Thank you, Ben Bolch. In your newsletter, an open letter to UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk, you have asked all the right questions. On the surface, the proposed move to SoFi Stadium might make some sense. But in the real world, it sure doesn’t. I was at the game vs. Washington, and the sentiment was pretty strong against a move. Also, the word was that possibly 80% of season-ticket holders will not renew if they play in SoFi Stadium. Even though I have had season tickets for more than 40 years, if they do move, I will be part of that 80%. I wonder if that figure has been factored in?
Bruce Fischer Huntington Beach
The Rose Bowl is the most storied stadium in college football. Nestled just below the San Gabriel Mountains, it is probably the most beautiful as well. It has hosted five Super Bowls (XI, XIV, XVII, XXI, XXVII), men’s and women’s World Cup finals, the Olympics and its annual namesake bowl game — “the Granddaddy of Them All.” There literally isn’t a bad seat in it. Why would UCLA even consider leaving it, especially for the glorified erector set known as SoFi Stadium?
The nostalgia hit Ross Niederhaus in the grocery store as he stocked up for what might be his last Rose Bowl tailgate.
This has been nearly a lifelong tradition for the native of Linda Vista, starting in 2005 when he was 8 years old and UCLA romped over Oregon State. When he got his driver’s license in 2012, Niderhaus started throwing his own tailgates, bringing chicken-in-a-biscuit crackers because he couldn’t afford fancier fare.
He was back Saturday afternoon underneath a tent on the grass in Lot H, wearing his favorite No. 2 Eric McNeal jersey, possibly here for the last time as the Bruins contemplate whether they will remain at the place they have called home since 1982 or move to SoFi Stadium for the 2026 season.
“I wish we knew whether or not this was the last time,” Niederhaus said, “because if this was the last time for sure I could at least be saying my goodbyes to my favorite tradition. This is my favorite thing to do. My ashes are willed to be spread at the Rose Bowl.”
UCLA fan Ray Hoit sets up a tent while tailgating at the Rose Bowl before Saturday’s game against Washington.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
On the other side of the stadium, on the sprawling Brookside Golf Course, Nicholaus Iamaleava was prepping his pregame tailgate below four tents alongside his brother Matt, the siblings expecting about 60 family members to indulge in a potluck spread of burgers, hot dogs, wings, fries, hot links, sushi and fried rice.
Both brothers were hoping for more tailgates to come outside the century-old stadium. But just in case, they were preparing for the alternative.
“Today, we’re going to go in early,” said Nicholaus Iamaleava, the father of the UCLA starting quarterback by the same name. “Normally we go in right before kickoff but this time, we’re going to go in and soak it all in, man. It might be the last game, right, so we want to enjoy every bit of it and just hang out.”
Matt Iamaleava said he didn’t think moving to SoFi Stadium would solve the attendance issues plaguing the Bruins at their longtime home.
UCLA fan Nathan Nguyen sets up while tailgating outside the Rose Bowl on Saturday.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
“There’s nothing like playing at the Rose Bowl,” Iamaleava said. “Hopefully, it works itself out.”
Added Nicholaus Iamaleava: “We’re praying on it. That would be great.”
Nearly 6½ hours before UCLA’s kickoff against Washington, Jamie Hickcox-Baker and Dee Fitzgerald-Cardello lugged a table across the pavement in Lot K, having already unfurled a couple of folding chairs. The UCLA graduates were awaiting the arrival of a massive ice sculpture that would hold margaritas for their group of 25 friends.
“I’m very sad because I live in Altadena and so this is in my backyard and I just hate to see it leave,” Fitzgerald-Cardello said. “It’s just such a tradition. I’m very saddened by it.”
Even though she’s been making the drive from Fresno to tailgate at the Rose Bowl since 1993, Hickcox-Baker was less wistful about a possible move to SoFi Stadium.
UCLA fan Leki Manu throws a football outside the Rose Bowl before Saturday’s game against Washington.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
“I kind of feel like we can talk tradition all we want,” Hickcox-Baker said, “but we left the Pac-12 and the Pac-12 is no longer, so if there’s no tradition in the Rose Bowl game anymore, think about how college football has evolved. I’ve been to a few games at SoFi, it’s a beautiful stadium. The last few years, because our team hasn’t been doing well, we’re stuck in that 100-degree temperature [at the Rose Bowl] and nobody’s coming to the games.”
