Just how much leverage a professional sports team has over a municipality in stadium negotiations is still an open question. Must a team succeed consistently on the field to hold negotiating leverage?[1] How much economic impact must a new stadium deliver for a municipality to contribute significant investment? Is economic impact even a real metric to use when measuring the success of a stadium?[2] As more sports teams—particularly in the NFL—propose significant stadium renovations or relocations, the relationship between teams and the municipalities is coming under stricter scrutiny.
There is perhaps no better example of this relationship than the Cleveland Browns and the City of Cleveland. The Browns currently play at Huntington Bank Field, which opened in 1999.[3] The team is in talks to develop and construct a new state-of-the-art stadium, with an anticipated open in 2029.[4] The new stadium would not be built in Cleveland, however. The team has identified 176 acres of land in a nearby suburb, Brook Park, where it says this new stadium and other mixed use commercial development would be constructed.[5] This potential relocation—along with the more than $1 billion in requested government aid—has caused significant conflict in Cleveland.[6]
In 1996, after the original Browns owner Art Modell moved the franchise to Baltimore, Ohio passed what is colloquially known as the Modell Law. The law aimed to deter future professional sports teams from relocating out of Ohio—or at least to deter surprising relocation. It requires an owner seeking relocation of a professional sports team that operates a tax supported stadium for most of its home games to first enter into an agreement with the municipality permitting the team to relocate.[7] The owner must also give that municipality at least six months’ notice of the intention to relocation and the opportunity to purchase the team.[8]
At the end of last year, the City of Cleveland sent the Browns a letter indicating its intention to invoke the Modell Law to prevent relocation out of downtown.[9] This follows a series of escalating legal battles. The potential invocation of the Modell Law and the Browns’ own lawsuit against the city are indicative of what can happen when the relationship between a professional sports team and its home city deteriorates.
Last fall, the Browns sued Cleveland in federal court, seeking declaratory judgment that the Modell Law is an unconstitutional violation of, among many things, the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Among other claims, the Browns’ lawsuit alleges that the Modell Law advantages Ohio economic interests and actors, while disadvantaging out-of-state actors, through its mandatory option for municipal purchase.[10] The law requires teams seeking relocation to give the home city the opportunity to purchase the team. Cleveland’s Law Director had indicated that by invoking the Modell Law and suing to keep the team in Cleveland, the goal would be to find local purchasers.[11] The Browns allege that by advantaging in-state interests in this way, the Modell Law places “excessive burdens” on interstate commerce.[12]
Cleveland just filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit on the grounds that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. While this case—and a concurrent state court action against the Browns—remain unsettled, the controversy is reminiscent of the 1995 relocation. The competing power dynamics between an NFL team and its home city can create situations where it is not just about on-field success or economic impact that play a role in stadium discussions. Leverage in these situations can be gained or lost based on a shared history, an understanding about intentions, or a lack of trust.
[1] See Timothy Allaire, Do You Have to be Good to Get a New Stadium?, UB Law Sports & Entertainment Forum (Feb. 14, 2025), https://ublawsportsforum.com/2025/02/14/do-you-have-to-win-to-get-a-new-stadium/.
[2] See Adam Hoffer et al., Taxpayers Shoulder a Heavy Burden for Sports Stadium Subsidies, Tax Foundation (Oct. 3, 2024), https://taxfoundation.org/blog/sports-stadium-subsidies-taxpayers/.
[3] See Alex Kennedy, What is the Oldest NFL Stadium? Soldier to SoFi in Age, ESPN (Feb. 7, 2025), https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39395382/what-oldest-nfl-stadium-soldier-sofi-age.
[4] Tim Newcomb, Cleveland Browns’ Stadium Design ‘Truly Transformational’ For NFL, Forbes (Dec. 18, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/timnewcomb/2024/12/18/cleveland-browns-stadium-design-truly-transformational-for-nfl/.
[5] See Mary Kay Cabot, Browns Owners Exploring a Domed Stadium in Brook Park, cleveland.com (Mar. 26, 2024), https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2024/03/browns-owners-jimmy-and-dee-haslam-say-theyre-exploring-a-domed-stadium-in-brook-park-that-could-transform-our-area.html.
[6] See Michelle Jarboe, Browns Detail their Brook Park Stadium Financing Plans Publicly for the First Time, News 5 Cleveland (Feb. 13, 2025), https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/browns-detail-their-brook-park-stadium-financing-plans-for-the-first-time.
[7] See Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 9.67(A) (1996).
[8] Id. § 9.67(B).
[9] Alex Perry, What is Modell Law? How the OH State Law Could Stop the Cleveland Browns from Relocating, Akron Beacon Journal (Dec. 31, 2024), https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/sports/pro/browns/2024/12/31/what-is-modell-law-ohio-state-law-browns-brook-park-move/77348758007/.
[10] See Complaint at 16, Cleveland Browns v. City of Cleveland, Case No. 1:24-CV-01857.
[11] Id. at 8.
[12] Id. at 12.
Photo Credit – https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/browns-to-focus-stadium-efforts-on-dome-in-brook-park.
Leave a Reply