

46. As their common employer, the USSF also has and continues to require

28 that Plaintiffs and male players on the MNT maintain competitive soccer skills,

8
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:10

1 physical conditioning and overall health by undergoing rigorous training routines

2 (endurance running, weight training, etc.) and by adhering to certain nutrition,

3 physical therapy and other regimens. They must attend training camps and practices,

4 participate in skills drills and play scrimmages and other practice events.

5

47. As their common employer, the USSF also has and continues to require

6 Plaintiffs and male players on the MNT to travel nationally and internationally as

7 necessary for competitive games, which are the same in length, physical and mental

8 demand, and playing environment and conditions throughout the United States and

9 globally. Plaintiffs and MNT players do not work in a single location, but are

10 required to perform and work in games throughout the United States and globally,

11 according to the playing schedule set by the USSF.

12

48. Plaintiffs and similarly situated male employees of the USSF must adhere

13 to the same rules of the game of soccer as established by the Federation Internationale

14 de Football Association (“FIFA”). They play on the same size field; use the same size

15 ball; have the same duration of matches and play by the same rules regarding start and

16 restart of play, offside, fouls and misconduct, free kicks, penalty kicks, throw-ins,

17 goals kicks, corner kicks, etc.

18

49. In light of the WNT’s on-field success, Plaintiffs often spend more time

19 practicing for and playing in matches, more time in training camps, more time

20 traveling and more time participating in media sessions, among other duties and

21 responsibilities, than similarly situated MNT players.

22

50. For example, from 2015 through 2018, the WNT played nineteen more

23 games than the MNT played over that same period of time. As the MNT averaged

24 approximately seventeen games per year in that time frame, the WNT played the

25 equivalent of more than one additional MNT calendar year season from 2015 through

26 2018.

27

51. The USSF, nevertheless, has paid and continues to pay Plaintiffs less

28 than similarly situated MNT players.

9
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:11

1

C. The USSF Has a Policy and Practice of Discriminating Against

2

Members of the WNT, Including Plaintiffs, on the Basis of Gender

3

by Paying Them Less Than Similarly Situated MNT Players.

4

52. Beginning as early as 2012 and at various times thereafter, members of

5 the WNT through their union, the WNT Players’ Association (“WNTPA”), have

6 demanded that the USSF offer WNT players pay equal to pay afforded to MNT

7 players. These demands, however, have been rejected, and the USSF has paid and

8 continues to pay WNT players less for comparable services than the USSF pays to

9 male players on the MNT.

10

53. Under the pay structure in effect from January 1, 2001 through December

11 31, 2018, MNT players received a minimum amount (currently $5,000) to play in each

12 game, regardless of the outcome. That minimum can increase to amounts currently

13 ranging from $6,250 to $17,625 per game, depending on the level of their opponent

14 (FIFA-ranked 1-10, FIFA-ranked 11-24, FIFA ranked above 25) and whether they win

15 or tie the game.

16

54. The USSF has continually rejected WNT players’ requests for pay equal

17 to the pay afforded to MNT players. In response to their demand in 2012, the USSF

18 offered WNT players compensation only if they won games against FIFA-ranked top

19 ten teams. The USSF would not have paid them for losing games, tying games or

20 winning against teams ranked outside of the top ten.

21

55. In response to the WNT players’ demand for equal pay in 2016, a

22 representative of the USSF admitted that the USSF has and will continue to have a

23 practice of gender-based pay discrimination. The representative pronounced, “market

24 realities are such that the women do not deserve to be paid equally to the men.” The

25 USSF made this statement after it already had conceded that the WNT outperformed

26 the MNT in both revenue and profit the prior year.

27

28

10
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:12

1

56. The USSF has never offered female WNT players pay at least equal to

2 the pay afforded to male MNT players. In fact, the USSF has admitted that WNT

3 players have been paid less than comparable male MNT players.

4

57. From March 19, 2013 through December 31, 2016, WNT players could

5 earn a maximum salary of $72,000 plus bonuses for winning non-tournament games

6 called “friendlies,” for World Cup-related appearances and victories, and for

7 placement at the Olympics.

8

58. A comparison of the WNT and MNT pay shows that if each team played

9 20 friendlies in a year and each team won all twenty friendlies, female WNT players

10 would earn a maximum of $99,000 or $4,950 per game, while similarly situated male

11 MNT players would earn an average of $263,320 or $13,166 per game against the

12 various levels of competition they would face. A 20-game winning top tier WNT

13 player would earn only 38% of the compensation of a similarly situated MNT player.

14

59. The compensation afforded WNT players for World Cup competition

15 was even more strikingly disparate than for friendlies.

16

60. From March 19, 2013 through December 31, 2016, WNT players earned

17 only $15,000 total for being asked to try out for the World Cup team and for making

18 the team roster. MNT players, on the other hand, earned $55,000 each for making

19 their team’s roster in 2014 and could have earned $68,750 each for making their

20 team’s roster in 2018.

21

61. The pay for advancement through the rounds of the World Cup was so

22 skewed that, in 2014, the USSF provided the MNT with performance bonuses totaling

23 $5,375,000 for losing in the Round of 16, while, in 2015, the USSF provided the

24 WNT with only $1,725,000 for winning the entire tournament. The WNT earned

25 more than three times less than the MNT while performing demonstrably better.

26

62. The WNTPA entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with the

27 USSF effective January 1, 2017 (“2017 CBA”). During collective bargaining for a

28

11
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:13

1 new contract, USSF rejected requests for compensation for the WNT players that

2 would have been at least equal to that afforded to the male MNT players.

3

63. The WNTPA even proposed a revenue-sharing model that would test the

4 USSF’s “market realities” theory. Under this model, player compensation would

5 increase in years in which the USSF derived more revenue from WNT activities and

6 player compensation would be less if revenue from those activities decreased. This

7 showed the players’ willingness to share in the risk and reward of the economic

8 success of the WNT. The USSF categorically rejected this model as well.

9

64. The USSF continues its policy and practice of paying female WNT

10 players less than similarly situated male MNT players on a per game basis.

11

65. Each Plaintiff has and continues to earn less compensation on a per game

12 basis than comparable male players on the MNT.

13

66. The USSF has no legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for this gross

14 disparity in pay, nor can it be explained away by any bona fide seniority, merit or

15 incentive system or any other factor other than sex.

16

D. The USSF Has a Policy and Practice of Discriminating Against

17

Members of the WNT, Including Plaintiffs, on the Basis of Gender

18

by Providing Them with Less Favorable Terms and Conditions of

19

Employment Than Similarly Situated MNT Players.

20

67. The USSF’s ongoing policies and practices of intentional gender

21 discrimination extend beyond pay and into nearly every aspect of Plaintiffs and

22 similarly situated WNT players’ work conditions. This includes playing, training and

23 travel conditions; promotion of their games; support and development for their games

24 and other terms and conditions of their employment that are less favorable than

25 provided to MNT players.

