The probable move of the Cleveland Browns from the town to a neighborhood has sparked renewed interest in a special and unknown Ohio rules: Revised Code 9.67, more popularly known as the” Art Modell law”.
Last month the Cleveland City Council approved an legislation directing Mayor Justin Bibb’s management to use the law during conversations with Brown owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam, whose player’s contract to play at Cleveland Browns Stadium will disappear in 2028. The group is eyeing different options, including a possible venue project in Brook Park, Ohio. A area of around 19, 000 individuals, Brook Park is located about 15 miles from Cleveland.
Had implementation of the Modell law to a residential relocation resist legal challenge? The answer is uncertain, which invites risk for Cleveland, Brook Park and the Haslams.

The Modell law came into force in 1996, months after then- Browns owner Art Modell moved the team to Baltimore. The law was designed to stop, or least slow, future relocation attempts when a franchise has received public subsidies. The basic logic: If a pro team takes money from taxpayers, it should n’t be able to easily abandon them.
The Modell law prohibits pro teams that use a” tax- supported facility for most of its home games” and that “receive financial assistance” from playing home games elsewhere. The team can only overcome this restriction by obtaining government consent and by satisfying a six- month notice period during which the team must be offered for sale to local buyers.
Although the Modell law has n’t been fully tested in court, the Ohio government invoked it when the Columbus Crew contemplated a move to Austin, Texas, in 2018.
Ohio Attorney General ( now Governor ) Mike DeWine sued Major League Soccer and Precourt Sports Ventures—the Crew’s operator/investor at the time—in hopes of obtaining an injunction. Central to DeWine’s case was the Modell Law, which he argued the Crew had n’t satisfied. Modell insisted the Crew were subject to the law since the team had received several forms of public subsidy, including funds for parking.
While State ex rel. Ohio Ag v. Precourt Sports Ventures was pending in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, a group of local investors, led by the Haslams, reached an agreement with MLS to keep the team in Ohio. Austin, meanwhile, landed an expansion MLS team.
In a sense, the Modell law “worked” in keeping the Crew in Ohio. The state used the law to generate a legal controversy that created risk for MLS and the Crew. It’s not clear what might have happened had the Modell law not been available to DeWine.
On the other hand, it’s unclear if the Modell law would have withstood a legal challenge. The law has several ambiguous and arguably problematic provisions that could spark litigation—including with the Browns.
For starters, the Modell law does n’t explain what” tax- supported facility” means. Does” support” require direct funding or could less direct types of government assistance, such as a city leasing land at below- market value or reducing a team’s tax exposure, count? That debate surfaced in the Crew litigation. The role of “notice” could also bring disagreement, including what counts for an owner to trigger the six- month clock—must notice be in writing or could a conversation suffice?

The Modell law also requires an “opportunity to purchase the team” but does n’t clarify what kind of “opportunity” is needed and what level, if any, of due diligence is necessary. That issue also came up with the Crew. The team insisted it was genuinely open to listening to interested buyers, but the state saw the team’s behavior more as trying to run out the clock. Could a team accept the receipt of a local offer and then either instantly reject it or take no action so it naturally expires, meaning the team would technically comply with the letter of the Modell law but not its intended spirit?
The Modell law could also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution contains the Contract Clause, which makes it illegal for states to “impair” contractual obligations. The Modell law interfering with an otherwise valid contract between the Haslams and Brook Park could become an issue. Although less relevant in an intrastate move, the Modell law could also collide with the Commerce Clause ( Article I, Section 8 ). The Commerce Clause forbids states from adopting laws that unjustifiably obstruct other states ‘ economies, including economies impacted by the arrival of a new team.
A state law blocking a franchise relocation also counters the typical practice of courts to greenlight those moves. The New Orleans Jazz and the Seattle Supersonics moved to Utah and Oklahoma, respectively, despite specific performance clauses that expressly required them to play in their arenas. Judges found reasons to allow the relocations. But typical is not “always”. In 2002, a court required the Minnesota Twins to play in the Metrodome because of a specific performance clause.
It could be months or longer before the Browns ‘ next steps are known. Lurking in the background will be an intriguing 1990s- era law that might bring a Browns relocation controversy back to the future.