CLEVELAND, Ohio – Jimmy and Dee Haslam want to move their Browns to Brook Park. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb wants the team to stay in Cleveland. So does Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne.
But who has the most leverage in this standoff over where Browns fans will be heading to watch their team play -- and to spend their entertainment dollars -- for decades to come?
One thing that hasn’t come up, at least yet, is the ultimate card -- a threat by the Browns to leave Northeast Ohio. Remember Art Modell? But Jimmy Haslam more than once has said they are committed to staying in the area, and on Thursday the team said again that means Brook Park. Plus, there appear to be few, if any, places really begging for a team.
“In virtually every stadium or arena discussion that I advised the Cleveland mayor on, there was a legitimate risk of the team leaving the region,” said Ken Silliman, the retired long-time Cleveland City Hall insider and author of the book, Cleveland Sports Facilities, a 35-Year History. “The only possible exception would be the 2013 renovation of the football stadium.”
That makes the dynamics of these negotiations different than previous stadium discussions with the Browns, Cavs and Guardians, Silliman said. And it makes the question of leverage all the more important.
With the threat of relocation largely off the table, the real battle is over who can extract the most value from this moment: the Haslams, who want public money to help build a stadium in Brook Park; or Bibb and Ronayne, who hope to channel that investment into downtown Cleveland and the lakefront.
The Browns’ leverage
A huge pot of money -- $1.2 billion from the team and $600 million from the state.
This could be the Browns’ strongest bargaining chip — the $600 million in state-backed borrowing that the team is seeking and, frankly, needs to make their dream stadium a reality. The money would be repaid using state sales, income and business taxes generated at the site, and the Ohio House has already agreed to that funding.
That proposal now awaits action in the state Senate, which is also weighing a possible increase in the sports betting tax to help fund stadium projects in Ohio, a funding model pitched by Gov. Mike DeWine. A final decision is expected by the June 30 budget deadline.
Should the Browns prevail in their request, $1.8 billion would be promised between the team and the state.
Is that too much of an investment to turn away, even for Ronayne, who has been steadfast in his opposition to the team’s move from downtown to Brook Park?
Does the danger of political consequences increase by, in essence, telling the state to keep that $600 million or spend it elsewhere in Ohio? (Ronayne and Bibb, instead, are asking the state for only $350 million to renovate the existing stadium. And the Browns’ contribution for that would be way less than $1.2 billion, probably no more than $500 million.)
Could the Browns use the threat of moving the stadium to another county as leverage? Possibly — but it’s a weak card for now. The Haslams have repeatedly pointed to the former Ford plant in Brook Park as the perfect, shovel-ready site, and on Thursday, they sent Ronayne a letter, declaring their commitment to building the stadium there, with or without the county’s financing.
The Haslams’ continued interest in downtown lakefront development could become a bargaining chip in persuading Cuyahoga County to support their stadium plan. If the Browns and the city part ways on good terms — meaning the county helps finance the new stadium — the Haslams might still invest in non-football-related lakefront projects, potentially contributing $50 million or more in private funds as a kind of parting gift to Cleveland.
After all, it was the Haslams who first hired a landscape architect and approached then-Mayor Frank Jackson with a vision for a lakefront revival, including a land bridge to connect downtown with the waterfront. Construction on that bridge is now expected to begin in 2027. Additional funding may be needed to carry out that broader vision — and to eventually demolish the old stadium.
But whether that parting gift materializes, and how generous it might be, could depend on whether the Browns are forced to turn to private financing. Without the county’s involvement, they could face significantly higher borrowing costs, limiting their capacity to invest in the city.
Browns Brook Park, interior stadium design
Design for the interior of the proposed Browns domed stadium in Brook Park.Courtesy Cleveland Browns
The county’s leverage
County support is key to the Browns’ effort to secure $600 million in public funding — the local share of a three-way cost split with the state and the team. The Browns propose repaying that $600 million, plus interest, using a mix of city and county taxes, primarily generated by stadium visitors paying taxes in Brook Park.
So far, County Executive Chris Ronayne has stood firm in his opposition to the deal. In response, the Browns said Thursday they’re prepared to move forward without county backing if necessary, relying instead on a mix of additional private financing and borrowing through the city of Brook Park.
Still, the county holds one powerful card: control of the sin tax revenue — a tax originally approved by voters to fund the Gateway complex and later extended to support the lakefront football stadium. The Browns aren’t asking for any of that money, but neither they nor Brook Park would likely turn it down. Right now, the sin tax brings in about $4.5 million per stadium each year.
It would take a change in the agreement between the city and Cuyahoga County to move the Cleveland football stadium share pf the sin tax to Brook Park. If the Browns want that – say for future maintenance - the county and city are sure to ask for something in return.
Cleveland Browns lakefront renovation
A three-year-old rendering of how a renovated Browns stadium on the lakefront was envisioned at the time.Cleveland Browns
The city’s leverage
The city of Cleveland’s strongest piece of leverage may be the so-called “Modell Law,” a state statute designed to prevent — or at least complicate — the relocation of professional sports teams that have received public tax support. Even if courts ultimately decide the law doesn’t apply to a move just across the city line to Brook Park, legal challenges could drag on for months or even years. That’s a problem for the Browns, who are eager to begin construction and open their new stadium by 2029.
Agreeing to drop the lawsuit could become a bargaining chip for Cleveland — a way to negotiate something in return from the team, potentially money to help meet a range of city needs. On the flip side, if the city prevails in court, it could block the Browns from moving altogether.
Delays in the stadium timeline — whether from litigation or construction setbacks — give the city another point of leverage: the lease. The Browns’ agreement to play at Cleveland Browns Stadium expires after the 2028 season, and it doesn’t include any automatic renewal options. If the team needs a temporary home beyond that, it would require the city’s cooperation. And if Cleveland isn’t willing to play along, the Browns would face the unappealing prospect of relocating games — possibly to Columbus — for a year or more. That could be enough to bring the team back to the negotiating table.
Finally, Cleveland also has a stake in the sin tax — a third of the annual revenue that currently supports the stadium. Like the county, the city could choose to offer its share to Brook Park as part of a broader deal, potentially securing something in return.
Now what?
The next critical moment to watch is what happens in Columbus with the Browns request for state funding.
Silliman warns that if the team’s Brook Park plan moves forward, it will cost the city of Cleveland dearly.
“If the Browns get the state money and go ahead and move and build it in Brook Park -- even if the county doesn’t fund it -- the city loses about $11 million a year in taxes and about $30 million a year in economic impact,” Silliman said. “And it’s also stuck with an empty stadium that, ultimately, they probably would decide to demolish.”
If the state money doesn’t come through for the Brook Park stadium, however, Jimmy Haslam has acknowledged that Plan B would mean revisiting the idea of renovating the existing lakefront stadium -- a project that could cost $1 billion.
“The positive is, we will know on the state funding by June 30th,” he told reporters during the March owners’ meeting. “And so, assuming that goes well, then we can then move quickly to try to start (construction in Brook Park) sometime in the first quarter of ‘26. ... It’s either going to happen and happen quickly, or we‘ll go to plan B.”
Still, Plan B is far from ideal in the team’s view — a fact that clearly continues to keep them engaged in negotiations.
“Renovating the stadium and putting more than $1 billion (public and private) into a short-term fix that would present the same dilemma 15 to 20 years from now is neither strategic, nor a fiscally responsible long-term approach,” Haslam Sports Group Chief Operating Officer Dave Jenkins said in his letter this week to Ronayne.
Rich Exner covers regional development and transportation for cleveland.com. Readprevious coverage of Browns stadium plans at this link.