26

68. For example, the USSF has complete control over the surfaces, i.e., grass,

27 grass overlay or artificial surfaces such as turf, on which the national teams play their

28 home matches. Playing on inferior surfaces, including artificial turf, can lead to

12
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:14

1 significant, career-threatening injuries. Such surfaces also affect fundamentals of the

2 games, including the way the ball bounces and how the ball can be struck.

3

69. At times relevant hereto, the USSF subjected Plaintiffs and similarly

4 situated current and former WNT players to matches on inferior surfaces at a rate far

5 in excess of that required of MNT players.

6

70. For example, from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017, the

7 WNT played 62 domestic matches, 13 (21%) of which were played on artificial

8 surfaces. During that same period of time, the MNT played 49 domestic matches,

9 only 1 (2%) of which was played on an artificial surface.

10

71. During this same time period, the USSF arranged for natural grass to be

11 installed temporarily over artificial surfaces for 8 MNT domestic matches, including 3

12 venues where the USSF did not temporarily install natural grass when the WNT

13 played in those same venues. The USSF provided a temporary natural grass overlay

14 for the WNT only once during this same time period.

15

72. The USSF has complete control over whether it requires WNT and MNT

16 players to take commercial flights or chooses to charter flights for the teams. Charter

17 flights provide for more physical comfort, less risk of lost baggage or missed

18 connections and better opportunity for rest before and after games, among other

19 benefits.

20

73. The USSF provides the MNT with the benefit of charter flights more

21 frequently than it does for the WNT. In 2017, for example, the USSF chartered flights

22 for the MNT on at least seventeen occasions, while failing to do so even once for the

23 WNT.

24

74. The USSF has complete control over the timing and manner of and

25 resources it devotes to promote national team games. Among other things, the USSF

26 has allocated less resources promoting WNT games than it has allocated promoting

27 MNT games; has not announced WNT games with sufficient notice to allow for

28

13
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:15

1 maximum attendance; and has not used all available means to promote WNT games in

2 a manner at least equal to MNT games.

3

75. In December 2017, the former President of Soccer United Marketing –

4 the for-profit marketing company the USSF has used for many years to market the

5 national teams and other soccer entities – acknowledged that the WNT has been

6 under-marketed. She further acknowledged that the USSF has “taken the WNT for

7 granted” and agreed that there was a need for the USSF to invest equally in the WNT

8 and MNT.

9

76. Such disparate treatment in the promotion of the WNT has a direct and

10 negative effect not only on revenue generated by the WNT but compensation in the

11 form of ticket share revenue – an amount paid by the USSF to each national team for

12 each ticket sold to their USSF-promoted home friendlies. When fewer people know

13 about a game, fewer people buy tickets to the game and fewer dollars are generated

14 from the game.

15

77. The USSF further continues to discriminate against Plaintiffs and

16 similarly situated WNT players by having set ticket prices to the WNT games at a

17 lower price than for MNT games. The USSF’s unilateral decision to set such lower

18 ticket prices, coupled with its decision to provide substantially less marketing and

19 promotion support to the WNT, results in USSF-manufactured revenue depression for

20 the WNT, which is then used as pretext for lower compensation for Plaintiffs.

21

78. The USSF has no legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the gross

22 disparity in the terms and conditions of employment to which it has subjected and

23 continues to subject Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent.

24

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

25 The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by the Equal Pay Act, 29

26

U.S.C. §§ 206 et seq.

27

79. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

28 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

14
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:16

1

80. The USSF has engaged in systemic gender-based pay discrimination

2 against its female WNT employees. The USSF has caused, contributed to, and

3 perpetuated gender-based pay disparities through common policies, practices, and

4 procedures, including but not limited to common compensation policies, common

5 conduct management policies, and centralized decision-making.

6

81. Plaintiffs bring collective claims alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act

7 of 1963 (“EPA”) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

8

82. Plaintiffs seek to be appointed as representatives of the collective.

9

83. Plaintiffs and the collective are similarly situated in that they are all

10 current or former female WNT employees of the USSF who all have been and/or are

11 being subjected to and adversely affected by the USSF’s common policies and

12 practices of paying them less than male MNT players for substantially the same or

13 similar work.

14

84. Questions of law and fact common to each Plaintiff and the respective

15 similarly situated current and former employees that she seeks to represent include but

16 are not limited to the following:

17

a. Whether the USSF has an unlawful common policy or practice of

18 paying members of the collective less than similarly situated male employees for

19 substantially equal or similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and

20 responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions.

21

b. Whether the USSF unlawfully failed and continues to fail to

22 compensate members of the collective at a level commensurate with similarly situated

23 male employees.

24

c. Whether the USSF has willfully violated the EPA by intentionally,

25 knowingly, and/or deliberately paying female WNT employees less than its male

26 MNT employees for substantially equal or similar work.

27

d. Whether the USSF’s common policy or practice of paying

28 members of the collective less than similarly situated male employees for substantially

15
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:17

1 equal or similar work can be explained away by any bona fide seniority, merit or

2 incentive system or any other factor other than sex.

3

85. Counts for violation of the EPA may be brought and maintained as an

4 “opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for all claims asserted by

5 Plaintiffs, because their claims are similar to the claims of the similarly situated

6 employees whom they seek to represent.

7

86. Plaintiffs and the respective employees they seek to represent are (a)

8 similarly situated and (b) subjected to Defendant’s common compensation policies,

9 practices, and procedures and centralized decision-making resulting in unequal pay

10 based on sex by failing to compensate Plaintiffs at a level commensurate with male

11 employees who perform substantially equal or similar work.

12

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

13

Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

14

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

15

87. Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn each filed a charge of

16 discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on

17 March 30, 2016 on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated WNT players

18 alleging the USSF had discriminated against them on the basis of sex.

19

88. On February 5, 2019, the EEOC issued Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd,

20 Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn Notices of Right to Sue, which these Plaintiffs each received

21 on February 11, 2019. True and accurate copies of Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe

22 and Sauerbrunn’s Notices of Right to Sue are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.

23

89. Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn have exhausted their

24 administrative remedies and have brought this action in a timely manner.

25

90. Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn bring this action as a

26 class action under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

27 Procedure, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

28

16
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:18

1

91. Specifically, the class Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn

2 seek to represent is comprised of all current and/or former WNT players who were

3 members of the WNT at any time from February 4, 2015 through the date of final

4 judgment, or the date of the resolution of any appeals therefrom, whichever is later.

5

92. The Class contains more than fifty (50) individuals, all of whom are

6 readily ascertainable based on the USSF’s payroll records, and is so numerous that

7 joinder of all members is impracticable.

