Recently, Kroenke Sports & Entertainment and SoFi Stadium have been named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Company and the city of Pasadena. This legal action is aimed at ensuring that UCLA’s football team remains a tenant at the Rose Bowl.
Kroenke Sports and SoFi Stadium Allegations
New court documents submitted on Thursday reveal that Rose Bowl and Pasadena lawyers claim Kroenke executives suggested SoFi Stadium was targeting UCLA. This is seen as an attempt to encourage UCLA to break its contract with the Rose Bowl, which requires the Bruins to play there until 2043.
Contractual Violations
The plaintiffs assert that SoFi Stadium lawyers were aware of UCLA’s agreement yet still coordinated discussions with UCLA to abandon the Rose Bowl. This maneuvering is viewed as a malicious act that could harm UCLA’s longstanding obligations.
Claims of Damages
- The lawsuit cites potential damages surpassing $1 billion due to economic losses.
- It argues UCLA’s potential breach could cause irreparable harm, necessitating immediate legal relief.
- Legal representatives are seeking damages for the breach of contract and for interference in UCLA’s Rose Bowl commitments.
Impact on UCLA’s Future
UCLA has publicly stated that it continues to explore future options for its football home. Nevertheless, attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that UCLA should not be allowed to abandon its commitments following the Rose Bowl’s investment of over $28.5 million in enhancing the stadium’s facilities to improve the Bruins’ game-day experience.
Financial Consequences
The lawsuit indicates that uncertainty surrounding UCLA’s future has already led to a donor withdrawing a $1 million pledge and sponsors hesitating to renew contracts. Changes in multimedia rights and sponsorship, linked to UCLA, are also cited as potential risks for the Rose Bowl.
Legal Proceedings Ahead
Both parties are set to meet in court next month. They will address UCLA’s motion to compel arbitration, which aims to keep the proceedings private. The plaintiffs oppose this, arguing it is a matter of significant public interest.
