It would be highly unlikely that the legal filings were vetted by US Soccer Executives or their PR Team. In litigation of this nature, those with advanced notice of legal strategy tends to be a very small circle. Because these legal filings were made by an outside firm, the normal practice is for outside counsel to share the filings with "in house counsel" before filing. In house counsel would not share the filings with anybody not on the "closed" legal committee and then its rare to do so for a summary judgment motion. What US Soccer's lawyer's argue is based on existing law, thus, legal strategies and not PR strategies, so "assuming" or "presuming significant vettings from US Soccer" would be highly unlikely. Also note that this are responsive pleadings (Opposition or Reply Papers), which means they needed to be filed and served 21 days before the hearing date.
Here is a link to the Opposition papers:
www.documentcloud.org
The arguments made by counsel that are the inflammatory arguments start on page 11 (Sub.Section C - WNT and MNT Players Do Not Perform Equal Work Requiring Equal Skill, Effort, and Responsibility Under Similar Working Conditions."
However, reading the full context of the argument is much less to not inflammatory (IMHO).