8

93. Plaintiffs Lloyd, Morgan, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn’s claims are typical of

9 the claims of the other members of the Class because the USSF’s discriminatory acts

10 of subjecting WNT players to terms and conditions of employment less favorable than

11 MNT players has injured Plaintiffs Lloyd, Morgan, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn and the

12 members of the Class.

13

94. Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn and other Class

14 Members sustained damages arising out of the USSF’s common course of conduct in

15 violation of law as complained herein. The injuries and damages of each member of

16 the Class were directly caused by the USSF’s wrongful conduct in violation of laws as

17 alleged herein.

18

95. Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn will fairly and

19 adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and have retained counsel

20 competent and experienced in class action litigation.

21

96. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class

22 which predominate over any questions affecting solely individual members of the

23 Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class include:

24

a. Whether the USSF discriminates against the Class in violation of

25 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil

26 Rights Act of 1991 (“Title VII”), by subjecting them to different treatment on the

27 basis of their gender, and whether Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered disparate

28

17
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:19

1 impact and/or disparate treatment discrimination as a result of Defendant’s wrongful

2 conduct.

3

b. Whether there are legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for this

4 gross disparity of wages and other terms and conditions of employment and whether

5 those reasons are pretext for unlawful gender discrimination.

6

c. Whether the USSF has willfully violated Title VII by intentionally,

7 knowingly, and/or deliberately subjecting WNT players to terms and conditions of

8 employment less favorable than MNT players.

9

d. Whether, as a result of the USSF’s ongoing conduct, violation of

10 Title VII, and/or willful discrimination, Plaintiff and similarly situated former and

11 current WNT members have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including but

12 not limited to lost earnings, lost benefits, and other financial loss, as well as non-

13 economic damages.

14

97. The USSF’s policies at issue apply uniformly to all members of the

15 Class.

16

98. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class

17 would create the risk of:

18

a. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual

19 class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party

20 opposing the Class; or

21

b. Adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a

22 practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties

23 to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their abilities

24 to protect their interests.

25

99. In construing and enforcing their uniform agreements, rules, and

26 practices, and in taking and planning to take the actions described in this Complaint,

27 the USSF has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to each of the

28

18
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:20

1 Plaintiffs, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief would be

2 appropriate for the Class as a whole.

3

100. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

4 efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all Class Members is

5 impracticable. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class

6 would impose heavy burdens upon the courts and the USSF, and would create a risk

7 of inconsistent or varying adjudications of the questions of law and fact common to

8 the Class. A class action, on the other hand, would achieve substantial economies of

9 time, effort and expense, and would ensure uniformity of decision as to persons

10 similarly situated without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other

11 undesirable results.

12

101. The interest of members of the Class in individually controlling the

13 prosecution of separate actions is theoretical rather than practical. The Class has a

14 high degree of cohesion, and prosecution of the action through representatives would

15 be unobjectionable. The amounts at stake for Class Members, while substantial in the

16 aggregate, are not great enough individually to enable them to maintain separate suits

17 against the USSF. Plaintiffs do not anticipate any difficulty in the management of this

18 action as a class action.

19

CAUSES OF ACTION

20

COUNT I

21

Equal Pay Act

22 (The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by the Equal Pay Act,

23

29 U.S.C. §§ 206 et seq.)

24

102. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

25 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

26

103. The USSF has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the collective in

27 violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 et seq., as

28 amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (“EPA”).

19
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:21

1

104. The USSF has paid Plaintiffs and the collective less than similarly

2 situated male employees performing equal work on jobs the performance of which

3 require equal skill, effort and responsibility and which are performed under similar

4 working conditions.

5

105. The differential in pay between Plaintiffs and the collective on the one

6 hand and similarly situated male employees on the other was and is not due to any

7 bona fide seniority, merit or incentive system or any other factor other than sex, but

8 was because of gender.

9

106. The USSF did not act in good faith and created and perpetuated gender-

10 based wage discrimination in violation of the EPA.

11

107. The foregoing conduct constitutes a willful violation of the EPA within

12 the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). The three-year statute of limitations applies to the

13 USSF’s EPA violations because the USSF’s EPA violations were and are willful.

14

108. As a result of the USSF’s gender-based discriminatory policies and/or

15 practices as described above, female WNT employees have suffered damages

16 including, but not limited to, lost past and future income, compensation and benefits.

17

109. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter described.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members of the

20 collective, pray for relief as follows:

21

a. Certify this action as a collective action under the EPA, designate

22 Plaintiffs as the representatives of the collective, promptly issue notice pursuant to 29

23 U.S.C. § 216(b) to all similarly situated members of the collective which (1) apprises

24 them of the pendency of this action and (2) permits them to assert timely EPA claims

25 in this action by filing individual Consent to Join forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §

26 216(b); and toll the statute of limitations on the claims of all members of the collective

27 from the date the original Complaint was filed until the collective members are

28

20
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:22

1 provided with reasonable notice of the pendency of this action and a fair opportunity

2 to exercise their right to opt into the lawsuit;

3

b. Back pay (including interest and benefits) for Plaintiffs and the

4 collective members;

5

c. Liquidated damages;

6

d. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

7

e. Attorneys’ fees and costs to the fullest extent allowed by law; and

8

f. Such other relief as the Court deems just, necessary and proper.

9

COUNT II

10

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended

11

(42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.)

12

110. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

13 contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

14

111. Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn bring this claim on

15 behalf of themselves and the class they represent.

16

112. The conduct described herein violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

17 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

18

113. The USSF has and continues to intentionally discriminate against

19 Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn and the class they seek to represent

20 on the basis of gender by maintaining a policy and practice of treating them less

21 favorably than similarly situated male employees with respect to, among other things,

22 pay; playing, training and travel conditions; promotion of games; and support and

23 development for games.

24

114. The USSF’s discriminatory practices described above have denied

25 Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe, Sauerbrunn and the class they seek to represent of

26 compensation and other benefits of employment to which they are entitled, which has

27 resulted in the loss of past and future wages and other job benefits, and have caused

28 these Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress.

21
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:23

1

115. The USSF acted or failed to act as herein alleged with malice or reckless

2 indifference to the protected rights of Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe, Sauerbrunn

3 and the class they seek to represent. Plaintiffs and the class are thus entitled to

4 punitive damages.

5

116. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter described.

