UCLA Did Not Claim Breach by City Before Exploring Move to SoFi Stadium

UCLA did not assert the Rose Bowl Operating Company (RBOC) or the City violated the stadium’s long-term lease agreement before the university began exploring a move to SoFi Stadium, according to a court document filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

According to the lease, UCLA can terminate the agreement early only if a “Game Threatening Default” occurs, defined as an immediate condition preventing the team from playing at the stadium.

The lease prevents UCLA from playing home games in another stadium in Los Angeles or Orange counties.

The City has filed a lawsuit to compel the university to honor its contract,

Under the contract, a breach notice from UCLA could have provided Pasadena an opportunity to cure any alleged deficiencies or to address operational concerns.

The filing, submitted as part of Pasadena’s lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California, offers a detailed account of early 2025 communications that raised concern about UCLA’s intentions, but also makes clear that at no point did the university allege any contractual default by the City or the stadium.

“At no time has UCLA ever asserted that any ‘Game-Threatening Default’ exists [or any default by the RBOC or the City for that matter] under the Agreement or otherwise.” according to statements made by Rose Bowl General Manager Jens Weiden in court documents.

The absence of any breach claim stands out because it contrasts sharply with the private discussions UCLA representatives reportedly engaged in during the same period.

According to court documents, Weiden, between late 2024 and early 2025, became aware from multiple credible sources that UCLA was exploring an “imminent relocation” to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

That information was later followed by reports from UCLA athletics personnel indicating the university had participated in discussions with SoFi Stadium executives, including Kroenke Sports & Entertainment President Kevin Demoff, regarding revenue-sharing models among other things and integration with a mixed-use development connected to the Inglewood venue.

Despite these internal discussions about a relocation, UCLA continued participating in day-to-day planning with the Rose Bowl as though the long-term agreement remained firmly intact, according to the filing.

That included coordination on south-field renovations and ongoing design work intended to enhance premium seating and the overall gameday experience for UCLA fans.

For Weiden, those communications reinforced the belief that UCLA would honor its lease and remain at the Rose Bowl, prompting the City and RBOC to continue investing in capital improvements.

The lease contains a dispute-resolution that allows a judge to pick a neutral third party during the dispute process.

However, that process does not automatically apply when either party seeks to terminate the agreement or when UCLA claims a “Game Threatening Default.”

In a situation where either party seeks to end the agreement, the sides can only go to a neutral third party if all sides agree in writing, according to Paragraph 31, Section C of the rental agreement.

UCLA has filed a motion to compel the two sides to enter arbitration. To date, the City has not agreed to enter into the dispute resolution procedure.