That's not the same as breaking a lease, or a clause.

The clause stated that if they didn't keep the venue a "top 25%" (actually the exact term in the lease was "top tier" in several categories which is really vague of course) then the lease converted to a year to year contract. The Rams submitted plans to achieve that in their opinion and the venue declined. The venue also submitted a proposal to the Rams and they declined.

No clause was broken, no "word" or "promise" was broken. They could have spent the money and locked the Rams in for the next 10 years. There was no "failure to live up to" anything. They made a decision to let the lease go year to year because they didn't want to spend 700+MIL to keep the team there for 10 years. They would have lost money on that deal.

The wording matters, because the way it's spun sometimes is that there was a broken or violated clause when in fact there wasn't.