6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn, on behalf

8 of themselves and the class they seek to represent, pray for relief as follows:

9

a. Certify this action as a class action under Title VII, designate

10 Plaintiffs Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn as the representatives of the

11 proposed class, and their counsel of record as Class Counsel;

12

b. All damages that the individual Plaintiffs and the class have

13 sustained as a result of the USSF’s unlawful conduct including, but not limited to,

14 back pay, front pay, general and special damages for lost compensation and job

15 benefits that they would have received but for the discriminatory practices of the

16 USSF;

17

c. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with

18 the USSF’s ability to pay and to deter future discriminatory conduct;

19

d. A preliminary and permanent injunction against the USSF and its

20 directors, officers, agents, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting

21 in concert with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies and practices set

22 forth herein;

23

e. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of in this

24 Complaint are unlawful and violate 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.;

25

f. An adjustment of the wage rates and benefits for Plaintiffs

26 Morgan, Lloyd, Rapinoe and Sauerbrunn and the class to the level these Plaintiffs and

27 the class would be enjoying but for the USSF’s discriminatory practices;

28

22
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:24

1

g. Costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent

2 allowable by law;

3

h. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

4

i. Such other relief as the Court deems just, necessary and proper.

5 6 Dated: March 8, 2019 7 8 9 10 11

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP By: /s/ Diana Hughes Leiden
Jeffrey L. Kessler David G. Feher Cardelle B. Spangler Diana Hughes Leiden Jeanifer E. Parsigian Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23
COMPLAINT

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 1 Filed 03/08/19 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:25

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by

3 jury on all issues so triable.

4 5 Dated: March 8, 2019

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

6

By: /Jse/ffDreiaynLa.HKuegshsleesrLeiden

7

David G. Feher

Cardelle B. Spangler

8

Diana Hughes Leiden

Jeanifer E. Parsigian

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24
COMPLAINT

 
 Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:26
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:27

EEOC Form 161~8 (11/16)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)

To: Megan A. Rapinoe clo Cardelle Spangler, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703

From:

Chicago District Office 500 West Madison St Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661

D

On behalf of person{s) aggrieved whose identity is

CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601. l(a))

EEOC Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

440-2016-03570

Gregory T. Mucha, Investigator

(312) 869-8135

(See also the additional information enclosed with this form.)

NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination

Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII, the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has

been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII, the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS

of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under

state law may be different.)
m More than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge.

D

Less than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will

m

be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of this charge. The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.

D

The EEOC will continue to process this charge.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until

90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below applies to

your case:

D

The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN

90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

D

The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However, if 60 days have passed since the filing of the charge,

you may file suit in federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.

If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

Enclosures(s)

Julianne Bowman, District Director

cc:

THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION

clo Kathryn H. Ruemmler, Partner

Latham & Watkins LLP

555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

(Date Mailed)

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:28

EEOC Form 5 (11/09)

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Aa Statement and other lnfonnation before completing this form.

Charge Presented To: 0FEPA
[ ! ] E EOC

AgencyQes) Charge No(s):
440-2016-03570

Illinois Department Of Human Rights
State or locsl Agency, Hany

Name (indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)

Home Phone (Incl. Area Code)

Ms. Megan A. Rapinoe

(212) 294-4698

Street Address

City, State and ZIP Code

C/O Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq., Winston & Strawn LLP, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY 10166

and EEOC
Date of Buth
07-05-1985

Named is the Employer, !-abor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICULARS below.)

Name

No, Employee1, Members Phone No. (Include Area Code)

THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION

101 -200

(312) 808-1300

Street Address

City, State and ZIP Code

1801 S. Prairie Ave., Chicago, IL 60616

Name

No. Employees, Members Phone No. (Include Area Code}

Street Address

City, State and ZIP Code

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).)

D D RACE

COLOR

[Kl SEX

D D RELIGION

NATIONAL ORIGIN

D D D RETALIATION

AGE

DISABILITY

D GENETIC INFORMATION

CK] OTHER (SpecityJ Equal Pay

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additionalpaper is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):

SEE ATTACHED

OATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

Eartlest

Latest

04-13-2016

[ ! ] CONTINUING ACTION

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and tile State or local Agency, if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I wlll cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge In accordance with their procedures.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above Is true and correct.

4-19- 16

~~

Date

Charging Party Signature

Rtcc1vco t.

APR

~OC

I a201s

CHfCAGoa

¥Sff11cr" _ , 171 ."C'

NOTARY- When necessaryfor State and LocalAge11cy RequfrementS

I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, infonnation and belief. SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
,_
SUBSCRIBED ANOSWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (month, day, yeal)

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:29
ATTACHMENT
I. I have been an employee of Respondent, the United States Soccer Federation, since I was selected as a soccer player on the United States Women's National Soccer Team ("WNT") in the year 2006. At all times relevant to this charge of discrimination, the Federation also employed and continues to employ individuals selected as soccer players on the United States Men's National Soccer Team ("MNT").
II. The WNT has eajoyed unparalleled success in international soccer, winning three World Cup titles and four Olympic Gold Medals - an accomplishment that no other country on the men's or women's side has reached in Olympic competition. The WNT also has achieved numerous other first place wins in significant international tournaments and is currently ranked number one in the world, a position it has held on a near continuous basis for the last 7 years.
III. My team won its third World Cup title on July 5, 2015. The game captured the hearts of approximately 23 million viewers, making it the most watched soccer game in American TV history. I embarked on a post-Cup Victory Tour, which drew tens of thousands of fans to soccer stadiums across the United States and tens of millions of dollars into the Federation's coffers.
IV. In fact, according to the Federation's most recent annual report, it initially projected a combined net loss for the national teams of $429,929 for FY 2016 (April l, 2015 March 31, 2016). But thanks almost exclusively to the success of the WNT, the Federation now projects a $17.7 million profit in connection with these teams. And for FY 2017, the Federation projects a net profit from the WNT of approximately $5,000,000, while projecting a net loss of nearly $1,000,000 for the MNT.
V. Unfortunately, the WNT's on-field accomplishments and revenue generation have not resulted in me or my fellow players earning equal or better pay than MNT players. In fact, my compensation pales in comparison to that of the MNT players. This despite the fact that, as my employer, the Federation is bound by federal law to compensate me at least equally to the rate at which it compensates MNT players given that the women and men perform the same job duties; have jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibilities; and perform our jobs under similar working conditions.
VI. More specifically, the pre-game, game and post-game duties, as well as the skill, effort, responsibilities and working conditions of WNT players are substantially the same and/or greater than those of MNT players. The Federation, for example, expects both sets of players to:
a. maintain their conditioning and overall health such as by undergoing rigorous training routines (endurance running, weight training, etc.) and adhering to certain nutrition, physical therapy and other regimens.
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:30
b. maintain their skills by, for example, attending training camps and frequent practices, participating in skills drills, and playing scrimmages and other practice events;
c. travel nationally and internationally as necessary for competitive games, which are the same in length, physical and mental demand, and playing environment and conditions; and
d. promote a positive image for soccer through media and other appearances.
The success of the WNT, however, has meant and continues to mean that we spend more time in training camp, play far more games, travel more, and participate in more media sessions, among other things, than MNT players.
VII. Despite all of these facts, I and similarly situated WNT players, have been paid and continue to be paid substantially less than MNT players.
VIII. The Federation's compensation structure for the WNT and MNT generally can be divided into four buckets: (1) compensation for games called Friendlies; (2) WorldCup-related compensation; (3) Olympics-related compensation and (4) compensation for sponsor appearances, ticket revenue and other monies.
IX. Friendlies: The Federation pays top tier WNT players between 38% and 72% of the compensation the MNT players earn on a per game basis.
X. Specifically, the Federation pays top tier WNT players, such as me, $72,000 per year to play a minimum of 20 Friendlies that year. I also receive a bonus of $1,350 for each Friendly we win (I receive no additional compensation if we lose or tie the game). So, if we lose all 20 games, we each receive $72,000 for the year or only $3,600 per game; if we win all twenty games, we receive $99,000 for that year or $4,950 per game.
XI. MNT players are also required to play a minimum of 20 Friendlies per year. They, however, receive a minimum of $5,000 to play in each game, regardless of the outcome. They can receive compensation ranging from $6,250 to $17,625 per game depending on the level of their opponent (FIFA-ranked 1-10, FIFA-ranked 11-25, or FIFA-ranked above 25) and whether they tie or win the game. So, if a MNT player loses all 20 Friendlies, he will earn $100,000 -- $27,000 more than similarly situated WNT players and $_1,000 more than WNT players who win all of their games. If MNT players win all of their games against the various levels of competition they likely would face, they likely would earn an average of $13,166 per game or $263,320 in year. A 20-game winning top tier WNT player would earn 38% of the compensation of a similarly situated MNT player.
XII. These numbers present an even starker contrast when considering that each game over 20 played by a WNT player earns that player either no additional compensation
2

