-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Pasadena and the Rose Bowl are seeking temporary restraining order to block UCLA from leaving for SoFi Stadium.
- UCLA is considering a move to SoFi Stadium starting in 2026, departing from the Rose Bowl decades before its lease expires in 2043.
- Pasadena invested more than $150 million in stadium upgrades and seeks damages potentially exceeding $1 billion if UCLA breaks its lease.
The city of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. on Monday sought a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order seeking to prevent UCLA from leaving the Rose Bowl or terminating its stadium lease until pending litigation against the school is resolved.
The filing contends that the plaintiffs would suffer “immediate and irreparable harm if the status quo is not preserved” while the suit plays out. A hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Last week, the plaintiffs sued to force the Bruins to honor the terms of the lease that requires them to stay at the Rose Bowl through the end of the 2043 season.
UCLA responded in a statement that it was evaluating options for its football home, though a person familiar with the university’s thinking told The Times that if the Bruins decided to leave for SoFi Stadium, they would want to do so for the 2026 season.
The City of Pasadena and the company that operates the Rose Bowl file a lawsuit to prevent UCLA from trying to get out of its football contract with the stadium.
UCLA did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the newest legal development. A representative from SoFi Stadium declined to comment.
Money is clearly at the heart of UCLA’s proposed move.
For fiscal year 2024, the latest for which data has been released, UCLA reported $8.35 million in football ticket sales — less than half of the $20 million it made in 2014, when it was setting attendance records.
As part of any lease agreement with SoFi, the Bruins would receive suite revenue; at the Rose Bowl, the Bruins’ contract gives them no return on suite sales or stadium sponsorship sales and only a sliver of parking, concessions and merchandise revenues.
Other benefits of moving the team’s home field south to Inglewood would include a commute that’s roughly half the distance as that from the Westwood campus to the Rose Bowl, and enhanced facilities such as more modern seating and scoreboards.
But there are concerns about tailgating at SoFi Stadium, which has far more restrictive policies than those enjoyed by fans on a sprawling golf course and parking lots at the Rose Bowl.
There would also be no guarantees of increased attendance as part of a stadium switch.
When UCLA played Boise State in the 2023 L.A. Bowl at SoFi, the game drew an announced attendance of 32,780. That’s less than the 37,098 fans the team has averaged this season at the Rose Bowl — on pace for an all-time low at the stadium.
It’s not a done deal yet, but the Bruins could abandon the Rose Bowl for SoFi Stadium as soon as next season.
Visiting fans might also be less likely to travel across the country to see a game at SoFi as opposed to the Rose Bowl, long been considered one of the top destinations in college football.
In their Monday filing, the plaintiffs said: “There is no way to sugarcoat it: UCLA has confirmed its imminent departure, severely destabilizing plaintiffs’ core operations. Those operations are structured around and contingent upon UCLA. Without confirmation that UCLA intends to honor its contractual commitments … plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to plan and manage the stadium’s schedule and their ongoing business operations, including cultivating and securing future business partners and opportunities, retaining personnel, and maintaining confidence among the many vendors and sponsors who rely on UCLA football.
“Equally troubling is the precedent UCLA is setting. Stadium and arena public-private partnerships, and the financing that makes them possible, turn on enforceable, long-term contracts, with terms that typically follow the public debt incurred. UCLA’s attempt to break its contract decades early critically undermines these structures.”
UCLA has called the Rose Bowl home since 1982 and pays no rent as part of a lease agreement in which it is the stadium’s anchor tenant. The plaintiffs contend that no other sports team could fill the void left by UCLA should the Bruins abandon the stadium and that any attempt to play elsewhere would constitute a breach of contract “for which monetary damages alone would be inadequate and for which [the Rose Bowl Operating Co.] would be entitled to seek equitable remedies to compel enforcement.”
It’s not a done deal yet, but the Bruins could abandon the Rose Bowl for SoFi Stadium as soon as next season.
