{"id":513212,"date":"2026-10-30T17:50:10","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T17:50:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/513212\/"},"modified":"2026-10-30T17:50:10","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T17:50:10","slug":"chargers-rams-and-the-business-behind-sofi-stadium","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/513212\/","title":{"rendered":"Chargers, Rams and the business behind SoFi Stadium"},"content":{"rendered":"

After roughly 15 years of trying to get a new stadium built in San Diego<\/a>, the Chargers finally moved into a state-of-the-art facility they wanted in Los Angeles.<\/p>\n

They just didn\u2019t get to build or control it. Or, on Sunday, even be the home team.<\/p>\n

The Rams will host the Chargers at SoFi Stadium, the multibillion-dollar showplace both franchises have called home since 2020.<\/p>\n

The unusual designation underscores a more consequential reality: The Chargers share the stadium with the Rams, but Rams owner Stan Kroenke controls the lucrative business behind it.<\/p>\n

For the Chargers, it was an extraordinary bargain. They gained access to one of the NFL\u2019s premier facilities without assuming the billions in development risk.<\/p>\n

In exchange, they accepted a smaller share of the stadium\u2019s commercial revenue, no cut of its non-football events and little control over the enterprise surrounding it.<\/p>\n

Kroenke\u2019s companies are currently embroiled in a $448 million dispute with Inglewood over infrastructure costs, advertising rights and the agreement that made the stadium possible. The Chargers are not named parties in that development fight.<\/p>\n

\"LosLos Angeles Chargers owner Dean Spanos talks at the site of the new Inglewood NFL stadium on Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2018, in Inglewood, Calif. (AP Photo\/Chris Carlson)
\nThe bargain was clear from the start<\/p>\n

In January 2016, NFL owners rejected the Chargers\u2019 proposed stadium partnership with the Raiders in Carson and approved Kroenke\u2019s Inglewood project. The Chargers received the first option to join the Rams.<\/p>\n

The resolution required a stadium capable of accommodating two franchises on an equal basis for scheduling and facility access, subject to agreed-upon financial terms. It also restricted the Rams from selling long-term naming rights, luxury suites and other premium assets before the second-team question was settled.<\/p>\n

The proposed arrangement left Kroenke\u2019s side with most construction risk and stadium revenue while giving the Chargers a new home.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is not a (financial) downside to L.A. (for the Chargers),\u201d a league source told the Union-Tribune at the time.<\/p>\n

On Jan. 29, 2016, the Union-Tribune reported that the clubs had reached an agreement. The Chargers stayed in San Diego for one more season, then moved north to Carson. They would play there for three seasons while SoFi Stadium was built.<\/p>\n

The Chargers\u2019 stadium terms were more complicated than the reported $1 annual base rent suggested. The project received roughly $200 million in NFL stadium financing attributable to the Chargers, along with proceeds from seat licenses.<\/p>\n

The franchise also faced a separate league relocation charge. Contemporary reporting put the fee at $550 million, rising to roughly $650 million with interest if paid over 10 years. The Chargers\u2019 full lease obligations remain private.<\/p>\n

\"RamsRams owner Stan Kroenke looks on before a game against the New York Giants on Monday, Sept. 21, 2026, at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey\/Getty Images)
\n\u2018It\u2019s all about the vision of Stan Kroenke\u2019<\/p>\n

A 2020 Los Angeles Times investigation, also published by the Union-Tribune, chronicled SoFi Stadium\u2019s construction delays, engineering challenges and soaring costs. Heavy rain pushed the opening from 2019 to 2020.<\/p>\n

Public estimates eventually exceeded $5 billion, although those totals included varying combinations of land, financing, infrastructure and adjacent development.<\/p>\n

The project secured a $2.25 billion bank financing facility after NFL owners granted the Rams an unusually large debt waiver. In 2020, owners approved another $500 million in financing capacity for Kroenke\u2019s project.<\/p>\n

Kroenke\u2019s enterprise bore the primary responsibility for completing the project despite escalating costs.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s huge, huge risk, still,\u201d he acknowledged in 2019.<\/p>\n

Sports business consultant Marc Ganis told the Times that few people could shoulder the mounting debt without strain, but \u201cStan is one of the few.\u201d<\/p>\n

