As I was news surfing yesterday, I couldn’t help but have my attention drawn again to another article that seemed like an old story I’d seen before. A legal battle between the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Browns has intensified, centering on the team’s potential relocation to a neighboring suburb, Brook Park. This complex situation involves multiple legal, financial, and civic considerations.
It all started when the Cleveland Browns announced they had executed a clause to “solidify the purchase” of 176 acres of land in Brook Park that will be the site of their new domed stadium and adjacent mixed-use development.
“We have executed the clause and taken the necessary steps in our land purchase agreement with the current owners to solidify our future purchase of the 176-acre site in Brook Park for a new Huntington Bank Field enclosed stadium, along with an adjacent mixed-use development,” said Haslam Sports Group Chief Operating Officer Dave Jenkins in a statement: “While work remains with our public partners on the project, this is a key step in our efforts to create a responsible long-term stadium solution that delivers a world-class experience for our fans, attracts more large-scale events for our region and positively impacts our local economy.”
Cleveland Faces a Crucial Battle Over the Browns’ Relocation
As legal battles unfold between the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Browns, the stakes are high for both sides. At the heart of this dispute is the Modell Law, a state law enacted in 1996 after the Browns’ original move to Baltimore. This law was designed to protect cities that had invested public funds in sports facilities, ensuring teams cannot relocate without public approval or a fair opportunity for local buyers to purchase the team.
The Modell Law: What’s at Stake?
The Modell Law essentially prevents sports teams from moving if they’ve received public funding for their stadiums, unless they give the city six months’ notice and offer local buyers the chance to purchase the team. Cleveland argues that the Browns, having received over $368 million in public subsidies for their current stadium, are bound by this law.
But the Browns, who’ve proposed a $2.4 billion enclosed stadium in Brook Park—a suburb of Cleveland—argue that the law doesn’t apply to them. Their case is grounded in a federal lawsuit filed in 2024, in which they claim the Modell Law is unconstitutional and conflicts with NFL rules, which allow teams to relocate after their lease expires.
Economic Fallout: What Cleveland Stands to Lose
The economic impact of the Browns’ potential departure could be severe. A recent city study estimated that Cleveland could lose up to $30 million in annual economic activity, much of it generated by game-day spending on transit, food, and lodging. For businesses like Mabel’s BBQ and Tailgate Sports Bar & Grille, which rely heavily on game day crowds, the loss would be significant. The city could also see a drop in tax revenue, estimated at $11 million annually, further straining an already tight budget.
Atlanta’s Playbook: Handling Sports Relocation
In many ways, Cleveland finds itself in a situation similar to Atlanta’s recent experience when the MLB Braves moved from downtown to Cobb County in 2017. Atlanta responded by focusing on repurposing its former stadium site for mixed-use development, bringing in a local college (Georgia State University), new tenants, and repurposing the area as a year-round attraction. Additionally, the city worked with developers to improve public transportation and mitigate potential revenue losses for local businesses. While some feared the economic impacts, Atlanta’s strategy of balancing development and community engagement helped smooth the transition. Cleveland could learn from these strategies to keep its downtown thriving, even if the Browns leave.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for Cleveland and the NFL?
As the legal battles intensify, the outcome will have broader implications for the future of sports franchise relocations in the U.S. Cities across the country will be watching closely, as Cleveland’s case could set new precedents for how to balance public investment with private enterprise in sports, not to mention redrawing the lines of local venue-based employment. Stay tuned!