Back in Lot H, the scene took on the feel of a state fair. The smell of burgers, brats and other grilled delicacies wafted through the air as children played football on the grass and a nearby patch of dirt. One kid kicked a football, commencing a mad scramble as a group of friends converged on the object of their delight.
“This is one of the reasons why people come now,” longtime fan John Anderson said, “is to be here with friends and be able to run around and throw a ball and stuff and if that can’t happen at SoFi, I think it will be a shame. So I don’t think they’re going to get the draw that they think they’re going to get — maybe a little bump for a couple of games and that’s it.”
UCLA fans tailgate before Saturday’s game at the Rose Bowl between UCLA and Washington.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
Anderson said he missed one home UCLA football game over the last 16 years, and that was to attend a wedding. And if the Bruins move to SoFi?
“I’ll go to a game or two,” Anderson said. “It really depends on what the pricing looks like.”
Neiderhaus said he always would support the Bruins while conceding he might be in the minority.
“I’ll be there,” Niederhaus said, “but I know a lot of people that won’t — a lot of people I know who are season-ticket holders said they’re not coming back, which I think is a big issue that UCLA needs to be acknowledging throughout all of this. A lot of die-hards care about the Rose Bowl just as much as they care about Bruin football, so who knows” how attendance will go.
I have to give it to Bill Plaschke when he’s right. UCLA moving to SoFi Stadium is about as smart as a typical UCLA coaching hire.
This month I was able to attend the Steelers-Chargers game at SoFi on a Sunday, followed the next Saturday by the USC-Iowa game at the Coliseum. Everything about those two places is different and only one of them feels like the college experience.
SoFi crams tailgaters in like sardines. There is no room to enjoy the experience.
The fresh air and scenery at the Rose Bowl are the best maybe in the country. People don’t show up at the Rose Bowl for a very simple reason: The program stinks. Not the venue. This proves the old adage, “the fish stinks from the head down.” Thousands of fans sat in the rain last weekend for a Trojans game because the product on the field was worth it. Simple.
Jeff Heister Chatsworth
Who can blame UCLA for wanting to play at SoFi Stadium, the ultra-modern sports palace, not to mention great recruiting tool, a mere 15 minutes from campus? As Bill Plaschke waxes nostalgic, the rest of us slog down the 10 Freeway from Westwood, through downtown, up into the far northeast corner of L.A., to the antiquated monument that is the Rose Bowl.
Afterward, those of us sitting on the east side of the stadium, staring into the setting sun until the fourth quarter, stumble with burned-out retinas to the muddy golf course that they call a parking lot, to wait in our stack-parked cars, until everyone else is out, so we can leave, an hours-long ordeal just to get home. My only question is, what genius at UCLA signed a long-term contract to play at a place that was obsolete long before the ink dried?
Art Peck View Park
UCLA will pay attorneys millions of dollars endeavoring to extricate the university from the ironclad Rose Bowl lease it pledged to honor. Beyond those fees, they’ll pay tens of millions more to Pasadena in order to get out of the deal.
If UCLA takes those same many millions, invests in a top-tier coach, enhances its football programs and facilities, and fills their NIL coffer, that should lead to a winning, sustainable program that brings more fans to the games. Rose Bowl revenue goes up.
Pasadena may get a one-time windfall, but over time without an anchor tenant, revenue will shrink and the stadium’s luster will fade.
Where are the sensible, honorable folks who possess the smarts and the backbone to craft a fair deal?
David Griffin Westwood
UCLA likely leaving the historic Rose Bowl, home of a million team memories and successes, for the sterile confines of SoFi Stadium is abhorrent to any longtime Bruin fan. Terry Donahue, you have our sincerest apologies.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a request from the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena seeking a temporary restraining order in their attempt to keep UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl, saying those entities had not demonstrated an emergency that would necessitate such an action.
Judge James C. Chalfant said previous cases in which the New York Yankees, New York Jets and Minnesota Twins were barred from moving games did not apply to this situation because those teams were scheduled to play in a matter of days or weeks and UCLA’s next scheduled game at the Rose Bowl after its home season finale against Washington on Nov. 22 isn’t until the fall of 2026.
The judge also said there was no indication that the Rose Bowl or Pasadena would suffer imminent financial harm because a contract to construct a field-level club in one end zone had not been signed.