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:31

(for a tie or a loss) or maximum compensation of$1,350. Each additional game over 20 played by a MNT player earns that player between $5,000 (for a loss) or up to $17,625 for a win.

XITI. World Cup. The compensation afforded WNT players for World Cup competition is even more strikingly disparate than that for the Friendlies. WNT players earn only $30,000 total both for being asked to try out for the World Cup team and for making the team roster. MNT players, on the other hand, earn $68,750 each for making their team's roster. The pay structure for advancement through the rounds of World Cup was so skewed that, in 2015, the MNT earned $9,000,000 for losing in the Round of 16, while the women earned only $2,000,000 for winning the entire tournament. In other words, the women earned four times less than the men while performing demonstrably better.

XIV.

Olympics. Notably, the WNT and MNT players each earn $15,000 for qualifying for the Olympic team and another $15,000 each for making the roster. The Federation's decision to pay the men and women equal compensation for Olympic play only highlights the unjustified and discriminatory animus underlying its decision to pay women differently than men in nearly all other respects.

XV. Other Compensation. The disparity in pay trickles down to nearly every aspect of the WNT player/Federation employment relationship. The Federation, for example, pays men a per diem of$62.50 for domestic venues and $75 for international venues, while paying the women $50 and $60, respectively, even though they are traveling for the same reasons. It pays men $3,750 for each sponsor appearance, while paying the women $3,000 per appearance to do the exact same work. The list goes on and on.

XVI. There are no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for this gross disparity of wages, nor crn1 it be explained away by any bona fide seniority, merit or incentive system or any other factor other than sex.

XVII. I, therefore, believe that I and a class of similarly situated WNT players have been

discriminated against because of sex, female, in violation of the Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

~

4-19-16

Megan '1\apinoe

Date

3

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:32

EEOC Form 161*8 (11/16)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)

To: Rebecca E. Sauerbrunn c/o Cardelle Spangler, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703

From:

Chicago District Office 500 West Madison St Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661

D

On behalf ofperson(s) aggrieved whose identity is

CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601. 7(a))

EEOC Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

440-2016-03571

Gregory T. Mucha, Investigator

(312) 869-8135

NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

(See also the additional information enclosed with this form.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII, the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII, the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different.)

CK]
D
CK]
D

More than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge.
Less than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of this charge. The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.
The EEOC will continue to process this charge.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until

90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below applies to

your case:

D

The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN

90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

D

The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However, if 60 days have passed since the filing of the charge,

you may file suit in federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue unde.rthe EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.

If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

Enclosures(s)

On behalf of the Commission

LL- &'-------

7

Julianne Bowman,

District Director

cc:

THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION

c/o Kathryn H. Ruemmler, Partner

Latham & Watkins LLP

555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

(Date Mailed)

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:33

EEOC Form 5 (11/09)

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
Thls form ls affected by the Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act Statement and other lnfonnation before completing this form.

Charge Presented To: 0FEPA
00 EEOC

AgencyQes) Charge No(s):
440-2016-03571

Illinois Department Of Human Rights
state or local Agency, ff any

and EEOC

Name (indicate Mr., Ms., MIS.)
Ms. Rebecca E. Sauerbrunn

Home Phone {Incl. Are.a Code)
(212) 2944698

Date Of Birth
06-06-1985

Street Address

City, State and ZIP Code

CIO Jeffrey l. Kessler, Esq., Winston &Strawn llP, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY 10166

Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Emplo:yment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe Discriminated Agalnst Me or Others. (If more than fi.vo, list under PARTICULARS below.)

Name

No. Employaes, Members Phone No. (include Area Code)

THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION

101 • 200

(312) 808-1300

Street Address

City, State and ZIP Code

1801 S. Prairie Ave., Chicago, ll 60616

Name

No. Employees, Members Phone No. (Include Area Code)

Street Address

City, state and ZlP Code

DJSCRIM!NATJON BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).)

D D RACE

COLOR

[!]SEX

D D RELIGION

NATIONALORIGIN

D RETAL!A.TION

D D AGE

DISABILITY

D GENETIC INFORMATION

[ ! ] OTHER rsµv.JfyJ Equal Pay

THE PARTlCUlARS ARE (If additional paper is needed, attach extra Sheet(s)J:

SEE ATTACHED

DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

Earliest

Latest

04-13-2016

w CONTINUJNGACT!ON

RECEIVED EEOC
APR 2 {I
CHICAGO DISTf!ICT OFFICE

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, If any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will

NOTARY - When n~ary for State and LocalAgency Requirements

cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their

1-"'-Pf.,.o_ced""""u_re_s....--.,,._...,........,-.,,-,.,,--:-.....,..,--,..-,-...,.,.,....----t Jswear or affillTl that I have read the above charge and that it Is true to

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true ar:d correct

the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

SIGNATURE Of COMPLAINANT

April 20, 2016
Data

Charging Party Signature

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (month, day, yeta1'

