Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Mistake by the Lake? City of Cleveland Sues Browns To Halt Move

By Kit Yona, M.A. | Last updated on

For fans of the Cleveland Browns football team, it's an unacceptable case of deja vu. Their beloved team is threatening to move away yet again. While Brook Park, the proposed location for the team's new stadium, is only about 10 miles from the Browns' current home, the economic effect on Cleveland would be profound.

The Browns' owners claim the new stadium will have better amenities, infrastructure, and improve fan experience. All of which would, of course, also increase the value of the franchise and improve revenue.

The city has vowed not to go without a fight. They're challenging the owners of the Browns with a weapon specifically intended for this very situation — the Modell Law. This unique piece of legislature stands at the center of the dispute.

They've Been Hurt Before

The Cleveland Browns football team is an important part of the city's history and culture. Starting play in the National Football League (NFL) in 1946, the Browns became a beloved Cleveland institution. Thus it was a huge shock when team owner Art Modell announced that he was moving the team to Baltimore in 1995. In Cleveland, this is referred to as "The Move."

Modell cited business and economic reasons for the move. They were not well-received by the fan base. Cleveland offered a number of enticements, including a sin tax, to keep the team in the city but were rebuffed.

This led to an unprecedented agreement with the NFL. Modell was allowed to take the team to Baltimore, but Cleveland would retain everything to do with the Browns' name and history and be granted an expansion team. The city agreed to build a new stadium financed by taxpayers. They also swore to never let this happen again.

The Modell Law

It didn't take Ohio long to draft legislation covering stadiums built and maintained with taxpayers' money. In 1996, they passed an extremely specific law. The code, frequently referred to as the Modell Law, states the following:

No owner of a professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance from the state or a political subdivision thereof shall cease playing most of its home games at the facility and begin playing most of its home games elsewhere unless the owner either:

(A) Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;

(B) Gives the political subdivision in which the facility is located not less than six months' advance notice of the owner's intention to cease playing most of its home games at the facility and, during the six months after such notice, gives the political subdivision or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area the opportunity to purchase the team.

With this in place, the city of Cleveland felt secure that the owners of the Browns would be forced to honor their lease at what is currently named Huntington Bank Field and continue to play most of the team's home games there. Alas, the owners disagreed.

A Blitz of Filings

The City of Cleveland filed a complaint in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, on January 16, 2025. It named the Haslam Sports Group, LLC, the Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC, and the Cleveland Browns Stadium Company, LLC as defendants. Dee and Jimmy Haslam are the primary owners of the Browns.

The suit claims that by entering an agreement to purchase land for a stadium to be built in Brook Park, Ohio, the defendants are in violation of the Modell Law. It also alleges breach of contract (the current lease expires in 2028) and requests injunctive relief. The city has also filed motions to dismiss the defendant's petition in federal court to rule the Modell Law as unconstitutional.

Teams playing in stadiums not in the city they're named for isn't unusual. For example, both the New York Jets and New York Giants play their home games in a stadium located in a nearby New Jersey suburb. However, the City of Cleveland stands to lose tens of millions in annual economic output and tax revenue if the Browns vacate Huntington Bank Field.

Time for a Hail Mary

Citing the Modell Law, Cleveland points out that the Browns' ownership is required to give both six months' notice and the opportunity for others to attempt to buy the team. As the law is written, it appears the owners would be under no obligation to accept an order regardless of how fair or generous it might be. It's another aspect to be determined by the court.

In a somewhat ironic wrinkle, the Browns' ownership seeking to shed their obligation to Cleveland taxplayers has met with Ohio state and county officials to secure assistance through public funds. It remains to be seen if this fiscal flea-flicker will be successful.

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard