Rams’ Bid to Buy St. Louis Training Facility for $1 Remains in Court

It’s been nearly a decade since the NFL’s Rams relocated from St. Louis to Los Angeles, but the legal fallout continues with no end in sight. Last week, a Missouri appellate court ruled that whether the Rams can buy a team training facility in Earth City, Mo., for just $1 will remain a question for Missouri courts and not arbitration.

The Rams’ move from Los Angeles to St. Louis in 1995, and then back to Los Angeles in 2016, is key to understanding this legal dispute.

As part of an inducement to land the Rams, St. Louis city and county officials in the 1990s provided funding for the construction of the training facility about 20 miles from St. Louis. The Rams, in turn, leased the facility from the government. The facility, then known as Rams Park, is now called the Lou Fusz Athletic Training Center. According to a government official last year, the facility is worth in the ballpark of $25 million.

The lease contained an option for the Rams to purchase the facility for $1 “at any time” after the 29th anniversary of the facility’s delivery date. Even though the Rams moved to Los Angeles and now use a practice facility in Woodland Hills, Calif., an arbitration panel and a court in 2019 determined that the option for the Earth City facility survived termination of the Rams’ lease. The option ripened in October 2024, and the Rams indicated they would invoke the option, pay $1 and execute a quitclaim deed to transfer ownership to themselves.

Enter the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA), a government entity that purchases, leases and operates convention centers, sports stadiums, field houses and other types of venues. A few days after the Rams began the process of buying the facility for $1, RSA sued the NFL franchise, claiming the lease option was extinguished in 2021 and requesting from a court a declaration of such. 

In 2021, the Rams, owner Stan Kroenke, the NFL and other defendants averted a trial by reaching a $790 million settlement with St. Louis government entities. The government had sued over the Rams relocating back to Los Angeles, with claims of breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference and unjust enrichment. The basic legal theory was that the Rams and NFL disregarded league relocation rules, including the obligation to engage in good faith efforts to remain in their current market. 

The settlement contained provisions releasing each side from legal claims they may have against the other. RSA maintains the release covers the 2019 ruling on the option and thus a lease from the 1990s is “irrelevant.” According to court records, the settlement doesn’t explicitly mention the lease, but the settlement’s far-reaching release language should—as RSA sees it—cover the lease. The settlement also contains a forum selection clause stating “any legal action or proceeding arising out of” the settlement must be brought in the St. Louis City Circuit Court. 

The Rams disagree that the settlement extinguished the lease option and argue the lease is a separate agreement that unambiguously gives the team the right to buy the facility for $1. The franchise also points out the lease contains a mandatory arbitration clause stating “all disputes between the parties arising out of this lease shall be subject to” arbitration, and given that the parties are debating the enforceability of the option, the debate should be heard in arbitration, not court. 

So, there are two contracts—a settlement and a lease—and each offers conflicting directions on whether disputes should be heard in court or arbitration. 

The Rams would understandably prefer arbitration over litigating in Missouri courts. The risk is that it’s possible the team will be viewed negatively by locals for leaving St. Louis. Arbitration is also confidential, whereas litigation can lead to disclosures of emails, texts and witness testimony—including of team and NFL officials. 

In an order authored by Judge Michael S. Wright on behalf of himself and Judges Philip M. Hess and Virginia W. Lay, the Court of Appeals of Missouri affirmed a trial court’s ruling that the dispute should remain in court. Wright reasoned the “underlying dispute arises out of the” settlement, not the lease. 

The judge stressed that RSA started the litigation, a point RSA emphasized in court filings when it asserted “the RSA is the master of its lawsuit and has the right to craft its claim as it chooses,” and he also noted that RSA seeks a court order to clarify the scope of the settlement’s release provision.

“While the option is referenced in [RSA’s petition],” Wright wrote, “RSA is not requesting the trial court determine if the option is valid and enforceable.” He explained the sports authority is focused on the “scope” of the settlement’s release provision, a separate topic from the lease’s arbitration clause. 

Wright clarified that the appellate court has not issued a ruling on the merits of RSA’s petition. “The only issue” before the three judges was “whether the underlying matter should be resolved” in arbitration or in a trial court.

The case now returns to the trial court, though the Rams have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri. It’s also possible the parties could reach a settlement that might, once and for all, provide closure to the St. Louis Rams.