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:34
'-···
ATTACHMENT
I. I have been an employee of Respondent, the United States Soccer Federation, since I was selected as a soccer player on the United States Women's National Soccer Team ("WNT") in the year 2008. At all times relevant to this charge of discrimination, the Federation also employed and continues to employ individuals selected as soccer players on the United States Men's National Soccer Team ("MNT").
II. The WNT has enjoyed unparalleled success in international soccer, winning three World Cup titles and four Olympic Gold Medals - an accomplishment that no other country on the men's or women's side has reached in Olympic competition. The WNT also has achieved numerous other first place wins in significant international tournaments and is currently ranked number one in the world, a position it has held on a near continuous basis for the last 7 years.
III. My team won its third World Cup title on July 5, 2015. The game captured the hearts of approximately 23 million viewers, making it the most watched soccer game in American TV history. I embarked on a post-Cup Victory Tour, which drew tens of thousands of fans to soccer stadiums across the United States and tens of millions of dollars into the Federation's coffers.
IV. In fact, according to the Federation's most recent annual report, it initially projected a combined net loss for the national teams of $429,929 for FY 2016 (April 1, 2015 -
March 31, 2016). But thanks almost exclusively to the success of the WNT, the
Federation now projects a $17.7 million profit in connection with these teams. And for FY 2017, the Federation projects a net profit from the WNT of approximately $5,000,000, while projecting a net loss of nearly $1,000,000 for the MNT.
V. Unfortunately, the WNT's on-field accomplishments and revenue generation have not resulted in me or my fellow players earning equal or better pay than MNT players. In fact, my compensation pales in comparison to that of the MNT players. This despite the fact that, as my employer, the Federation is bound by federal law to compensate me at least equally to the rate at which it compensates MNT players given that the women and men perform the same job duties; have jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibilities; and perform our jobs under similar working conditions.
VI. More specifically, the pre-game, game and post-game duties, as well as the skill, effort, responsibilities and working conditions of WNT players are substantially the same and/or greater than those of MNT players. The Federation, for example, expects both sets ofplayers to:
a. maintain their conditioning and overall health such as by undergoing rigorous training routines (endurance running, weight training, etc.) and adhering to certain nutrition, physical therapy and other regimens.
1

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:35
b. maintain their skills by, for example, attending training camps and frequent
practices, participating in skills drills, and playing scrimmages and other practice events;
c. travel nationally and internationally as necessary for competitive games, which are the same in length, physical and mental demand, and playing environment and conditions; and
d. promote a positive image for soccer through media and other appearances.
The success of the WNT, however, has meant and continues to mean that we spend more time in training camp, play far more games, travel more, and participate in more media sessions, among other things, than MNT players.
VII. Despite all of these facts, I and similarly situated WNT players, have been paid and continue to be paid substantially less than MNT players.
VIII. The Federation's compensation structure for the WNT and MNT generally can be divided into four buckets: (I) compensation for games called Friendlies; (2) WorldCup-related compensation; (3) Olympics-related compensation and (4) compensation for sponsor appearances, ticket revenue and other monies.
IX. Friendlies: The Federation pays top tier WNT players between 38% and 72% of the compensation the MNT players earn on a per game basis.
X. Specifically, the Federation pays top tier WNT players, such as me, $72,000 per year to play a minimum of 20 Friendlies that year. I also receive a bonus of $1,350 for each Friendly we win (I receive no additional compensation if we lose or tie the game). So, if we lose all 20 games, we each receive $72,000 for the year or only $3,600 per game; if we win all twenty games, we receive $99,000 for that year or $4,950 per game.
XI. MNT players are also required to play a minimum of 20 Friendlies per year. They, however, receive a minimum of $5,000 to play in each game, regardless of the outcome. They can receive compensation ranging from $6,250 to $17,625 per game depending on the level of their opponent (FIFA-ranked 1-10, FIFA-ranked 11-25, or FIFA-ranked above 25) and whether they tie or win the game. So, if a MNT player loses all 20 Friendlies, he will earn $100,000 -- $27,000 more than similarly situated WNT players and $1.000 more than WNT players who win all of their games. If MNT players win all of their games against the various levels of competition they likely would face, they likely would earn an average of $13,166 per game or $263,320 in year. A 20-game winning top tier WNT player would earn 38% of the compensation of a similarly situated MNT player.
XII. These numbers present an even starker contrast when considering that each game
over 20 played by a WNT player earns that player either no additional compensation
2

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:36

(for a tie or a loss) or maximwn compensation of$1,350. Each additional game over 20 played by a MNT player earns that player between $5,000 (for a loss) or up to $17,625 for a win.

XIII.

World Cup. The compensation afforded WNT players for World Cup competition is even more strikingly disparate than that for the Friendlies. WNT players earn only $30,000 total both for being asked to try out for the World Cup team and for making the team roster. MNT players, on the other hand, earn $68,750 each for making their team's roster. The pay structure for advancement through the rounds of World Cup was so skewed that, in 2015, the MNT earned $9,000,000 for losing in the Round of 16, while the women earned only $2,000,000 for winning the entire tournament. In other words, the women earned four times less than the men while performing demonstrably better.

XIV.

Olvmpics. Notably, the WNT and MNT players each earn $15,000 for qualifying for the Olympic team and another $15,000 each for making the roster. The Federation's decision to pay the men and women equal compensation for Olympic play only highlights the unjustified and discriminatory animus underlying its decision to pay women differently than men in nearly all other respects.

XV. Other Compensation. The disparity in pay trickles down to nearly every aspect of the WNT player/Federation employment relationship. The Federation, for example, pays men a per diem of $62.50 for domestic venues and $75 for international venues, while paying the women $50 and $60, respectively, even though they are traveling for the same reasons. It pays men $3,750 for each sponsor appearance, while paying the women $3,000 per appearance to do the exact same work. The list goes on and on.

XVI. There are no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for this gross disparity of wages, nor can it be explained away by any bona fide seniority, merit or incentive system or any other factor other than sex.

XVII. I, therefore, believe that I and a class of similarly situated WNT players have been

discriminated against because of sex, female, in violation of the Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

'5'~~

April 20, 2016

Rebecca Sauerbrunn

Date

3

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:37

EEOC Form 161-6 (11116)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NO"(ICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)

To: Carli A. Lloyd c/o Cardelle Spangler, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703

From:

Chicago District Office 500 West Madison St Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60661

D

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is

CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601.7(a))

EEOC Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

440-2016-03568

Gregory T. Mucha,
Investigator

(312) 869-8135

NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

(See also the additional information enclosed with this form.)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination

Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII, the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has

been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII, the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS

of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under

m state law may be different.) More than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge.

D

Less than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but I have determined that it is unlikely that the EEOC will

m

be able to complete its administrative processing within 180 days from the filing of this charge. The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.

