A political battle fit for the gridiron is underway in Ohio, where state Republican leaders are clashing over whether to single out the Cleveland Browns for help building a new suburban domed stadium or impose tax hikes to fund stadium upgrades for the Cincinnati Bengals and other teams longer term.
Neither idea is without critics in both parties, who argue that underwriting National Football League stadiums siphons money from the state’s policy priorities, including funding infrastructure and public schools.
The most heated debate centers on a proposal by Haslam Sports Group, which owns the Browns, to relocate from the team’s existing open-air stadium on downtown Cleveland’s lakeshore — where they have played since 1999 — to a new $2.4 billion complex in Brook Park, about 15 miles (24.14 kilometers) south. The team has proposed a private-public partnership to which the state would contribute $600 million.
After the money was approved by the Ohio House last week, commissioners in Hamilton County, home to the Bengals, balked. They moved swiftly to re-up their request for $350 million for Paycor Stadium, where the Bengals’ lease is up June 30, 2026. The ask follows Bengals Executive Vice President Katie Blackburn’s comments at recent NFL meetings in Florida, where she said, “We could, I guess, go wherever we wanted after this year” — while noting negotiations are progressing.
The stadium debate heads to the Ohio Senate after their two-week spring break.
Browns dream big, Cleveland recalls Modell nightmare
Dee and Jimmy Haslam, generous Republican campaign donors, say they want a facility “consistent with other world-class NFL stadiums.” With the addition of a dome, the Browns could host year-round events during northeast Ohio’s severe winters and “catalyze meaningful economic impact” at an adjacent entertainment complex. They point out that eight in 10 home game attendees live outside city limits.
Leaders in Cleveland, where Browns games draw coveted economic activity to downtown and the tourism district along Lake Erie, are livid. The existing $247 million Huntington Bank Field was primarily funded by city and county tax dollars. To many, it’s a symbol of the hard-luck sports town’s commitment to the team it nearly lost when then-owner Art Modell notoriously packed off to Baltimore in 1996.
Modell’s messy exit, also hitched to a stadium dispute, led to a state law that says no owner of an Ohio professional sports team that plays most of its home games at a tax-supported stadium can go elsewhere without an agreement with its host city or unless the host city is given six months’ notice with an opportunity to buy the team.
Democratic Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and members of the city council have threatened for months to invoke the “Modell Law” to prevent the Browns from leaving their current location, where the lease runs through the 2028 season. The city plans to remake the so-called “North Shore” with an eye toward accessibility, economic development and environmental protection. The team has filed a constitutional challenge to the law, and the city sued it back.
Meanwhile, the clock for allocating dollars toward the project is running down: Lawmakers face a June 30 deadline to finalize the state budget for the next two years.
Governor and House have different funding ideas
Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s budget proposal called for raising the $600 million by doubling the tax on sports betting companies from 20% to 40%. The idea was to create a long-term revenue stream that could help both the Browns and the Bengals, and other teams.
“The governor’s plan goes beyond one team,” DeWine spokesman Dan Tierney said. “The general revenue fund can’t afford that. Therefore, we need to look at something that is more sustainable and can help all the teams.”
The GOP-led Ohio House, however, rejected DeWine’s plan in a vote last week. Its version of the operating budget calls for issuing $600 million in general obligation bonds to pay for the Browns project instead. Paying off the bonds would cost the state about $1 billion over 30 years.
House Finance Chairman Brian Stewart told reporters that the “metrics” of bonds are better for Ohio taxpayers because officials project that tax revenue from the Browns’ “megaproject” will be ample to cover the $40 million a year it will take to repay the bonds.
Senate must work through the opposition
As the Senate takes up the bill, it must weigh opposition to the current plan from all quarters: DeWine, the city of Cleveland, the Bengals, legislative Democrats and Republican Attorney General Dave Yost, who is running to succeed DeWine next year.
“Ohio is getting ready to spend more money on a new stadium in one city for one football team than it will spend on new highway construction for the next two years in the entire state,” Yost wrote in a recent Columbus Dispatch op-ed. He called state money for the project a “spendthrift gift to a billionaire.”
House Democrats unsuccessfully fought to pause the funding proposal altogether, citing unanswered questions about revenue projections, economic impacts and commitments by private developers. Cleveland Rep. Terrence Upchurch told reporters that lawmakers have more important priorities than helping the Browns’ owners, “especially since they only won three (expletive) games last year,” referring to the team’s 3-14 record.
A fellow Democrat in the Republican-supermajority Senate has proposed prohibiting public dollars from going to any professional sports franchise without a winning record in three of its five past seasons.
