The Cleveland Browns are at the center of a growing dispute with the city over plans to move their stadium from downtown Cleveland to the suburb of Brook Park. The Browns’ owners want to build a new $2.4 billion domed stadium and are asking for substantial financial support from Ohio taxpayers and Cuyahoga County to help foot the bill. This proposed relocation has sparked fierce opposition from local businesses and city officials who fear the economic and social impact on downtown Cleveland.
For many local business owners, game days at the Browns’ current stadium on the Lake Erie waterfront have become an essential source of revenue. Ryan James, co-owner of the Flat Iron Cafe Cleveland’s oldest Irish pub explains that on NFL home game days, the pub fills with supporters, significantly boosting sales. The pub even runs a shuttle bus to transport fans the one-mile distance to the stadium, emphasizing how important the Browns are to his business’s survival. He estimates that the eight or nine home games each season account for up to 10% of his annual revenue, a crucial portion in an industry known for tight profit margins.
The Browns have been a staple of downtown Cleveland for nearly a century, providing consistent economic benefits, including around $1 million in parking and hotel tax revenue per game. But the team’s owners argue that the city has been slow to commit funding to renovate the current stadium and believe a new stadium in Brook Park would help drive investment to a different part of the region.
The city of Cleveland, which owns the current stadium, has offered to invest $500 million toward renovations at the existing location. However, county officials remain wary of any deal that shifts financial risk to taxpayers while the team’s owners stand to reap significant profits. Chris Ronayne, Cuyahoga County executive, stresses the importance of community vibrancy and economic vitality downtown, warning that moving the stadium away contradicts those goals.
Legal battles have erupted between the Browns and the city, highlighting the tension over the future of the team’s home. The city currently pays $1.3 million annually for property taxes and insurance on the stadium, while the Browns pay $250,000 in rent. Despite this, the Browns’ franchise is valued at over $5 billion and earns around $100 million each year in ticket sales alone.
This conflict reflects a broader national debate about the use of public funds to finance sports facilities for billionaire team owners. Across the country, cities face similar challenges as franchises demand public money to build or renovate stadiums. Some voters have pushed back, such as in Kansas City, where a proposed $1.7 billion funding plan was rejected by local voters.
In Chicago, the NFL’s Bears are also considering a stadium move, weighing a $2.4 billion public spending proposal versus relocation to a site further from the city center. Other cities, including Jacksonville and Nashville, have approved billions in taxpayer contributions to support stadium projects. Yet, some owners, like those of the Los Angeles Rams, have paid for their stadiums privately, highlighting alternative approaches.
In Cleveland, the county is not outright opposed to stadium improvements downtown and is open to discussions about future renovations or a dome stadium at the current site. Ronayne describes the rush to build a new stadium in Brook Park as unnecessary and financially wasteful.
The state of Ohio, with a Republican-controlled legislature, has pledged $600 million in taxpayer-backed bonds for the new stadium, a commitment that would affect residents far beyond Cleveland. Governor Mike DeWine has voiced opposition but may still sign the funding bill, underscoring the political complexity of the issue.
Complicating matters, politicians supporting the new stadium have received campaign donations from the Browns’ owners, raising concerns about influence and priorities, especially amid proposed state education budget cuts.
Some see the current stadium’s limited use eight or nine football games and occasional concerts as a poor use of such a prime downtown location. The Greater Cleveland Partnership supports relocating the stadium, viewing it as more practical, while locals near the proposed Brook Park site welcome the potential economic benefits.
However, for many in Cleveland’s core, the dispute feels like a story of billionaire owners seeking to increase their wealth at the expense of the community. For business owners like James, the stadium debate is less about sports and more about fairness and respect for the city that has supported the team for generations.
