The Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC (the Browns) recently brought suit against the City of Cleveland (the City) over a state law that restricts the Browns from moving their NFL team out of the tax-supported Huntington Bank Field (HBF) in downtown Cleveland. The Browns currently play home games at HBF, but plan to move to a new stadium after the expiration of their lease agreement in 2029.
The Modell Move
HBF, an open-air stadium facility on the shores of Lake Erie in downtown Cleveland, has been the Browns home stadium since 2017. Due to the open-air setup, HBF can only be utilized approximately 10-12 times per year for major events. Over the years, the Browns’ games have become a staple of Cleveland’s entertainment and sporting scenes, and have contributed significantly to the community. The Browns have fostered significant philanthropic efforts in the City, including support for education, youth sports, volunteerism, economic mobility, and several other efforts to improve the community.
However, the Browns are considering moving to a yet-to-be-built domed stadium in the City of Brook Park, Ohio, an adjacent city to Cleveland. The Brook Park stadium would support approximately 50-70 events per year, as opposed to HBF’s 10-12 events.
The City vehemently opposes the move and has compared it to the infamous “Modell Move” in 1995, when the previous owner of the Browns, Art Modell, chose to move the franchise over 400 miles away to Baltimore, Maryland. Subsequently, Ohio enacted a law known as the “Modell Move” to restrict owners of professional sports team to playing the majority of their home games at a tax-supported facility. On May 6, 2024, the Cleveland City Council passed an Emergency Ordinance directing City Law Director Mark Griffin to enforce the Modell Law against the Browns. The City has been clear that it will take legal action to prevent the Browns from moving stadiums.
constitutional Arguments
The Browns argue that the Modell Law is unenforceable because it is unconstitutionally vague, noting it requires that professional sports team owners using a tax-supported facility for most of their home games cannot stop playing the majority of their home games at that facility and start playing “elsewhere.” The Browns argue that “elsewhere” is too vague and is not defined anywhere in the statute.
In violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, the Browns claim that the Modell Law places an undue burden on interstate commerce by favoring in-state economic actors and disadvantaging out-of-state rivals, without serving any legitimate local interest.
The Browns further assert that the Modell Law is too vague because it does not contain any exceptions for situations in which the statute would interfere with other contracts. For example, the statute could interfere with an existing contract between the sports team and a national sports league governing whether the sports franchise may be sold or relocated, similar to the contract the Browns have with the NFL.
Focusing on their good-faith effort to collaborate with the City on a possible solution, the Browns emphasized that they worked with the City on cost-benefit analyses for years and considered multiple stadium facilities. The Browns also highlight that they would not start playing at the Brooks Park stadium until their lease with HBF expired.
vying for venues
This lawsuit has sparked important questions about the use of tax-supported facilities and how far the government can reach to regulate them. As this case unfolds, it will test the relationship between taxpayer-supported facilities and governmental control.
Navigating the complexities of state and local tax laws, especially when they intersect with constitutional concerns, requires professional assistance. If your business is facing constitutional questions with a tax impact or you are unsure how local laws effect your operations, Libertas is here to help.