Cleveland’s football team, the Browns, might soon find themselves in a courtroom showdown with their own city. Why? The team’s potential move to a new domed stadium in Brook Park is stirring things up. Determined to keep the Browns in the downtown area, the city of Cleveland is ready to take legal action. Over the past few months, tensions have been growing between Cleveland officials and the Haslam Sports Group, which owns the Browns, over where the team’s home should be.
The conflict escalated after Haslam Sports Group hinted at relocating to Brook Park, a suburban area just outside Cleveland. If they make the move, they’ll be leaving FirstEnergy Stadium, the team’s longtime downtown venue. In response, former Cleveland mayor Dennis Kucinich stepped in, formally urging the city to sue. Kucinich argued that losing the Browns would be a major blow to the community, affecting not just the city’s culture but also its economy.
The news quickly gained traction on social media, with a Twitter post declaring: “BREAKING: The City of Cleveland plans to SUE the #Browns to prevent them from moving away and building a dome.” It’s now clear that Cleveland’s leaders, including Mayor Justin Bibb, are doing everything they can to keep the Browns from leaving downtown—even as talks about the stadium’s future continue.
Mayor Bibb didn’t hold back when expressing his disappointment with Browns owner Jimmy Haslam. During a press conference, Bibb made it clear that despite the city’s efforts to address issues with the current stadium, Haslam’s pursuit of Brook Park felt like a betrayal. Bibb emphasized the city’s focus on fiscal responsibility and long-term benefits for the community, making it clear he wasn’t happy with how things were being handled.
From Haslam’s perspective, though, the move makes sense. He believes the Browns need a modern, top-tier facility, and that fixing up the current stadium would only provide short-term solutions. In his statement, Haslam pointed out that without a dome, the team would struggle to host major events and generate year-round activity, which he says is crucial for the success of their public-private partnership.
Meanwhile, Cleveland’s Law Director, Mark Griffin, backed up the city’s decision to fight back. He mentioned the “Modell Law,” a local rule that requires the city to protect its taxpayers’ investment in the Browns. According to Griffin, the city is already gathering evidence and preparing to go to court.
As this legal drama unfolds, Cleveland has proposed a $1.2 billion plan to renovate the current stadium and keep the team downtown. The Haslam group, on the other hand, has responded with a $2.4 billion proposal for a new stadium and entertainment complex in Brook Park. With both sides digging in, the next few weeks will be critical in determining whether the Browns stay in the city or head for the suburbs.
