In Cleveland, football isn’t just a sport. Its identity, heartbreak, and therapy all braided together in brown and orange. So when the city sued the Browns, something felt off. It’s family members fighting over petty issues. But make no mistake, it’s about the lakefront, which could rake in millions. Right now, both sides are lawyered up. They argued over who owns the soul of Sunday afternoons on the lakefront. And owner Jimmy Haslam is at the center of the storm.

Haslam Sports Group wants to build the Brook Park–based dome. The civil suit filed in January accused the Browns of breaking their lease and violating the Modell Law, a statute born in 1995 when Art Modell packed up for Baltimore under the cover of darkness. The law was meant to prevent professional sports teams from abandoning their home cities. But 30 years later, here we are.

Cleveland’s side is pretty simple: We built and paid for it, so we deserve a say. “They are in current breach of their lease,” said Attorney Justin Herdman, representing the city of Cleveland. “They are violating Ohio law. That’s why we’re here.” The Browns playing anywhere other than downtown costs the city $30 million in economic output and $11 million in taxes per year. But Jimmy Haslam isn’t flinching. William Savitt, their lead attorney, stood in court and said, “The Browns have a lease to play at Huntington Bank Field. They’re going to honor that lease.” 

The Browns’ representative further added: “If you have a lease that expires in June, you start thinking in March what you’re going to do next. Those are plans, not decisions. So, these are some things being pursued, but until everything’s agreed, nothing’s agreed.” So, basically, it comes down to Ohio lawmakers pitching in $600 million to build the new place. And there’s a twist.

The Browns sued first in federal court. They want the Modell Law tossed altogether, arguing it’s unconstitutional. They say the city’s legal pressure is clouding the air around a potential public-private stadium deal.

Right now, it’s legal trench warfare. Both sides filed thick motions while fighting across courtroom aisles. There’s no ruling yet from Judge Lauren Moore. And the wait continues. But for the city, it’s a time of tension. This isn’t just a zoning dispute. This is Cleveland asking, again, if loyalty counts for anything in professional sports.

Deadline approaching for Jimmy Haslam’s dream project

Just last week, the Ohio Senate passed its $60 billion biennial budget, including the $600 million performance grant for the Browns, drawn from $3.7 billion in dormant state accounts (aka unclaimed funds). The city would repay the money through taxes generated by the stadium and development over 16 years. To sweeten the deal, the Haslams would throw $50 million into escrow as insurance, with a second $50 million in credit lined up if the math doesn’t work. But the catch is, Governor DeWine needs to sign the proposal before June 30.

Meanwhile, Brook Park’s city council is unanimously backing the move. Mayor Edward Orcutt is lobbying in Columbus, calling the Senate’s plan a destination project. Jimmy Haslam, having a net worth of $8.5 billion, claims this isn’t about greed. Republican State Senator Tom Patton also agreed, saying, “Since 2016, since they (Jimmy and Dee Haslam) got to Cleveland, they have built 16 brand-new high school stadiums in the city of Cleveland. Candidly, I think the Haslams have been pretty good neighbors.”

However, critics aren’t buying it. “They’re billionaires,” Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio said. “Why are we shaking the couch cushions for them?” So, where does this all land? The legal fight grinds on amid a tense waiting game in Judge Lauren Moore’s chambers.

The Browns say they’re staying in Cleveland. They just want a better home. But between the lawsuits and the public backlash, this isn’t just a stadium debate. It’s a referendum on public trust!