Where might UCLA — which closed the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, with a deficit of $51.85 million — get the money to pay any settlement for leaving the iconic venue? Like other Big Ten schools, the Bruins could receive an up-front payment of $140 million as part of a proposed $2.4-billion deal between the conference and an investment fund of the University of California pension system.
UCLA reaffirmed its long-term commitment to the Rose Bowl as part of a 2014 lease amendment, waiving its right to terminate the agreement before its completion. In return, the city of Pasadena has issued nearly $200 million in bonds to pay for stadium improvements that would benefit UCLA. The bond structure was designed so that stadium revenues would service the debt instead of taxpayer dollars.
The latest court filing stated that the stadium had already paid $2 million for design fees, permitting fees and preparation work as part of a planned $26.5-million project in the south end zone that would include a field-level club, with construction scheduled to begin on Jan. 2.
The plaintiffs contend that UCLA’s discussions about playing elsewhere have already destabilized the Rose Bowl’s operations. As evidence, they cited ticketholder renewals being left in limbo at a time when the stadium is in the midst of premium-seating renewal windows that offer incentives through the end of November.
“Those incentives are meaningless if ticketholders do not know whether UCLA will play at the Rose Bowl next year,” the plaintiffs wrote. “In addition, donors with upcoming pledge payments have also questioned whether they can or should make such payments given the uncertainty of UCLA football’s future.”
The plaintiffs said they previously learned that UCLA began exploring the relocation of home football games to SoFi Stadium as early as the 2025 season while engaging in discussions with SoFi Stadium representatives including Kevin Demoff, president of team and media operations for Kroenke Sports & Entertainment.
After notifying UCLA of its position that “even preliminary or exploratory discussions about leaving would constitute a material breach,” the Rose Bowl Operating Co. met with officials from the school and the relationship between the entities returned “to the status quo.”
But in October, the plaintiffs contend, they learned that UCLA had engaged in “advanced discussions” with SoFi Stadium representatives before the school’s legal counsel informed its Rose Bowl counterparts that UCLA was “moving on” from the Rose Bowl with the backing of school leadership and lawmakers in Sacramento.
According to the filing Monday, “UCLA essentially requested that the City and RBOC cut a deal to end on commercial terms,” later informing the plaintiffs’ representatives that there was “no way [UCLA was] staying long term.”
The plaintiffs cited legal precedents involving three professional sports teams — the New York Jets, New York Yankees and Minnesota Twins — that were compelled to remain in their stadiums after seeking to play elsewhere for various reasons.
In the case of the Jets, a judge prevented them from moving two games to the Meadowlands in New Jersey in 1977, ruling that such a move would cause the city of New York “irreparable harm.” Another judge blocked the Yankees from moving three games to Denver in 1983 while Yankee Stadium was undergoing renovations, ruling that even a handful of games played elsewhere would erode civic pride, identity and loyalty between the people of New York and their team.
UCLA has been described as a school unwilling to invest in football, but the Bruins have actually invested millions in the program.
In 2001, after Major League Baseball owners voted to disband the Minnesota Twins and Montreal Expos, the public agency that served as the Twins’ landlord at the Metrodome sued to enforce a lease that bound the team to play there through 2002.
A judge upheld the lease and compelled the Twins to play there, ruling that the payment of financial damages could not compensate the community for the loss of its team. The ruling was upheld on appeal and MLB abandoned its contraction scheme soon after.
Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. contend that UCLA leaving the Rose Bowl would cause irreparable damage that no amount of money could offset.
“The harm caused by UCLA’s abandonment of a publicly-owned stadium transcends lost revenue and a contract breach,” the plaintiffs wrote. “It strikes at the heart of a community’s civic identity and public welfare. The Rose Bowl Stadium is a publicly-owned and publicly-financed landmark constructed and maintained for the benefit of the people.”
Times staff writer Bill Shaikin contributed to this report.
