{"id":140097,"date":"2026-01-19T14:29:09","date_gmt":"2026-01-19T14:29:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/140097\/"},"modified":"2026-01-19T14:29:09","modified_gmt":"2026-01-19T14:29:09","slug":"can-ucla-be-forced-to-stay-at-rose-bowl-legal-scholars-weigh-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/140097\/","title":{"rendered":"Can UCLA be forced to stay at Rose Bowl? Legal scholars weigh in"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

If legal scholars were setting a betting line on Rose Bowl v. UCLA<\/a>, it might be a pick\u2019em.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s possible that a judge or arbitrator in the high-stakes breach-of-contract case awards monetary damages to the Rose Bowl and the City of Pasadena based on a prediction of lost revenue over the length of a lease that runs through June 2044, freeing the Bruins to abandon their longtime football home<\/a> for SoFi Stadium<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In another scenario, that judge or arbitrator considers the possibility of wild success under new coach Bob Chesney<\/a> leading to a packed stadium and figures there\u2019s no way to reasonably calculate damages, given that the team\u2019s longstanding attendance woes don\u2019t provide a reliable blueprint for future revenue. In that instance, UCLA<\/a> most likely would be forced to stay at the Rose Bowl.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think that it\u2019s a sure thing either way,\u201d said Russell Korobkin, a UCLA law professor who specializes in contracts and was one of three legal experts who spoke with The Times about the case. \u201cI wouldn\u2019t want to be betting on the outcome.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Fans <\/p>\n

Rose Bowl operators argue UCLA must be forced to honor its contract after the stadium operators incurred debt to begin renovations at the behest of the Bruins.<\/p>\n

(Eric Thayer\/Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n

What\u2019s at stake goes well beyond where UCLA football fans will be spending their fall Saturdays.<\/p>\n

Attorneys for the Rose Bowl and the City of Pasadena contend that UCLA\u2019s relocation attempts represent \u201ca profound betrayal of trust\u201d and that the team\u2019s departure would inflict \u201cirreparable harm\u201d for which money alone could not sufficiently compensate the stadium and surrounding community.<\/p>\n

Opposing counsel says UCLA has not violated any agreement and is only considering all options to ensure a path toward financial viability amid a rapidly changing college sports landscape. Publicly the school has maintained that it hasn\u2019t made a decision about its future football home.<\/p>\n

In all likelihood the case results in one of two outcomes, according to legal experts. Either UCLA cuts a huge check to the Rose Bowl and City of Pasadena, allowing the Bruins to move to SoFi Stadium, or it is forced to remain at the Rose Bowl.<\/p>\n

Given that UCLA has played at its current home since 1982, Korobkin said, it might be possible to reasonably calculate lost revenue over the lease\u2019s final 18 seasons. But those calculations could be complicated by the construction of a $30-million field-level club in the south end zone as part of a revenue-sharing agreement between the Rose Bowl and UCLA.<\/p>\n

While UCLA will receive revenue from new wider seats associated with a club that\u2019s expected to be completed before next season, the Rose Bowl will get to sell those seats at a premium for concerts and other events.<\/p>\n

\u201cSince those don\u2019t exist right now,\u201d Korobkin said of the seats, \u201cit would be harder to project the amount of revenue the Rose Bowl would be losing by not being able to sell those seats.\u201d<\/p>\n

The City of Pasadena has claimed a UCLA departure would result in intangible reputational harms that might be impossible to quantify. There\u2019s also no way of knowing how many more fans might pack a home stadium to see a team contending for an appearance in the College Football Playoff after the Bruins have gone more than a quarter of a century without so much as a conference championship.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe uncertainty of the future is an argument in favor of specific performance rather than just giving money damages,\u201d Korobkin said, \u201cbut the problem exists in many, many breach-of-contract cases that you\u2019re never certain about how much revenue you\u2019re losing as a result of the breach.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another factor that could be pivotal is the length of the contract.<\/p>\n

\"UCLA <\/p>\n

UCLA linebacker Jonjon Vaughns high fives fans while leaving the field after a game against Washington at the Rose Bowl on Nov. 22.<\/p>\n

(Eric Thayer\/Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n

Paul Haagen, the co-director of Duke\u2019s Center for Sports Law and Policy who specializes in contracts, the social history of law and law and sports, said that had UCLA\u2019s lease been set to expire a few years from now, a judge or arbitrator most likely would force the school to remain at the Rose Bowl via a legal term known as specific performance.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that it\u2019s \u201844 is a huge deal,\u201d Haagen said, alluding to the contract\u2019s expiration date.<\/p>\n

In favor of whom?<\/p>\n

\u201cIn favor of [a judge or arbitrator] thinking that, \u2018A, we\u2019re not going to enforce specific performance,\u2019\u201d Haagen said, \u201cbecause it\u2019s now a really long time to enforce your judgment and that is likely to make it more difficult \u2014 maybe even moving in the direction of implausible \u2014 that UCLA can operate in that environment\u201d given recent athletic department deficits that required a university bailout.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think the complexity here is, it\u2019s entirely possible that the nature of this contract would essentially so hamstring UCLA that they couldn\u2019t perform and so that\u2019s at least a conceivable thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

But couldn\u2019t the Rose Bowl attorneys argue that while they understand times are changing, a contract is a contract and needs to be honored?<\/p>\n

\u201cCan they say that?\u201d Haagen said. \u201cAbsolutely they can say that.\u201d<\/p>\n

As far as the Rose Bowl\u2019s contention that representatives of Kroenke Sports and Entertainment and SoFi Stadium meddled<\/a> in the matter by encouraging UCLA to change stadiums, leading to a claim of tortious interference, legal scholars are divided.<\/p>\n

