This history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and that the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to- play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure. This method of comparison not only fails to account for the choices made during collective bargaining, it also ignores the economic value of the "insurance" that WNT players receive under their CBA. One of the defining features of the WNT CBA is its guarantee that players will be compensated regardless of whether they play a match or not. This stands in stark contrast to the MNT CBA, under which players are only compensated if they are called into camp to play and then participate in a match. It is difficult to attach a dollar value to this "insurance" benefit, and neither party attempts to do so here. However, there is indisputably economicvalue to this type of "fixed pay" contract, as compared to a "performance pay" contract.(See generally Mccrary Decl., Ex. 2.) Indeed, the WNT clearly attached significant economic value to this contractual arrangement because it was willing to agree to lower bonuses in exchange for higher fixed payments in its 2017 CBA. Merely comparing what WNT players received under their own CBA with what they would have received under the MNT CBA discounts the value that the team placed on the guaranteed benefits they receive under their agreement, which they opted for at the expense of higher performance- based bonuses Finally, to establish that WNT players are paid less than MNT players, Plaintiffs also offer the statements of various individuals associated with USSF. For example, Plaintiffs point to the statements of former USSF President Carlos Cordeiro ("Cordeiro") who, while campaigning for the USSF presidency in December 2017, said that "[ojur women's teams should be respected and valued as much as our men's teams, but our female players have not been treated equally." (Def.'s SGD 120, ECF No. 186-1.) Cordeiro also stated: "I'm a strong supporter of greater equality, diversity and inclusion throughout U.S. Soccer, and we clearly need to work toward equal pay for the national teams. . .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[.]" (Id. 1 21.) Plaintiffs also offer the statement of USSF's outside counsel, Russell Sauer ("Sauer"), who allegedly stated during collective bargaining negotiations that "market realities are such that the women do not deserve equal pay." (Id. 1 67.) The statements offered by Plaintiffs are insufficient to establish a genuine dispute that WNT players are paid at a rate less than the rate paid to MNT players. That USSF agents said WNT players are paid less does not make it true where, as here, Defendant has presented evidence that the WNT was paid more on both a cumulative and an average per-game basis than the MNT. See Hein, 718 F.2d at 91 ("We believe that the proper test for establishing a prima facie case in a professional setting...is whether the plaintiff is receiving lower wages than the average of wages paid to all employees of the opposite sex[.]" (emphasis added)). Additionally, Cordeiro testified during his deposition that when he referenced working toward "equal pay," he meant "creating more opportunity for our women so they can play more competitive events that would drive more revenue and compensation" because "there was a lack of opportunity for the women where the men play four/five times as many competitive [i.e., non-friendly] matches as our women do . . . and [that] is at the heart of the issue" (Cordeiro Dep. 58:2-61:8, ECF No. 13 The WNT CBA is not a pure "fixed pay" contract, nor is the MNT CBA a pure "performance pay" contract. WNT players, for instance, are compensated based on a combination of fixed payments (e.g., WNT base salary, NWSL annual salary, severance, injury protection) and performance-based bonuses (e.g., friendly bonuses, tournament-related bonuses).In sum, Defendant has offered evidence in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment that the WNT has been paid more on both a cumulative and an average per-game basis than the MNT over the class period. In response, Plaintiffs have offered evidence that (1) WNT players are paid lower bonuses for friendlies, World Cup-related games, and other tournaments; (2) WNT players would have made more under the MNT CBA than they did under their own CBA, and; (3) USSF agents made statements to the effect that WNT players are paid less than MNT players. As set forth above, this evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs' EPA claim. The Court need not address the remaining elements of Plaintiffs' prima facie case