The proposal for a new $2.4 billion domed stadium in a Cleveland suburb has sparked significant opposition from Ohio research groups. The Browns' owners, Jimmy and Dee Haslam, have requested $600 million in state and local government funding. However, this idea faces skepticism from lawmakers and unity among conservative and progressive think tanks. Critics argue that such projects rarely deliver true economic benefits and could set a dangerous precedent for future requests. Additionally, the Browns and the city of Cleveland are engaged in a legal dispute over the team's relocation plans, which violates a state law requiring permission for moves involving taxpayer-funded stadiums.

Unified Opposition to Public Funding for Sports Venues

Three prominent Ohio research organizations have joined forces to oppose public funding for the proposed Browns stadium. This rare moment of agreement underscores concerns about the financial implications and potential precedents set by such projects. These groups emphasize that similar ventures historically fail to generate substantial economic returns for taxpayers. They also warn that state involvement could lead to a cascade of similar requests from other sports franchises.

Greg Lawson, a research fellow at the conservative Buckeye Institute, expressed strong reservations about the project. He pointed out that academic studies consistently demonstrate limited economic benefits from stadium construction. Lawson fears that approving state funds for the Browns' project might open the floodgates for future requests. "If you do something in Cleveland, what’s next? Cincinnati or baseball teams may follow suit," he said. This concern about setting a precedent is echoed by both conservative and progressive researchers alike.

Legal Battle and Economic Concerns

The Browns' plan to relocate to Brook Park has ignited a legal battle with the city of Cleveland. The team's move violates a state law known as the "Modell Law," which mandates obtaining permission before relocating or providing a six-month notice for potential buyers. The Browns claim this law is unconstitutional, further complicating the situation. Meanwhile, critics argue that investing taxpayer money in a private enterprise like the NFL franchise diverts resources from more pressing public needs.

Donovan O’Neil, state director for Americans for Prosperity-Ohio, highlighted the need for a thorough discussion on taxpayer obligations. "These are multi-million dollar businesses; the NFL and the Browns franchise are large enterprises," O’Neil noted. He emphasized the importance of addressing whether it is justifiable to use public funds for such projects. Bailey Williams, a researcher with Policy Matters Ohio, added that hoping for long-term economic gains from this venture seems risky. "That’s really just an IOU to the taxpayers," Williams remarked. She stressed that there are more critical issues the state should be focusing on instead.