The game of football is all about legacy in Cleveland. So, when whispers began about Dee Haslam’s Browns potentially relocating to Brook Park, the city turned to an old weapon—the Modell Law.

This 1996 legislation, born from heartbreak, now stands between the Browns and a future away from their downtown home. At the heart of this legal standoff is Mayor Justin Bibb’s determination to enforce the legislation, a statute inspired by Art Modell’s infamous betrayal. But can the law hold up in court?

A law born from betrayal

The Ohio General Assembly passed the Modell Law in 1996 when former Browns owner Art Modell made a controversial decision to move the Browns to Baltimore. It was right after the 1995 NFL season, and the move shattered Cleveland. It sparked widespread outrage and a legislative effort to ensure it would never happen again.

The law prohibits teams using tax-funded facilities from relocating without city approval or giving locals a chance to buy the franchise. On December 30, Mayor Justin Bibb invoked this law, aiming to block Jimmy and Dee Haslam’s plans to move the Browns to a domed stadium in Brook Park. In a strongly worded letter, Bibb called for the team to comply with the law.

“I am writing this letter on behalf of the City of Cleveland (the “City”) to the Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC (the “Browns”), as owner of the professional sports team known as the Cleveland Browns,” the mayor wrote. He even outlined the provisions of the law one by one in the letter.

Under Ohio’s Modell Law (Ohio Revised Code § 9.67), sports team owners can’t just up and move their team if they play most of their home games in a publicly funded facility and get state or local financial help. They have two options if they want to relocate:

1. They can strike a deal with the local government allowing the move.
2. Or they have to give at least six months’ notice and, during that time, give the local government or area residents a shot at buying the team.

The battle is now about preserving the city’s cultural and economic identity. However, the Haslams aren’t backing down either. Can Cleveland stop this relocation? Or will the Haslams prevail?

Can Jimmy Haslam evade the Modell Law?

Bibb’s letter came more than two months after the Browns’ owners had filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the Modell Law unconstitutional. They were calling the law “vague and unclear.” The management argued that it violates clauses related to interstate commerce and due process. The Haslams have also put forward their defense of the geographical relocation, which is not far away from the Cleveland borders.

The team argues they would remain in Northeast Ohio, just outside Cleveland’s borders. Still, for many, even a 15-mile move feels like a betrayal of the city’s football soul. The Haslams also played a strategic game by filing in federal court. They successfully sidestepped Cleveland’s judges, who many believe would have been more city-friendly. On the other hand, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has also stepped in to defend the law. This development further complicates the case.

If the court strikes down the Modell Law, it might as well set a precedent. As it would also make it harder for other cities to protect their teams. But if Cleveland wins, small-market teams everywhere might gain a new legal shield. This case is now all about the power dynamics between team owners and the communities they serve. And the outcome will surely ripple beyond Cleveland, shaping the future of such relocations.

For now, Jimmy Haslam’s team’s future hangs in the balance. Will Cleveland’s love for football triumph, or will legal loopholes decide the game? What do you think?