Animosity Between City and Tournament of Roses Seems to Intensify Over Weekend As Both Issue Competing Public Statements

Filings Friday by the Tournament of Roses and comments Saturday by Pasadena City Manager Steve Mermell make it obvious that the Judge’s July 12 rulings in the Tournament’s federal lawsuit against the City hasn’t dampened the rancor between the two parties.

Earlier this week, Pasadena asked the court to rule that the Tournament should foot the City’s legal bills incurred during the lawsuit — which came in, the City claimed, at over $400,000.

Friday, the Tournament told the court it should deny the City’s request because the City did not prevail in the case.

Pasadena countered Saturday by maintaining it actually had prevailed in the lawsuit and it spent taxpayer dollars “defending a lawsuit that, simply put, should not have been brought in the first place.”

“We are not going to argue the matter further in the press,” Mermell said. “The Tournament needlessly hauled the city into court, and we look forward to resolution of this issue by the court also.”

But more than just the hefty legal tab may be at stake. Mermell seemed to indicate the future of the Rose Bowl Game itself may be hanging in the balance.

“Moreover, with its latest statement the Tournament is signaling its ultimate intention, to market the Rose Bowl Game to the highest bidder regardless of location,” Mermell said in an email to Pasadena Now.

Mermell appeared to be referring to the statement emailed by the Pasadena Tournament of Roses shortly before 9 p.m. on Friday night.

In that statement, the Tournament repeated its contention that a clause in its Master Contract with the City “entitles the Tournament, as owner of the Rose Bowl Game, the right to relocate the game in an emergency” without the City’s permission. 

Saturday afternoon, Tournament of Roses CEO David Eads said it is unfortunate that the city would attempt to instill fear in the people of Pasadena by claiming the Tournament would intentionally move the game anywhere other than the Rose Bowl Stadium.

“Pasadena is our home, it is the Rose Bowl Game’s home, and the game could never be the same without the Rose Parade and the great stage that is Pasadena,” Eads said. “No one was more disappointed than we were in having to relocate the Game for only the second time in history, but the COVID-19 pandemic made it necessary in order to preserve a 107-year tradition and millions of dollars in revenue that the city shares in.”

The Tournament had asked in its lawsuit that the court issue a decision on the clause which could allow the Tournament to relocate the game under emergency circumstances, known as the force majeure clause.

But in his July order,  U.S. District Judge André Birotte, Jr. declined.

Instead, Birrotte said it was premature to speculate if another force majeure situation would occur, as it had last December when the pandemic motivated the Tournament to agree to relocate the game to Arlington, Texas for the College Football Playoffs (CFP).

“Accordingly,” wrote Birotte, “the claim is not ripe for adjudication and not appropriate for declaratory relief at this juncture.”

The court implied that resolution of the force majeure dispute would have to await a real event – something the Tournament has said it hopes never occurs.

But that issue could come back to the forefront if variants of the COVID-19 virus forces another local cancellation of the game.

Also, according to media reports, the status of the Rose Bowl is an ongoing issue in the expansion of the College Football Playoffs. The CFP wants to move to a system that honors individual matchups more than the tradition of the games. The expansion could see the game played on a different date. 

The expansion would create a four-round with each round held in big stadiums. 

According to Tucson.com a Pac-12 source said of the Rose Bowl’s future: “We all want to preserve it, but they don’t want to have a separate game.”

“But if it’s part of the (playoff) rotation, then it’s just one of those major games, and they don’t like putting their brand out there when they aren’t in full control of it.”

After Birotte’s order was released, Eads referred to the judge’s decision to not issue declaratory relief as preservation of the Tournament’s force majeure rights.

“When you consider all those factors, we believe the suit achieved its most important purposes,” Eads said. “Our ownership of the Rose Bowl trademarks has been confirmed, and we retain the ability to enforce our rights under the ‘force majeure’ provision if necessary.”

In Friday night’s statement, the Tournament also said it had sought “to stop the City from falsely claiming it co-owned the rights to the Tournament’s ‘Rose Bowl Game®’ and associated trademarks, a fact that the City was not willing to concede before the suit was filed.”

Mermell disagreed.

“Despite the false accusations of the Tournament of Roses, the City of Pasadena never claimed ownership in any of the Tournament’s trademarks. Our court filings prove this and the Judge agreed.”

The relationship between the Tournament and the city became acrimonious after the Tournament agreed to move the Rose Bowl Game to Arlington, TX without consulting the city after California Gov. Gavin Newsom barred fans and families from attending the Rose Bowl Game.