The United States Soccer Federation $($USSF$)$ employs both the U$.$S$.$ Senior Women$$s National Soccer Team $($WNT$)$ and the U$.$S$.$ Senior Men$$s National Soccer Team $($MNT$).$ Unlike the men$$s team, the women$$s team is a world champion, winning the $2015$ International Federation of Association Football $($FIFA$)$ Women$$s World Cup. The men and women players perform comparable jobs. However, the women are paid substantially less. For example, from $2013-2016,$ the women $$earned as little as $38$ percent of the compensation$59.$ the men received. In $2014,$the men$$s team received bonuses totaling $$5,375,000$ for losing$60.$ in round $16.$ By comparison, the women$$s team received $$1,725,000$ for winning the tournament. Every woman player earns less than her male counterpart. The women tried to address these issues during their collective bargaining negotiations. They even proposed a salary model based on the income the women$$s team produces. In $2019,$ the $28$ members of the U$.$S$.$ women$$s soccer team filed a lawsuit against the USSF for persistent pay discrimination. On May $1,2020,$ Judge R$.$ Gary Klausner, United States District Court for the Central District of California, granted a summary judgment to the USSF on the issue of pay$\mathrm{.}61.$ He said that the men$$s and women$$s contracts have different structures. The women$$s contract guarantees players will be paid regardless of whether they actually play. Men are paid if they are called into camp or are placed on the roster to participate in a particular match. Men do not receive an annual salary. On July $30,2021,$ the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission$62.$ filed an amicus curiae brief with the U$.$S$.$ Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of the WNT players. The EEOC disputed the district courts findings that the plaintiffs$/$appellants failed to establish a prima facie case under the EPA. The EEOC stated that the district court failed by making a legal error on summary judgement, by $$choosing to credit the defendant$$s expert and reject the plaintiffs$$with barely any analysis, and without even ruling on the parties$$ pending motions challenging various aspects of the expert reports.$$ The EEOC also stated that $$the court was required to view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party $($here$,$ the plaintiffs$).$ For those two reasons, the EEOC concluded that the judgment of the district court should be vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings. On May $23,2022,$ it was reported that a $$24$ million dollar pay discrimination settlement had been reached between the US Soccer Women and the Sport$$s governing body. A new collective bargaining pact would establish equal pay for both genders of the US Soccer Federation Inc. $$In a joint motion, the players and federation asked the US District Court for the Central District of California to indicate to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that it will preliminarily approve the settlement, or at least consider doing so$.63.$ Why was the EEOC$$s involvement in this case so important to the final settlement? Why are laws like the Equal Pay Act so important in protecting both genders? How could this case have been avoided all together? $[$See Morgan v$.$ United States Soccer Federation, Inc., $445$ F$.$ Supp. $3$d $635($C$.$D$.$ Cal. $2020).]$