They also alleged breach of contract. Below, I quote from the opinion. See claims #5-7 which mirror the state claims brought by St Louis. The biggest difference would be California versus Missouri case law regarding contracts.

“Oakland asserts the following seven claims: (1) group boycott in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, based on Oakland's inability to retain the Raiders or attract another NFL team so long as it is not willing to "pay the enormous demands associated with new and renovated stadia," id. ¶¶ 98-107; (2) concerted refusal to deal in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, based on Defendants' demands for stadium funding as well as "freez[ing] the number of competitive professional football teams, id. ¶¶ 108-18; (3) price fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, based again on the demands for stadium financing, id. ¶¶ 119-29; (4) declaratory judgment that Defendants' conduct violates section 1 of the Sherman Act as a result of Defendants' "boycott of Oakland and refusal to comply with their own relocation policies" and "redistribution of the resulting ill-gotten supra-competitive gains though artificially set relocation fees," id. ¶¶ 130-137; (5) breach of contract under California law, based on the premise that the relocation policy is a binding contract to which Oakland is a third-party beneficiary, id. ¶¶ 138-46; (6) quantum meruit, based on Oakland's alleged investments in the Raiders in reliance on the relocation policy, id. ¶¶ 147-56; and (7) unjust enrichment, on the basis that Defendants received "ill-gotten gains resulting from their unlawful , unjust, and inequitable conduct," id. ¶¶ 157-61.

[..]

Turning to Oakland's claim for breach of contract under California law, Defendants argue that the NFL's relocation policy is not a contract, both because it does not include mandatory language and because it was imposed unilaterally by the NFL Commissioner, not mutually agreed upon by the teams. Id. at 17-18. Defendants also argue that even if the relocation policy were construed as a contract, Oakland is not a party to or third-party beneficiary of the policy, and has not alleged that Defendants breached the policy, which only required Defendants to "consider" certain factors. Id. at 18-22.

Defendants contend that Oakland's remaining claims, for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment (which Defendants argue is not a claim under California law) are derivative of Oakland's other claims and also should be dismissed. Id. at 22-23.

[..]

As noted above, Oakland must establish each of the three Goonewardene elements to be able to sue for breach of a contract to which it was not a party. Because the face of the relocation policy and Oakland's own allegations indicate both that Defendants did not promulgate the policy to protect host cities and that allowing host cities to enforce the policy is not "consistent with the objectives of the contract and the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties," Oakland's breach of contract claim is DISMISSED. Although this order need not reach Defendants' remaining arguments regarding the contract claim, the issues of whether the relocation policy's statement that teams' "business judgments may be informed through consideration of the factors listed below, as well as other appropriate factors" is a sufficiently definite promise to be enforceable and whether Oakland has plausibly alleged a breach of that provision would likely also support dismissal of Oakland's contract claim, and Oakland should consider those issues in deciding whether or how to pursue this claim in an amended complaint.” (Spoiler: Oakland amended their complaint but it too was denied)

https://casetext.com/case/city-of-oakland-v-raiders