The project\u2019s hierarchy was evident even before construction began.<\/p>\n

At a 2016 welcome rally, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell declared, \u201cIt\u2019s all about the vision of Stan Kroenke.\u201d<\/p>\n

He mentioned Kroenke twice before acknowledging the Chargers, the investigation noted.<\/p>\n

The seat-license penalty<\/p>\n

The Chargers struggled to sell personal seat licenses at their new home.<\/p>\n

These one-time fees give fans the right to purchase season tickets and help finance stadium construction.<\/p>\n

Under the original arrangement described by Sports Business Journal, each franchise was entitled to 18.75% of revenue from jointly sold luxury suites and sponsorships. The remaining 62.5% was allocated toward stadium construction.<\/p>\n

The teams also retained a portion of their own seat-license proceeds.<\/p>\n

In October 2018, the Chargers announced that more than 26,000 seats would carry personal seat licenses priced at just $100, with individual game tickets costing between $50 and $90.<\/p>\n

The Rams\u2019 lowest seat-license price was $1,000.<\/p>\n

The lower prices were intended to attract fans, but came with a contractual penalty.<\/p>\n

The Chargers\u2019 projected seat-license proceeds fell from $400 million to $150 million, Sports Business Journal reported. The pricing decision reduced their share of pooled suite and sponsorship revenue by several percentage points, costing a projected low-seven-figure sum annually over the 20-year lease.<\/p>\n

Those figures were projections, not audited losses.<\/p>\n

By 2024, the Rams\u2019 side received approximately 85% of luxury-suite and sponsorship revenue, according to CNBC. The Chargers got 15%.<\/p>\n

\"FansFans look on as the Rolling Stones perform at a sold-out SoFi Stadium on Wednesday, July 10, 2024. The Stones will play a second concert at Sofi Stadium on Saturday. (Photo by David Crane, Los Angeles Daily News\/SCNG)
\nNo cut of the concert business<\/p>\n

SoFi Stadium has become a year-round entertainment powerhouse, hosting Taylor Swift, Beyonc\u00e9, international soccer and other lucrative events.<\/p>\n

Most recently, Jay-Z sold out two nights at the stadium. Such events can generate millions in revenue for the venue.<\/p>\n

The Rams\u2019 side receives all stadium revenue from non-NFL events, CNBC reported in 2024.<\/p>\n

The distinction doesn\u2019t mean Kroenke collects every dollar from ticket sales. Performers, promoters and other partners receive their contractual shares. But the stadium business associated with those events belongs to the enterprise Kroenke controls.<\/p>\n

The complete private lease and its amendments have not been released, preventing independent verification of every current revenue provision.<\/p>\n

Public records nevertheless establish the controlling structure.<\/p>\n

The Chargers\u2019 stadium agreements identify Blue and Gold Tenant LLC, a team affiliate, as a tenant under a sublease with StadCo LA LLC, the Kroenke-controlled stadium company.<\/p>\n

A 2019 agreement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission identifies StadCo as the contracting party for SoFi\u2019s extensive naming and sponsorship package, which includes rights associated with the stadium and both teams.<\/p>\n

The Chargers retain revenue from their own home games and participate in selected commercial arrangements. They don\u2019t control the building\u2019s year-round entertainment business.<\/p>\n

CNBC estimated that the Rams generated about $950 million in 2025 revenue, compared with about $630 million for the Chargers.<\/p>\n

The estimated $320 million difference cannot be attributed solely to stadium economics. But CNBC identified suite revenue, sponsorships and non-NFL events as reasons why the Rams generate substantially more money.<\/p>\n

The price of ownership<\/p>\n

All that control comes with a cost.<\/p>\n

Kroenke\u2019s Hollywood Park companies are seeking approximately $448 million from Inglewood for infrastructure and public-service costs they say the city must reimburse under a 2015 development agreement.<\/p>\n

Inglewood disputes the claim. On Sept. 1, a Superior Court judge ruled the agreement void and unenforceable. The ruling is under appeal.<\/p>\n

The city paid Hollywood Park $20 million in May 2025, then declared the agreement invalid two months later and demanded the money back.<\/p>\n