D

The EEOC will continue to process this charge.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): You may sue under the ADEA at any time from 60 days after the charge was filed until

90 days after you receive notice that we have completed action on the charge. In this regard, the paragraph marked below applies to

your case:

D

The EEOC is closing your case. Therefore, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be filed in federal or state court WITHIN

90 DAYS of your receipt of this Notice. Otherwise, your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

D

The EEOC is continuing its handling of your ADEA case. However, if 60 days have passed since the filing of the charge,

you may file suit in federal or state court under the ADEA at this time.

Equal Pay Act (EPA): You already have the right to sue under the EPA (filing an EEOC charge is not required.) EPA suits must be brought in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occu~red more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible.

If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

On behalf of the Commission

Enclosures(s)

7

Julianne Bowman, District Director

cc:

THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION

c/o Kathryn H. Ruemmler, Partner

Latham & Watkins LLP

555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

(Date Mailed)

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:38

EEOC Form 5 C11!09)
C HARGE OF D ISCRIMINATION
This form Is atrec!ed by the Privacy Ac1of1974. See enclosed Privacy Ad Stalement and other information befora comp!eU ~ this form.

Charge Presented To:
D FEPA
(K} EEOC

Agency(ies) Charge No(s):
440-201 6-03568

Name (lnd!clW Mr., Ms., Mrs.)
Ms. Carli A. Lloyd

Illinois Department Of Human Rights
St!lkl or focal Agency, If any Home Phone (Incl. Alea Code)
(212} 294-4698

and EEOC
Dal6 of Birth
07-16-1982

Street Address

City, Stale endZIP Code

C/O Jeffrey L. Kessler, Es q., Winston & Strawn LLP, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY 10166

I Named is the Employer, Lebor Organ'U!tion, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICULARS below.)

Name

No. f~>'"'· Momberl Phone No. (lnc/udtt Area Cede)

THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION

101 . 200

(312) 808-1300

Street Address

City, Stale and ZIP Code

1801 S. Prairie Ave., Chicago, IL 60616

Name

I No. E~. Mon-c.n Phone No. (Include AtN Co*)

Street Address

City, Stale and ZIPCode

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check epp 'O r:r.ilre box(es).)

D D RACE

COLOR

D D RETALIATION
00 OTHER {Specify)

[gJ SEX

D D RELIGION

NATIONAL ORJGIN

"""' D DISABILITY

D GENETIC INFORMATION

Equal Pay

THE PARTICU~S ARE {If sddllionel pa,-.·r Is nM.lded. attach extra sheel(s)):

SEE ATTACHED

DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

Ear11est

Latest

04-13-2016

0 CONTINUING ACTION

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC end the State°' kx:al Agency, if any. I
wm advise the agencies If I change my ad 1r"'~~ or phorie number and I will
cooperate fully with them In the processiw; cJ rr y charg~ ;., accordance with their procedures.
I declare under penalty of perjury that u'le sbove ls true and correct.

Lt/!i/tb
I
Dal&

({d/L
Olergtng Perty Signature

Fitcc111co Es

APR

0c

l 9 20/6

CHICAGO D!.~7:D1n ...

.•..,, t •• ---

NOTARY - When nee&S&rf fer State and LocalA~ Requlremtin~

I swear or affinn that I have 1'8ad the above charge and that it Is true to the best of my knowledge, Information and belief.
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED ANO SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (month, day, YH1)

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:39

ATTACHMENT

I. I have been an employee of Respondent, the United States Soccer Federation, since I was selected as a soccer player on the United States Women's National Soccer Team ("WNT") in the year 2005. At all times relevant to this charge of discrimination, the Federation also employed and continues to employ individuals selected as soccer players on the United States Men's National Soccer Team ("MNT").

II. The WNT has enjoyed unparalleled success in international soccer, winning three World Cup titles and four Olympic Gold Medals - an accomplishment that no other country on the men's or women's side has reached in Olympic competition. The WNT also has achieved numerous other first place wins in significant international tournaments and is currently ranked number one in the world, a position it has held on a near continuous basis for the last 7 years.

III. My team won its third World Cup title on July 5, 2015. The game captured the hearts of approximately 23 million viewers, making it the most watched soccer game in American TV history. I embarked on a post-Cup Victory Tour, which drew tens of thousands of fans to soccer stadiums across the United States and tens of millions of dollars into the Federation's coffers.

IV. In fact, according to the Federation's most recent annual report, it initially projected a combined net loss for the national teams of $429,929 for FY 2016 (April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016). But thanks almost exclusively to the success of the WNT, the Federation now projects a $17.7 million profit in connection with these teams. And for FY 2017, the Federation projects a net profit from the WNT of approximately $5,000,000, while projecting a net loss of nearly $1,000,000 for the MNT.

V. Unfortunately, the WNT's on-field accomplishments and revenue generation have not resulted in me or my fellow players earning equal or better pay than MNT players. In fact, my compensation pales in comparison to that of the MNT players. This despite the fact that, as my employer, the Federation is bound by federal law to compensate me at least equally to the rate at which it compensates MNT players given that the women and men perform the same job duties; have jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibilities; and perform our jobs under similar working conditions.

VI. More specifically, the pre-game, game and post-game duties, as well as the skill, effort, responsibilities and working conditions of WNT players are substantially the same and/or greater than those of MNT players. The Federation, for example, expects both sets of players to:

a. maintain their conditioning and overall health such as by undergoing rigorous

training routines (endurance running, weight training, etc.) and adhering to certain

nutrition, physicaltherap)'and other regimens.

. -.

1

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:40

b. maintain their skills by, for example, attending training camps and frequent practices, participating in skills drills, and playing scrimmages and other practice events;

c. travel nationally and internationally as necessary for competitive games, which are the same in length, physical and mental demand, and playing environment and conditions; and

d. promote a positive image for soccer through media and other appearances.

The success of the WNT, however, has meant and continues to mean that we spend more time in training camp, play far more games, travel more, and participate in more media sessions, among other things, than MNT players.

VII. Despite all of these facts, I and similarly situated WNT players, have been paid and continue to be paid substantially less than MNT players.

VIII.

The Federation's compensation structure for the WNT and MNT generally can be divided into four buckets: (1) compensation for games called Friendlies; (2) WorldCup-related compensation; (3) Olympics-related compensation and (4) compensation for sponsor appearances, ticket revenue and other monies.

IX. Friendlies: The Federation pays top tier WNT players between 38% and 72% of the compensation the MNT players earn on a per game basis.

X. Specifically, the Federation pays top tier WNT players, such as me, $72,000 per year to play a minimum of 20 Friendlies that year. I also receive a bonus of $1,350 for each Friendly we win (I receive no additional compensation if we lose or tie the game). So, if we lose all 20 games, we each receive $72,000 for the year or only $3,600 per game; if we win all twenty games, we receive $99,000 for that year or $4,950 per game.

