There Is Such A Thing As The “Modell Law”

 I ran across a report yesterday at Sportico.com with this headline:

“Cleveland mayor invokes ‘Modell Law’ to block Browns move”

Three things compelled me to read this article:

1. I never knew Art Modell had a law named for him.
2. I did not know the Browns planned to move.
3. It was by Michael McCann who is a sports law professor that I read whenever I run across one of his articles.

Let me start with the first item above.  Back when the “Browns 1.0” left Cleveland for Baltimore to become the Ravens, the Ohio Legislature passed a law that would make it more difficult for another team based in Ohio to pick up and move somewhere else.  I did not know that; I am not surprised to learn that it happened; I now understand why there is a law that is commonly referred to as the “Modell Law”.

As to the next item on the list, I learned by reading the Sportico report that the Browns’ attempted “move” was not going to be out of Ohio.  Not being a Cleveland area resident, I was not aware that the Browns have been considering a site about 15 miles outside Cleveland for a new stadium/development project in a town called Brook Park.  The Browns lease to the current facility in Cleveland runs through the end of the 2028 NFL season.  Again, I did not know such planning was happening; I am not surprised that it is ongoing.

Now comes the interesting part from Professor McCann.  The mayor’s invocation of the “Modell Law” demands that since the Browns will be moving out of Cleveland, they must – – in compliance with that law – – provide “the City or others with the opportunity to purchase the team.”  When you consider the number of billable hours for lawyers that a move to Brook Park with approvals for a stadium/development project might engender, this added layer of interaction with the City of Cleveland could raise that number exponentially.

The Browns’ response is not in a kind and gentle tone; it has two parts:

1. The Browns contend that the “Modell Law” is unconstitutional – – AND – –
2. Even if the “Modell Law were to be found to comply with the Constitution, it would not matter because the Browns are in compliance with the “Modell Law”.

Now, over to Professor McCann:

“The law forbids Ohio-based 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 word ‘elsewhere’ is unclarified as to whether it could refer to an intrastate move or is intended to only cover out-of-state relocations.

“Should a team wish to move, the Modell Law says it must provide the government with six months’ notice and offer the team for sale to the city or local buyers.”

The mayor wants that six-month period of notice and purchasing options to start now.

Here is the short version of why the Browns are not going to do so without a fight.  Again, from Professor McCann:

“Whether the Modell Law could actually block the Browns from relocating to Brook Park is an untested legal concept. Although the law was cited in court filings when the Columbus Crew planned to move to Austin, Texas, seven years ago, that legal dispute was resolved via settlement. It also concerned an out-of-state relocation, whereas the Browns seek a comparatively local move.

“… the Browns contend the law is impermissibly vague because it: (1) doesn’t clarify how far a team must move for it to apply; (2) doesn’t explain what triggers six months’ advance notice; (3) violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from excessively interfering with other states’ economies, by giving Ohio residents ‘preferential treatment’ to buy the team; (4) violates the Constitution’s Contract Clause by impairing the Browns and NFL’s contractual obligations to one another concerning league approval of franchise relocation; and (5) violates the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause by discriminating against citizens of other states (at least those who want to buy an NFL team).”

Somewhere in the cosmos, Art Modell is smiling because he is relevant again in Cleveland; citizens there thought they would never have to deal with him again once he passed – – and yet, here we are.  I have a much more benign view of Art Modell than just about anyone in Cleveland has.  In broad overview:

• Cleveland found money to build the Indians – – now the Guardians – – a new stadium.
• Cleveland then found money to build the Cavaliers a new arena.
• Modell sought Cleveland money to build a new stadium for his “Browns 1.0” and was rebuffed.
• Modell got a good deal from Baltimore and hightailed it out of Cleveland.
• Then, when the NFL offered to put a new franchise – – “Browns 2.0” – – back in Cleveland if there were a new stadium there, suddenly that funding became readily available.

It is that last turn of events that leads me to believe that Art Modell may not have been pure evil.  He was probably driven by financial gain to a huge extent, but that is not surprising for an NFL team owner.  I just think that the failure to reach an agreement between Modell and the City of Cleveland back in the 1990s was a joint venture; Modell deserves a share of the scorn and so do the Cleveland pols who had the money to build a stadium with him but didn’t and only “found” that money after the Browns were gone and the citizenry in Cleveland was not too happy about the loss of their team.

Here is a link to Professor McCann’s article; it is obviously more thorough and more instructive than my summarization here; I include it for those who might want more information.

Finally, I will close with these words from Art Modell himself; think about recent and current NFL owners and ask yourself how far off base he was when he said:

“The quality of ownership is not what it was in yesteryear.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………