Korobkin said there\u2019s nothing that legally forbids SoFi Stadium from engaging UCLA in discussions about a potential move.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not tortious interference to be a competitor and to offer a potential client a particularly good deal should they decide to enlist your services,\u201d Korobkin said. \u201cThere would usually have to be some kind of pressure being put on the parties by the third party \u2014 by Kroenke, in this case \u2014 on UCLA to break its contract with the Rose Bowl. \u2026 There\u2019s not a plausible story about how Kroenke could be putting undue pressure on UCLA to break its lease with the Rose Bowl, so I think it\u2019s a bit of a red herring.\u201d<\/p>\n

Emails between UCLA and SoFi Stadium officials disclosed as part of the discovery process<\/a> revealed that the sides have been in discussions going back as far as August 2024. Given that UCLA\u2019s contract with the Rose Bowl is a matter of public record, this potentially could be problematic for Kroenke and SoFi executives, according to Greg Keating, a professor of law and philosophy in the USC Gould School of Law who teaches torts and professional responsibility, among other topics.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf, as alleged, they were aware of the existing Rose Bowl contract terms and nonetheless actively encouraged UCLA to discuss moving its home games to SoFi Stadium in clear breach of that contract,\u201d Keating said, \u201cthen we have tortious interference in that contract, and resulting intent to create known harms to the Rose Bowl and to the City of Pasadena.\u201d<\/p>\n

One aspect of the case that Keating finds curious is the Rose Bowl\u2019s claim of anticipatory breach given that UCLA has not played a home game anywhere else for more than four decades.<\/p>\n

\u201cConceptually, the problem is that there isn\u2019t a breach yet, just an intended one,\u201d Keating said. \u201cWhere\u2019s the legal wrong? Why doesn\u2019t the counterparty have to wait for actual nonperformance of the contract? How are they wronged unless and until the contract is breached? Empirically, it\u2019s hard to say when anticipatory breach happens. Is it an anticipatory breach to muse out loud about not performing? To say you never will perform? Will something short of saying you never will perform do? How do we know the anticipatorily breaching party won\u2019t change its mind?\u201d<\/p>\n

UCLA filed a motion to move the matter from Los Angeles Superior Court to arbitration, which would keep the proceedings out of public view. Attorneys for the Rose Bowl and Pasadena contend that the case should play out in open court because it involves two public entities and is of great interest to the public.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe complaint by Pasadena and the Rose Bowl is partially a contract claim and partially addressed to the court of public opinion,\u201d Haagen said. \u201cSo one of the things they certainly believe they want is to have this play out in the L.A. Times and to enlist public interest in it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why would that matter? Haagen said it could invite legislative intervention if a public portrayal emerges that is unflattering to UCLA.<\/p>\n

\u201cPart of it is explaining to your own voters what you\u2019re doing and that you\u2019re not hapless and stupid and you didn\u2019t agree to all of this work on the Rose Bowl and now you\u2019re not getting anything\u201d in return, Haagen said. \u201cBut also if the narrative is \u2018greedy UCLA is going back on its word, not meeting its commitments,\u2019 that\u2019s kind of a big impact.\u201d<\/p>\n

Maybe everything that happens after Thursday\u2019s court hearing to rule on the motion to compel arbitration will unfold behind closed doors.<\/p>\n

Korobkin said he considered the likelihood of a judge granting UCLA\u2019s request for arbitration \u201chigh\u201d given the wording in the dispute resolution clause of the parties\u2019 contract. The arbitrator likely would have the power to compel UCLA to remain at the Rose Bowl, Korobkin said, meaning the Rose Bowl would not be put in a disadvantageous position should the case be moved out of court.<\/p>\n

But should a judge determine that the arbitrator would not be able to resolve the case quickly enough to prevent irreparable harm \u2014 such as UCLA playing games at SoFi Stadium \u2014 then the judge could issue a temporary restraining order forcing UCLA to remain at the Rose Bowl until the arbitrator can resolve the case, Korobkin said.<\/p>\n

So who ultimately prevails in a case that has divided not only legal scholars but also the UCLA community, one fan wearing a \u201cSoFi Hell No Won\u2019t Go\u201d T-shirt to basketball games at Pauley Pavilion?<\/p>\n

While acknowledging the possibility of UCLA writing a big farewell check on its way to SoFi Stadium, Haagen said he wouldn\u2019t rule out a settlement in which the Bruins remain at the Rose Bowl after agreeing to more favorable lease terms. Meanwhile, Keating and Korobkin suggested there\u2019s no way to know with any reliability which way this will go.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you forced me to make a prediction,\u201d Korobkin said, \u201cI\u2019m going to bet on money damages rather than specific performance, but I wouldn\u2019t bet a lot of money on that.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"If legal scholars were setting a betting line on Rose Bowl v. UCLA, it might be a pick\u2019em.…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":140098,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[70850,1436,1409,4017,70852,16047,48,52,51,47,50,49,1977,70849,20390,10657,70848,5712,70851,1092,8843],"class_list":{"0":"post-140097","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-los-angeles","8":"tag-arbitrator","9":"tag-case","10":"tag-city","11":"tag-contract","12":"tag-greg-keating","13":"tag-judge","14":"tag-la","15":"tag-la-headlines","16":"tag-la-news","17":"tag-los-angeles","18":"tag-los-angeles-headlines","19":"tag-los-angeles-news","20":"tag-pasadena","21":"tag-paul-haagen","22":"tag-revenue","23":"tag-rose-bowl","24":"tag-russell-korobkin","25":"tag-sofi-stadium","26":"tag-sports-law","27":"tag-ucla","28":"tag-way"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140097\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/140098"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}