The National Football League has a long and storied history of team relocations, from the Baltimore Colts’ infamous overnight move to Indianapolis in 1984 to the recent departures of the Rams, Chargers and Raiders to new markets. But the Cleveland Browns now find themselves embroiled in a contentious legal battle as they attempt to leave their longtime home for a shiny new suburban stadium, demonstrating the complex challenges of such moves in the modern NFL landscape.
City Files Lawsuit to Block Browns’ Move
On Tuesday, the city of Cleveland filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the Browns from breaking their stadium lease and building a new $2.4 billion domed stadium and entertainment complex in the nearby suburb of Brook Park. The suit invokes the “Modell Law,” an Ohio statute passed in the wake of the original Browns’ 1996 move to Baltimore, which requires teams playing in tax-supported facilities to obtain permission or give six months’ notice before relocating.
The Modell Law, named after reviled former Browns owner Art Modell, was previously used to block the Columbus Crew MLS team from leaving Ohio. Coincidentally, the Crew is now owned by Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam, who are seeking to move the football team when their stadium lease expires after the 2028 season.
“The Modell Law’s requirements are straightforward… the owner must either obtain the City’s authorization or give the City and others the opportunity to purchase the team before moving the team away from that facility.”
–City of Cleveland lawsuit
The Browns, who are seeking a 50-50 public-private partnership to finance the proposed Brook Park stadium, argue that remaining in their current home is not a viable long-term option. The team rejected a $1.2 billion offer from the city to renovate the 23-year-old waterfront stadium.
Relocation Hurdles in the Contemporary NFL
The Browns’ legal fight underscores the significant obstacles teams face when looking to relocate in today’s NFL:
- Securing Financing – With new stadiums routinely exceeding $1 billion in cost, owners often seek substantial public funding, which can be politically unpopular and difficult to obtain.
- Navigating Legal Challenges – Cities losing teams frequently file lawsuits to recoup investments and block moves, leading to protracted court battles.
- Overcoming League Hurdles – NFL rules require supermajority owner approval for franchise relocation, and the league demands teams exhaust all options in their current market first.
These factors have made successful relocations less common in recent years. Since the Browns returned as an expansion team in 1999, only three franchises (Rams, Chargers, Raiders) have moved, with others like the Bills and Vikings opting for new stadiums in their existing markets after relocation flirtations.
The Shifting Economics of NFL Stadiums
Historically, NFL teams pursued relocations primarily to secure lucrative new stadiums, often with significant public funding. But the economic calculus has changed in the modern era:
- Rising Construction Costs – New stadium price tags have skyrocketed due to cutting-edge architectural designs, luxury amenities and mixed-use development.
- Evolving Revenue Streams – With a smaller share of income driven by ticket sales and public funding harder to obtain, teams now focus on corporate sponsorships, seat licenses and ancillary development.
- Increased Franchise Valuations – The average NFL team is now worth nearly $4 billion, making relocation a riskier financial proposition that is harder to justify.
This shifting paradigm has made it more difficult for NFL owners to use the threat of relocation as leverage for public stadium subsidies, as the Bengals and Commanders discovered in recent failed attempts to gain taxpayer funding for new venues. The changing economics and an increased emphasis on sharing revenue have also made relocating less attractive compared to the significant financial boost teams previously gained from moving.
Parallels to the Original Browns Move
The Browns’ current dispute contains eerie echoes of the team’s relocation to Baltimore in 1996. Then-owner Art Modell, frustrated by an inability to secure a new stadium deal in Cleveland, shocked the football world by moving the team in the middle of the night. The city of Cleveland sued, eventually reaching a compromise where Modell took the players and personnel to become the Ravens while Cleveland retained the Browns’ name, colors and history for a replacement franchise that began play in 1999.
The controversial relocation left lasting scars in Cleveland and made Modell a pariah in Ohio, with the state legislature passing the Modell Law to prevent similar situations in the future. The Haslams now find themselves navigating the ramifications of that law as they chart a new course for the Browns franchise.
An Uncertain Future for the Browns
As the Browns’ relocation battle plays out in court, the future of one of the NFL’s most iconic franchises hangs in the balance. Will the Haslams prevail in their quest to build a state-of-the-art suburban stadium, or will the Modell Law and Cleveland’s legal challenge keep the team by the shores of Lake Erie? The outcome remains to be seen, but the contentious fight provides a case study in the perils and complexities of franchise relocation in the modern NFL.
No matter where the Browns ultimately call home, the scars of relocation will likely linger, as the saga evokes painful memories of the team’s controversial departure a generation ago. The Browns-Cleveland relationship may be strained, but it is one deeply rooted in history and tradition – a foundation not easily broken, even in the big business of the contemporary NFL.