XI. MNT players are also required to play a minimum of 20 Friendlies per year. They, however, receive a minimum of $5,000 to play in each game, regardless of the outcome. They can receive compensation ranging from $6,250 to $17,625 per game depending on the level of their opponent (FIFA-ranked 1-10, FIFA-ranked 11-25, or FIFA-ranked above 25) and whether they tie or win the game. So, if a MNT player loses all 20 Friendlies, he will earn $100,000 -- $27.000 more than similarly situated WNT players and $1,000 more than WNT players who win all of their games. If MNT players win all of their games against the various levels of competition they likely would face, they likely would earn an average of $13,166 per game or $263,320 in year. A 20-game winning top tier WNT player would earn 38% of the compensation of a similarly situated MNT plaver.

XII. These numbers present an even starker contrast when considering that each game over 20 played by a \VNT player earns that player either no additional compensation

2

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:41

(for a tie or a loss) or maximum compensation of$1,350. Each additional game over
20 played by a MNT player earns that player between $5,000 (for a loss) or up to
$17,625 for a win.

XIII.

World Cup. The compensation afforded WNT players for World Cup competition is
even more strikingly disparate than that for the Friendlies. WNT players earn only $30,000 total both for being asked to try out for the World Cup team and for making
the team roster. MNT players, on the other hand, earn $68,750 each for making their team's roster. The pay structure for advancement through the rounds of World Cup
was so skewed that, in 2015, the MNT earned $9,000,000 for losing in the Round of
16, while the women earned only $2,000,000 for winning the entire tournament. In other words, the women earned four times less than the men while performing demonstrably better.

XIV.

Olympics. Notably, the WNT and MNT players each earn $15,000 for qualifying for
the Olympic team and another $15,000 each for making the roster. The Federation's decision to pay the men and women equal compensation for Olympic play only highlights the unjustified and discriminatory animus underlying its decision to pay women differently than men in nearly all other respects.

xv. Other Compensation. The disparity in pay trickles down to nearly every aspect ofthe
WNT player/Federation employment relationship. The Federation, for example, pays men a per diem of$62.50 for domestic venues and $75 for international venues, while paying the women $50 and $60, respectively, even though they are traveling for the same rcesons. It pays men $3,750 for each sponsor appearance, while paying the women $3,000 per appearance to do the exact same work. The list goes on and on.

XVI. There are no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for this gross disparity ofwages, nor can it be explained away by any bona fide seniority, merit or incentive system or any other factor other than sex.

XVII. I, there fore, believe that I and a class of similarly situated WNT players have been discriminated against because of sex, female, in violation of the Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

'·1 .:--] / A' /
,,-<_./

I lo

lo yd

~-

3

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:42

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:43

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:44

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:45

Case 2:19-cv-01717 Document 2 Filed 03/08/19 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:46

 
 Case 2:19-cv-C01a7se17M-RDGLKN-oA.G2R890DoDcuomcuemnte5n1t 24FileFdile0d6/0160//0159/19PaPgeag1eo1f 3of 3Page ID #:515

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

6/10/2019
DD

IN RE: UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION

PAY DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION

MDL No. 2890

2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR

Alex Morgan et al v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc.

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the Central District of California action move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation consists of two actions pending in the Central District of California and the Northern District of California, as listed on Schedule A. Common defendant United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (U.S. Soccer), and plaintiff in the Northern District of California action oppose centralization. If the Panel deems centralization appropriate, defendant suggests centralization in the Northern District of Illinois, and plaintiff in the Northern District of California action expressed support for both the Northern District of California and the Central District of California.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we conclude that centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual issues arising from allegations that U.S. Soccer has discriminated against players on its U.S. Women’s national soccer team on the basis of gender. But only two actions are pending in two adjacent districts, and we find movants have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the need for centralization. See In re: Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II), 753 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (“where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the moving party generally bears a heavier burden of demonstrating the need for centralization”).
We have held that “where a reasonable prospect exists that resolution of Section 1404 motions could eliminate the multidistrict character of a litigation, transfer under Section 1404 is preferable to centralization.” In re: Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Here, there are two pending or suggested pretrial motions that could eliminate the need for Section 1407 centralization. Defendant’s motion to transfer the Central District of California action to the Northern District of California under the first-to-file rule is pending. And at oral argument, counsel for the Northern District of California plaintiff represented that she would stipulate to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the Central District of California.
Finally, the Panel has held that “centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution after considered review of all other options.” In re: Best Buy, Inc., California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2011). Even if these actions are not transferred to the same district under Section 1404 or the first-to-file rule, this litigation involves only two actions in two districts. Informal coordination among the relatively few involved attorneys

Case 2:19-cv-C01a7se17M-RDGLKN-oA.G2R890DoDcuomcuemnte5n1t 24FileFdile0d6/0160//0159/19PaPgeag2eo2f 3of 3Page ID #:516
-2and coordination between the involved courts to prevent duplicative proceedings and inconsistent rulings, therefore, are practical alternatives to centralization.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance Chair

Lewis A. Kaplan R. David Proctor Karen K. Caldwell

Ellen Segal Huvelle Catherine D. Perry Nathaniel M. Gorton

Case 2:19-cv-C01a7se17M-RDGLKN-oA.G2R890DoDcuomcuemnte5n1t 24FileFdile0d6/0160//0159/19PaPgeag3eo3f 3of 3Page ID #:517

IN RE: UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION PAY DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION

MDL No. 2890

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California

MORGAN, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC., C.A. No. 2:19-01717

Northern District of California

SOLO v. UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, C.A. No. 3:18-05215

 
 Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:10157

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:10158

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:10159

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:10160

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:10161

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:10162

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:10163

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:10164

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:10165

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:10166

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:10167

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:10168

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:10169

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:10170

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:10171

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 16 of 32 Page ID #:10172

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:10173

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:10174

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:10175

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:10176

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 21 of 32 Page ID #:10177

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 22 of 32 Page ID #:10178

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:10179

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 24 of 32 Page ID #:10180

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 25 of 32 Page ID #:10181

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 26 of 32 Page ID #:10182

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 27 of 32 Page ID #:10183

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:10184

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 29 of 32 Page ID #:10185

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 30 of 32 Page ID #:10186

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 31 of 32 Page ID #:10187

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 250 Filed 05/01/20 Page 32 of 32 Page ID #:10188

 
 Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 266 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:10352

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 266 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:10353

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 266 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:10354

 
 Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1005

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:1006

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:1007

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:1008

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:1009

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:1010

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:1011

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:1012

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:1013

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:1014

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:1015

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:1016

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:1017

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:1018

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 98 Filed 11/08/19 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:1019

 
 Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 56 Filed 07/01/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:530

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 56 Filed 07/01/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:531

Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 56 Filed 07/01/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:532