Cleveland council tells mayor to use “Art Modell law” to force Browns owners to stay put or sell the team

The Cleveland city council yesterday passed an ordinance (really more of a resolution if you ask me since it’s less a law than a request with no enforcement power, but far be it from me to question local government terminology, anyway) directing the mayor’s office to enforce the “Art Modell law” if Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam try to take their team and leave town for a new stadium. And this would apply “whether they want to move the team to Timbuktu, or whether they want to move to Brook Park” in the Cleveland suburbs, according to the bill’s sponsor, councilmember Brian Kazy.

If you’re like me and 1) don’t live in Ohio and/or 2) don’t remember all that much about how the Art Modell law actually works beyond that it was passed in the ’90s after the eponymous then-Browns owner packed up his team and moved it to Baltimore, you likely have some questions. So let’s do this in the form of a FAQ:

What does the Art Modell law actually say?

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:

  1. Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
  2. 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.

So if the Haslams try to leave their current stadium, they have to get it approved by the city of Cleveland?

That’s the upshot. The city can either grant dispensation as part of a deal it works out, or else get offered the opportunity to buy the team (and, presumably, keep it in town). But as written, the law is veto power over any move, not just out of city limits, but out of the existing stadium.

What’s the penalty if owners try to move a team anyway?

That’s an excellent question, and it’s left unstated in the law. It would almost certainly be for a judge to work out if there’s any compensation that would make the city whole, or if the Haslams could be forced to sell the team.

Would the Haslams get to set any price they want for the team?

That’s another excellent question. Obviously “the opportunity to purchase the team” at ten times its market value wouldn’t be worth much, but the law is silent on that as well.

Has all this been tested in court yet?

Not definitively. The closest it came was in 2018 during the Columbus Crew‘s proposed move to Austin, when the state of Ohio filed a lawsuit to enforce the Modell law. But it never got as far as a courtroom — though there were some rulings about when the clock starts ticking on that six-month purchase option — because a few months after the suit was filed, the Crew’s then-owner Anthony Precourt agreed to sell the team to the Haslams while getting an expansion team in Austin, and so the issue was settled.

What happens now?

First and foremost, it’s a shot across the bow by the city council that Mayor Justin Bibb needs to tell the Haslams that the city intends to use the fullest extent of the law to drive a hard bargain for Cleveland taxpayers. How much Bibb will listen, or what kind of bargain he would seek to win — less public money for stadium renovations? a bigger cut of stadium revenue for the city? let the Browns move to the suburbs but pay some kind of exit fee? — is still undetermined. And if it does end up going to court, the results of any lawsuit are a complete crapshoot. (Ed. note: This is not a legal opinion.)

But even menacingly waving the Art Modell law gives the city government some leverage here — and as we saw in the Crew case, that leverage can be used to extract concessions from owners who don’t want to risk a judge’s ruling. The ball’s in Bibb’s court now, but if nothing else, he’s just been handed a reminder that he has a tool in his stadium negotiations belt that most mayors don’t, so he may as well use it.

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

7 comments on “Cleveland council tells mayor to use “Art Modell law” to force Browns owners to stay put or sell the team

  1. This is stupid. The Browns going to Brook Park would be great for the City of Cleveland since they could finally develop the Lakefront. The city still gets the intangible perks of having an NFL team and the tourist related revenue without the debt service requirements and the costs of staging games.

    1. There’s nothing stopping Cleveland from negotiating the terms of a move to Brook Park if that’s what it wants.

    2. Cleveland City Council will eventually have final say over whatever happens here. Its legislative action conveys that it seeks an earlier role. On the merits, owner apologists seeking public dollars at Brook Park have and will borrow from the Tennessee Titans’ playbook by characterizing the existing 25-year -old stadium as “crumbling” and “hastily built.” But, as a previous commenter observed, isn’t it coincidental that 25-year-old NFL stadiums require demolition or major overhauls while 100 year old college stadiums in Columbus and Ann Arbor persevere through the ages? The City invested $30 million in a midterm renovation and $30 million in capital repairs over the last five years. And, as a 24-year season ticket holder who attended 8-10 games annually, I can verify that the existing facility is in fine shape. The extraordinary demands are driven by owner ego rather than actual need. The average fan will verify this.

      1. Ken – stop it. You’re literally the only fan who likes this stadium. Its a monument to Cleveland’s historically poor leadership, including two of your ex-bosses. The stadium was horribly designed (why would you have open corners when its surrounded by the lake on 3 sides) and stupidly located. There was no reason to put the stadium on the lakefront. If leadership had been smart back in the 90s they would have built a dome stadium and convention center together as opposed to spending $300 million on the stadium and then $465 million on a convention center 10 years later. Let them go to Brook Park and open up the lakefront for development that your terrible boss let sit for 16 years as mayor. While you’re at it get rid of that lakefront airport that everyone with half a brain knows is a waste of space.

  2. Once again Browns fans are being played, the owners are from Tennessee and have planned to relocate the Browns To Memphis for the past few years. Also, keep your eyes on the Saints as they are in talks with San Diego about relocation as well. The training camp in Irvine was step one.

    1. Sir, I’m going to need to ask you to shut your engine and show you sources.

    2. LOL. The Raiders (Costa Mesa) and Cowboys (Oxnard) are also holding training camp in southern California. You think we are going to have three more NFL franchises relocate here, in addition to the Rams and Chargers?

Comments are closed.