Angels Baseball faces a new naming fight as Anaheim lawmakers push to legislate ‘Anaheim’ back

Angels Baseball has become the center of a fresh political and legal push in Anaheim, where a new state bill and City Hall scrutiny are converging on the team’s name as decisions about Angel Stadium’s future move back onto the agenda.

What Happens When Angels Baseball’s stadium future runs through the Surplus Land Act?

A state assemblymember introduced legislation this week that would place a specific condition on any future sale or lease of Angel Stadium: if Anaheim receives an exemption under the state’s Surplus Land Act for a transaction involving the stadium, then materials would need to refer to the team as the Anaheim Angels. The measure has been dubbed the “Home Run for Anaheim Act” by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, whose legislative district includes Angel Stadium.

The Surplus Land Act generally requires that, in many situations, local governments selling excess property prioritize affordable housing and provide affordable-housing developers an initial opportunity to negotiate for the land. In the Angels stadium context, city leaders have recently taken steps to restart discussions about the property’s future, including approaching the state about development under the Surplus Land Act.

The bill’s mechanism is narrow but consequential: it links a potential exemption from Surplus Land Act requirements to the team name used in the paperwork and materials tied to a stadium disposition. It also contains an off-ramp for negotiation: if the city and the team reach their own naming agreement, the legislation would not apply.

What If the lease question becomes the next pressure point?

At a recent Anaheim City Council meeting, Mayor Ashleigh Aitken asked the city attorney to examine whether dropping “Anaheim” from the team name could place the club in violation of its current lease. Following that, the city sent a letter to Angels leadership seeking confirmation that the team’s name continues to include “Anaheim” in compliance with the lease, while noting that in recent years the team and Major League Baseball have used “Los Angeles Angels” in many public-facing contexts.

The debate sits on top of a longer-running dispute over the franchise’s branding. After purchasing the team, owner Arte Moreno changed the name in 2005 from the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Anaheim sued, arguing the Angels were violating the lease, but a jury sided with the team. The decision withstood appeal, and the dispute cost the city $7 million and three years in litigation. With the 2016 season, the team started going by the “Los Angeles Angels. ”

Now, the city’s posture is shifting toward planning for multiple outcomes on the stadium site. Mayor Aitken has said the city needs time to develop a vision for the property when the lease has expired, whether that future includes the Angels or not, and that no project would break ground next year.

What If a naming fight becomes a stand-in for the bigger stadium decision?

Even if the naming issue intensifies, it does not settle the larger question: what happens to Angel Stadium itself, and who pays for what comes next. In the coming months, the city expects to release an assessment of what it would take to keep the stadium operating for years to come, a step that could trigger a new debate between the city and the Angels over cost responsibilities tied to repairs, renovations, or longer-term stadium plans.

The stadium story has already been shaped by a collapsed prior deal. A city agreement to sell Angel Stadium to a business partnership of Arte Moreno was canceled in 2022 after federal investigators were looking at former Mayor Harry Sidhu, partly connected to the stadium negotiations he led. In the earlier, now-dead framework described in the context, the city and team had agreed on a long-term arrangement that would have kept the Angels in Anaheim through 2050 and included a purchase of the stadium property as well as stadium renovation or replacement and surrounding development. The state objected on Surplus Land Act grounds, a settlement followed, and the Anaheim City Council ultimately killed the deal after an FBI investigation uncovered—alongside Sidhu’s plea agreement—that he provided confidential information to a team consultant and expected a $1, 000, 000 campaign contribution from the Angels. The government has not alleged wrongdoing by the Angels.

In this environment, the new bill and the lease inquiry function as leverage points—tools that could shape negotiations if and when Anaheim and the team revisit long-term development, a new lease, or any sale or lease of the stadium property.

The naming conflict is also being pressed on two fronts: in Sacramento, through Valencia’s bill, and in Anaheim, through the mayor’s request for a legal review and the city’s letter to Angels leadership. Valencia has framed the effort as a matter of local recognition, pointing to Anaheim’s long relationship with the franchise and arguing that if the team wants to develop around the stadium in partnership with the city, then the name should reflect that affiliation. The bill was developed in consultation with city leaders and has been publicly endorsed by Aitken and former Mayors Tom Daly and Tom Tait.

For now, the team’s public posture in the context is limited: an Angels spokeswoman, Marie Garvey, said the team had no comment.