The legal saga is far from over. Chalfant suggested the plaintiffs’ attorneys seek discovery information regarding the school’s discussions with SoFi Stadium and file a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena, said he had filed a public records request in an attempt to gather information about those discussions and was pleased with the judge’s statements.
“Even though he found that there was no immediate emergency,” Mohebbi said, “he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there’s irreparable harm, that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and we’re very confident in our facts of this case. So I think all in, we feel very, very good.”
After the hearing ended, Mary Osako, vice chancellor of strategic communications, said in a statement that “the court’s ruling speaks for itself. As we have said, while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement or UCLA football home games, no decision has been made.”
UCLA has played its home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982. In 2014, Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, signed a long-term lease amendment that did not include an opt-out clause in exchange for the stadium committing to make nearly $200 million in improvements through the issue of public bonds. When the judge asked attorneys representing UCLA if they intended to terminate the agreement, they shook their heads in denial.
But Mohebbi accused UCLA of participating in a shell game in which it had furtively explored options for moving to SoFi Stadium.
“What they really want is to have a back-room discussion where they can offer some certain amount of money and pay the city off without having to account for this publicly,” Mohebbi said. “… UCLA has not only attempted to terminate [the contract], they have indicated in no uncertain terms that they are terminating.”
After Jordan McCrary, an attorney representing UCLA, contended that his counterparts in the dispute refused to engage with the school in resolution discussions, Mohebbi said, “there’s nothing to talk about. They have an obligation — we’re not negotiating a way out of this agreement.”
McCrary disputed Mohebbi’s contention that UCLA attorneys had signaled an intention to leave the Rose Bowl through direct conversations between counsel, saying “we believe they were settlement negotiations and we don’t believe they’re admissible” in future court proceedings.
When a UCLA attorney contended during the roughly 80-minute court session that the school’s relationship with the Rose Bowl was breaking down, Chalfant said, “I don’t know why UCLA can’t just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl. You don’t need to talk to them at all.”
Chalfant said he did not agree with the UCLA attorneys’ contention that the Rose Bowl lease amounted to a personal services contract for which specific performance — essentially an order compelling the Bruins to remain tenants — was not available. The judge said specific performance could be available in a situation involving an actual breach or an anticipatory breach of the contract.
Rose Bowl officials have filed litigation intended to compel the Bruins to honor a lease that runs through the 2043 season, saying that monetary damages would not be enough to offset the loss of their anchor tenant.
They are also seeking to prevent the case from being settled through arbitration.
“I know UCLA really wants to have this out of the public sphere,” Mohebbi said, “but the reality is this is a public interest case and there are issues here that absolutely require this case to be in a public forum.
“We’re talking about two public entities. This is not the Rams, or this is not the Lakers. This is a public institution playing with public money going up against another public institution that relies on this other public institution to protect its own taxpayers from dipping into the general fund that goes to things like police services, fire services. I mean, God forbid there’s a fire like the Eaton fire this last year that we’re not going to be able to even cover the bond payments through the general reserves.”
The City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Co. requested a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking to prevent UCLA from leaving the Rose Bowl or terminating its stadium lease until pending litigation against the school is resolved.
The filing contends that the plaintiffs would suffer “immediate and irreparable harm if the status quo is not preserved during the pendency of this lawsuit.” A hearing has tentatively been scheduled for Wednesday morning.
UCLA responded in a statement that it was still evaluating options for its football home, though someone familiar with the university’s thinking on the matter later confirmed to The Times that if the Bruins decided to leave for SoFi Stadium, they would want to do so for the 2026 season.
In their Monday filing, the plaintiffs contended that: “there is no way to sugarcoat it: UCLA has confirmed its imminent departure, severely destabilizing Plaintiffs’ core operations. Those operations are structured around and contingent upon UCLA. Without confirmation that UCLA intends to honor its contractual commitments — at least during the pendency of this litigation — Plaintiffs are deprived of the ability to plan and manage the stadium’s schedule and their ongoing business operations, including cultivating and securing future business partners and opportunities, retaining personnel, and maintaining confidence among the many vendors and sponsors who rely on UCLA Football.
“Equally troubling is the precedent UCLA is setting. Stadium and arena public-private partnerships, and the financing that makes them possible, turn on enforceable, long-term contracts, with terms that typically follow the public debt incurred. UCLA’s attempt to break its contract decades early critically undermines these structures.”