The two sides are also at odds over digital billboards near the stadium. Kroenke\u2019s operators say a city-backed plan for dozens of signs threatens their valuable advertising exclusivity.<\/p>\n

The dispute extends to admissions-tax collections and the city\u2019s authority to audit ticket-tax payments.<\/p>\n

Two measures on Tuesday\u2019s ballot could alter the stakes. Measure AT would lift a cap on stadium admissions-tax collections, and Measure BB would restrict advertising on public property. Neither would resolve the reimbursement lawsuit.<\/p>\n

The Los Angeles Times reported this month that the once-close relationship between Kroenke\u2019s enterprise and City Hall has deteriorated into litigation and a ballot fight.<\/p>\n

The Chargers are not among the Hollywood Park entities seeking the $448 million, although their private stadium arrangements make it difficult to assess whether the dispute could have indirect financial consequences for the team.<\/p>\n

\"FootballFootball fans tailgate outside MetLife Stadium before an NFL football game between the New York Giants and the Dallas Cowboys, Monday, Nov. 4, 2019, in East Rutherford, N.J. (AP Photo\/Adam Hunger)
\nThe NFL\u2019s other shared stadium<\/p>\n

At MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, the Giants and Jets are equal partners in a venture that financed and built the $1.6 billion stadium.<\/p>\n

Their stadium company issued roughly $1.3 billion in bonds backed by seat licenses, premium seating, sponsorships and naming rights. The project also received NFL financing and public infrastructure support.<\/p>\n

Unlike the Chargers and Rams, the Giants and Jets share control of stadium operations and revenue, including proceeds from non-football events, according to CNBC. They also share the financial obligations.<\/p>\n

That is the trade-off: The Chargers gained access to a comparable NFL venue without taking on comparable development risk \u2014 but also without an equal stake in the business it generates.<\/p>\n

The Chargers aren\u2019t entirely shut out of SoFi Stadium\u2019s business.\u00a0Sports Business Journal and the Los Angeles Times have reported that Chargers ownership holds an economic interest in the stadium operating company. Its size, voting rights and current status remain undisclosed.<\/p>\n

Whatever that interest amounts to, it isn\u2019t the equal partnership the Giants and Jets enjoy.<\/p>\n

On Sunday, the Chargers will play at SoFi as visitors.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a designation that lasts one afternoon, but reflects a bargain that has defined the franchise\u2019s move to Los Angeles.<\/p>\n

Editor\u2019s note: Almost 10 years have passed since the Chargers ended their 56-year run in San Diego and moved to Los Angeles. Over the course of this NFL season, this series will trace the stadium fight and decisions that led to the move, revisit the fans and community left behind, assess the Chargers\u2019 decade in Los Angeles and San Diego\u2019s life without them, and explore whether the NFL could ever return.<\/p>\n

Our series: Bolting San Diego<\/p>\n

Part 1: Nearly 10 years after the Chargers, one fan has no team \u2014 and no regrets<\/a><\/p>\n

Part 2: \u2018We\u2019re still here\u2019: Die-hard Chargers fans root for team from San Diego<\/a><\/p>\n

Part 3: What happens after the NFL leaves?\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Part 4: How San Diego\u2019s economy moved on from the Chargers<\/a><\/p>\n

Part 5: Ten years after Chargers\u2019 departure, their old stadium site is being transformed\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Part 6: Why 9 stadium possibilities failed to keep the Chargers in San Diego<\/a><\/p>\n

Part 7: 15 Years to Nowhere: How San Diego\u2019s Chargers stadium talks unraveled<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"After roughly 15 years of trying to get a new stadium built in San Diego, the Chargers finally…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":513213,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[197571,193799,197569,1333,6446,197570,74,64238,76,75,5712,74699],"class_list":["post-513212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-diego","tag-bolting-san-diego","tag-chargers-relocation","tag-chargers-stadium-deal","tag-los-angeles-chargers","tag-los-angeles-rams","tag-nfl-stadium-financing","tag-san-diego","tag-san-diego-chargers","tag-san-diego-headlines","tag-san-diego-news","tag-sofi-stadium","tag-stan-kroenke"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513212","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=513212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513212\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/513213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=513212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=513212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=513212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}