U.S. Women's National Soccer Team forward Megan Rapinoe #15 in action during friendly game against Mexico as preparation for 2019 Women's World Cup in Harrison, New Jersey

A federal judge has granted certification in a class action alleging that the U.S. Soccer Federation discriminates against members of the U.S. Women's National Team in pay when compared to the male soccer players.

In a Friday order, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California granted certification of two classes: one seeking injunctive relief to change its practices and one seeking damages such as back pay. The judge also granted certification of a conditional collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Klausner struck down U.S. Soccer's argument that the four proposed class representatives, who include co-captains Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe and Carli Lloyd, lacked standing because they made more money than the highest-paid players on the Men's National Team.

"This injury is concrete—the proposed class representatives were injured by defendant's compensation policy because they were in fact paid less on a per game basis than the [Men's National Team]," he wrote. "Indeed, plaintiffs have offered evidentiary proof that had they been paid on the same terms as the [Men's National Team], they would have earned more money per game and, as a result, more money per year over the course of the limitations period."

Jeffrey Kessler, co-executive chairman of Winston & Strawn, and a partner in New York, represents the 28 plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit March 8. He referred comments to a spokeswoman for the players, Molly Levinson, who, in an emailed statement, said: "This is a historic step forward in the struggle to achieve equal pay. We are so pleased that the Court has recognized USSF's ongoing discrimination against women players—rejecting USSF's tired arguments that women must work twice as hard and accept lesser working conditions to get paid the same as men. We are calling on [USSF President] Carlos Cordeiro to lead USSF and demand an end to the unlawful discrimination against women now."

Ellen McLaughlin, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, who represents U.S. Soccer, did not respond to a request for comment. A U.S. Soccer spokesperson declined to comment.

The case brings to the courts a long-simmering dispute in professional soccer. The U.S. Women's Soccer team won the FIFA Women's World Cup this year, yet, according to the class action, U.S. Soccer still paid the team's players less than those on the Men's National Team. It also allegedly provided them with substandard working conditions, such as artificial turf fields and fewer charter flights.

In a Sept. 11 motion, calling the claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act a "textbook example of a gender discrimination case," the plaintiffs sought certification under Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure. One class would be for injunctive relief preventing future discrimination, while another class, made up of potentially more than 50 current and former players since Feb. 4, 2015, would seek back pay and punitive damages.

"It is hard to imagine a stronger basis for class certification in a gender employment discrimination case," Kessler wrote.

A third class, for current and former team members beginning March 8, 2016, would be a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action in which players could opt in to bring claims under the Equal Pay Act.

U.S. Soccer, in opposing certification, noted that the four proposed class representatives made more money than the highest-earning male soccer players (a claim that the players, in an Oct. 8 reply, called "frivolous" and explained that was because they played and won more games). As such, the league argued, they weren't injured and lacked standing to sue in federal court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The league also argued that compensation to players of the two teams were different—women receive a salary, while men's payments are per game—and each operated under separate collective bargaining agreements.

But, in Friday's order, Klausner struck down the standing argument. He also rejected all of U.S. Soccer's arguments under Rule 23, including whether common questions predominated over individual issues.

"Here, the members of the putative class allege the same discriminatory employment practices of defendant," Klausner wrote in finding predominance. "The same evidence would be used to prove the claims against defendant whether the claims proceed as a class action or as individual lawsuits."