Few stadiums have reshaped a city’s sports landscape quite like the iconic SoFi Stadium. The crown jewel of Rams owner E. Stanley Kroenke’s vision, the 3.1-million-square-foot venue stands as the NFL’s largest stadium and its first indoor-outdoor masterpiece. But even a venue of SoFi’s stature isn’t immune to controversy. As Kroenke looks to enhance further the sprawling complex, a new showdown is brewing with city leaders over a familiar question: who should pay for the next round of upgrades?

Apparently, Stan Kroenke is seeking $400 million from the city of Inglewood, per The New York Times, arguing that the payment is required under an agreement signed more than a decade ago. However, city officials contend that the deal was effectively nullified by subsequent court rulings. They insist they are not obligated to pay the amount being requested.

The disagreement doesn’t end there.

Inglewood is also challenging the Rams owner’s calculations, disputing the $400 million figure and setting the stage for what could become a lengthy legal and financial battle between the two sides.

Kroenke’s legal team has argued that his development project played a major role in transforming Inglewood’s economy. According to court filings, the city’s unemployment rate has fallen by roughly 12 percentage points to 4.7%, while property values have more than doubled since the project began.

The attorneys also contend that the case could have implications beyond Inglewood. They argue that a ruling in the city’s favor could set a precedent that may impact large-scale development projects across California.

“If the city’s agreements can now be revisited or undone after years of economic growth and community benefit,” Otto Maly, managing director of Hollywood Park and president of Kroenke Holdings, said in a statement. “It raises fundamental questions about the reliability of doing business in Inglewood — and California generally.”

Responding to these startling claims from the Kroenkes, the City’s legal representation stressed that “billionaires are not above the law” before questioning the amount that must be repaid for improvements to public infrastructure like roads, sewer lines, and streetlights. However, the Inglewood mayor, James T. Butts Jr., has remained adamant that the city cannot pay, as the agreement is invalid.

This legal battle between the Rams’ ownership group and the city of Inglewood isn’t a first, as several cities with major sporting franchises have faced similar issues in the past. Glendale has had disagreements with the Arizona Cardinals over paying for traffic control at State Farm Stadium. Similarly, East Rutherford, New Jersey, faces the issue of paying police officers overtime at MetLife Stadium, where the New York Giants and the New York Jets play.

While Stan Kroenke and Co. continue to fight against the city of Inglewood over repayment for improving local public infrastructure, this isn’t the first time the LA Rams ownership has been involved in a legal battle with the city over billboards, which essentially triggered this new $400 million suit.

When Stan Kroenke’s Hollywood Park sued Inglewood over billboards

Dating back to July 11, 2025, the Stan Kroenke-owned Hollywood Park development group filed the initial lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court to block the city’s billboard contract after the Inglewood City Council quietly awarded an advertising deal to WOW Media in April 2025.

The deal presented the firm with a 20-to-40-year lease to build 60 digital billboards and 108 electronic screens on public sidewalks and medians around Hollywood Park (which contains SoFi Stadium and the YouTube Theater) and Intuit Dome.

Hence, the Stan Kroenke-owned development group argued that the massive city-backed billboards directly “siphon away” lucrative event-advertising and sponsorship revenues. The argument further stemmed from how an independent third-party company can sell ad space right next to the stadium entrances to direct competitors of official sponsors during premier events like the upcoming FIFA World Cup, the Super Bowl, and the 2028 Summer Olympics.

While Hollywood Park claimed the city’s billboard rollout violated a 2015 Development Agreement that limits competing signage near the campus, Mayor James Butts and city lawyers issued a rebuttal stating that the 10-year-old agreement was voided and invalid under state law as it passed through a voter initiative instead of being negotiated by the local city council.

Hence, while that lawsuit continued, the Hollywood Park group was prompted to file the recent reimbursement suit after the City of Inglewood tried to invalidate their contract to protect its new billboard deal. Now with major sporting events like the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics coming to LA, only time will tell how these legal disputes will impact those global sporting spectacles.