By: Anas Mahmoud
Introduction
As the FIFA World Cup returns to the United States for the first time since 1994[1], fans and corporations alike are buzzing with excitement. While the fans are preparing to see the games from the comfort of their homes, or in the stadiums themselves for the best viewing experience, companies are preparing to have themselves be seen. While undoubtedly the eyes of the fans will be focused on the soccer stars, companies are already competing for coveted advertising space in and around stadiums. However, it is this advertising space that has led to an important lawsuit in Inglewood, California.
The owner and developer of SoFi Stadium, Stan Kroenke, has filed a lawsuit against the City of Inglewood, California, over the city’s decision to install digital billboards, kiosks, and other signage that would deliver information such as directions and traffic information for World Cup fans.. Kroenke’s concern is primarily with the threat and potential of ambush marketing that these digital signages could bring, which could threaten existing contracts with FIFA, the NFL, and LA28, among other organizations, who have already made agreements with SoFi [2] advertising in the area.[3] The City of Inglewood contends that these digital signages would serve an important public purpose, through generating revenue for the city, as well as arguing that the city has discretion to act as it wishes since the area of concern is public property.[4]
This lawsuit is of particular interest as it presents various questions and issues of the enforceability of long-term development agreements which ride on future expected revenue, the allocation of economic rights between private actors and government bodies, the limits of contractual exclusivity, and the interference a municipality can have with private contracts.
Factual and Procedural Background
SoFi Stadium is located in the heart of Hollywood Park, a mixed-use development in Inglewood, California which contains other attractions such as the YouTube Theater, and various fine dining establishments.[5] The stadium serves as the home of the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers and is scheduled to host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, 2027 Super Bowl, and the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games. Kroenke entered into development agreements with the City of Inglewood in order to host such events at the stadium. These agreements included SoFi Stadium paying for sewage development, public roads, police, fire, and public safety protections, among other provisions.[6]
This lawsuit stems from the actions taken by the City of Inglewood and its contract partner, WOW Media. The City of Inglewood and WOW media have entered into negotiations, regarding the creation of at least ten billboards in the Inglewood municipality. However, this is Inglewood’s first time entering into such a negotiation. In fact, 10 years earlier in 2015, Inglewood and WOW Media had secured a smaller scale deal in the municipality for ten billboards.[7] The creation of such billboards is expected to generate at least $155,000 a month for the city through advertising space.[8] Of greater concern to Kroenke, and potential future land owners, is a clause in the Memorandum of Understanding that states that WOW Media shall have “exclusivity as to, and the City [of Inglewood] shall not permit or otherwise authorize or allow (whether on City Property or Private Property) any billboards within a 1000 foot radius of each Premises”.[9] This is expected by both parties to be a ten-year deal, which WOW may renew for another five years if it so chooses.[10] This deal was not problematic. However, a new deal has emerged, and as of April 15, 2025 (the date of its inception), it has been an issue that Kroenke and Hollywood Park have been hoping to resolve. In the 2025 memorandum, the success of the 2015 memorandum is referenced, as well as the booming renaissance that it has created in the Inglewood area, generating massive amounts of revenue for the city.[11] The new expected revenue for the city is almost double the old revenue, at $240,000 a month.[12] This new agreement between the City of Inglewood and WOW Media secures benefits for the local economy and local businesses, by securing a 75% discount on the advertising fee for local businesses and allocating 10% of the advertising area for Public Service Announcements (like Amber Alerts, emergency disaster messaging, traffic concerns, etc.).[13] The Agreement secures at least 60 structures to be built by WOW Media, totaling 108 screens to display advertisements and important information regarding the City and public safety.[14]
Kroenke and Hollywood Park commenced this lawsuit to obtain a preliminary injunction, to prevent the deal between WOW Media and the City of Inglewood to go through, claiming that Hollywood Park had exclusive agreements with the City of Inglewood to enjoy exclusivity of advertisement within the area.[15] However, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Southwest District, found the developer agreement to be void, due to it violating the California Penal Code, which prohibits city officials from knowingly making unauthorized disbursements of public tax money through such deals as the Hollywood Park developers claim to have had. Since the Superior Court found this agreement to be void, it found the City of Inglewood and WOW Media’s agreement to be appropriate, denying Hollywood Park’s motion for a preliminary injunction.[16]
Hollywood Park’s Loss
While Hollywood Park’s case was thrown out due to the void Developer Agreement, there were other important aspects of their case that the Superior Court noted as deficient as well. The Superior Court identifies that Hollywood Park’s claim for a preliminary injunction falls due to a lack of evidentiary support, namely, a failure to display any evidence of irreparable harm that would be cause from WOW Media’s advertising, the speculative nature of their claim, and the lack of a tangible concrete harm being suffered by Hollywood Park.[17]
Hollywood Park has lodged new claims against the City of Inglewood, now claiming that the City should reimburse Hollywood Park and its investors for the nearly $400 million dollars that were poured into developing the stadium and adjacent facilities.[18] Seeing as the preliminary injunction test failed, it will be worth keeping an eye on this developing case to see how the Superior Court of California will rule on a claim of economic loss.
About the Author
Anas Mahmoud is a third-year law student at Widener University Delaware Law School. He serves as a Staff Editor for Volume 51 of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law. Anas has had several judicial internships throughout his time at Widener University Delaware Law School and has obtained membership in the Delaware Law School Moot Court Honor Society as well. Upon graduation, Anas will serve as a law clerk for the Honorable Judge Jordan Perry and the Honorable Judge Gerry Spadaccini in the Delaware Court of Common Pleas.
[1]1994 Fifa World Cup (USA ‘94), USA SOCCER, https://www.ussoccer.com/history/us-soccer-as-host/1994-fifa-world-cup (last visited Feb. 15, 2026).
[2] In fact, some of these agreements include a deal to host the 2027 Super Bowl, and the 2028 Summer Olympics, which adds another wrinkle to this complex problem. Id.
[4] John Gittelsohn & Maxwell Adler, Billionaire NFL Owner Suing Over Billboards Near His LA Stadium, INSURANCE JOURNAL (Jan. 12, 2026), https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2026/01/12/853802.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com. The city specifically states that “Billionaires are not above the law” in reference to Kroenke’s filed lawsuit.
[5] Hollywood Park, https://www.hollywoodparkca.com/(last visited Feb. 15, 2026).
[6] Kerrie Jacobs-Bryant, $27bn NFL Owner at War With City Over ‘Ambush’ That Allegedly Threatens His $5.5bn World Cup Stadium, TALKSPORT, https://talksport.com/nfl/3893885/nfl-stan-kroenke-sofi-stadium-world-cup-losangeles-rams/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (last updated Jan. 13, 2026).
[7] Letter from Econ. and Cmty. Dev. Dep’t, City of Inglewood, to Mayor and Council Members, City of Inglewood (Jul. 7, 2015), https://www.cityofinglewood.org/DocumentCenter/View/6057/dr1pdf?bidId=.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Letter from Dev. Serv. Dep’t, City of Inglewood, to Mayor and Council Members, City of Inglewood (Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.cityofinglewood.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/18832?fileID=26318.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Defendant City of Inglewood’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint at 2, Pincay Re, LLC v. City of Inglewood, No. 25TRCV04256 (Cal. Super. Ct. L.A. Cnty.).
[16] Id. at 22.
[17] Id. at 43.
[18] Jacobs-Bryant, supra note 6.
Leave a Reply