Cleveland, Ohio — Tensions are escalating in Cleveland as local authorities have initiated a lawsuit aiming to challenge the Cleveland Browns’ potential relocation. On Tuesday, the city filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, contending that the Browns’ ownership is violating state law, potentially derailing plans or compelling a sale of the team to local buyers.
The lawsuit leverages the “Modell law,” named after Art Modell who infamously moved the original Browns team to Baltimore in 1996. This Ohio state law was designed to prevent professional sports teams that benefit from taxpayer-funded facilities from relocating without significant local input. Cleveland’s legal team is thus seeking a court order to enforce negotiation or sale provisions of this law in their favor.
The city began to lay the groundwork for this legal action last fall after Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam ceased discussions with Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb concerning upgrades to the existing city-owned stadium. In response, the Browns preemptively filed a federal lawsuit in October questioning the Modell law’s constitutionality, its vagueness, and its compatibility with NFL regulations.
The Modell law mandates that sports teams playing in facilities supported by public funds must secure approval from their host city to relocate. Additionally, they are required to provide six months’ notice of any intended move and offer local entities a chance to purchase the team. Cleveland’s attorneys are adamant that this law should apply fully to the Browns’ situation, arguing that significant financial contributions from the city and ongoing taxpayer subsidies bolster their case.
Cleveland claims more than $368 million has been invested in the Huntington Bank Field for construction and repairs, with further financial support stemming from a countywide “sin tax” on alcohol and cigarettes. The city wants to halt any progress on the Browns’ proposed new stadium in the Brook Park suburb, which is part of a major $3.4 billion development project, until compliance with the Modell law is confirmed.
The legal wrangling over the Browns’ status adds complexity to an already contentious situation. The team intends to move after their lease expires post-2028 season, citing freedom from obligations to Cleveland thereafter. City officials, however, see it as a betrayal after decades of community and financial support.
This dispute occurs amid broader discussions on the future of Cleveland’s downtown lakefront area, with Mayor Bibb underscoring plans to continue redevelopment with or without the Browns. As legal battles unfold in county and potentially federal courts, the city holds firm in its stance that the sport franchise should honor its legacy and commitments to the local community.
Mayor Bibb expressed the sentiment strongly in a recent statement: “The future of our lakefront and our city is brighter with the Cleveland Browns continuing to play football on the shores of Lake Erie, just as they have for generations.”
As Cleveland prepares to defend its interests in court ahead of a mid-January deadline to respond to the Browns’ federal lawsuit, the community watches closely, hopeful that their beloved team will remain a cornerstone of the city’s spirit and economy.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by OpenAI. The details, including people, facts, and circumstances, may be inaccurate. For content corrections, removal, or other inquiries, please contact [email protected].