For a franchise that can’t seem to avoid controversy, the Cleveland Browns have once again found themselves at odds with their own fan base-and the city of Cleveland. After enduring a turbulent season with Deshaun Watson, the Browns’ latest move has sparked a new wave of animosity, this time not over player conduct, but a major relocation plan that threatens to further alienate the team from its supporters.

Since the 1940s, the Browns have been synonymous with downtown Cleveland, playing in their current lakefront home at Huntington Bank Field since 1999. However, with the lease set to expire in 2028, team owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam are making headlines by pushing forward plans to build a new domed stadium and entertainment complex in Brook Park, a Cleveland suburb. The bold move has ignited a fierce legal battle between the team and the city, one that is dredging up painful memories of the Browns’ past.

At the heart of the dispute is Ohio’s “Modell Law,” named after the infamous former Browns owner, Art Modell, who moved the franchise to Baltimore in 1995. The law was designed to prevent a similar betrayal by requiring teams that use tax-supported facilities to either gain permission to relocate or give six months’ notice. With Cleveland threatening to invoke the Modell Law, the Browns preemptively filed a federal lawsuit seeking clarification, setting the stage for a potential showdown in court.

The Haslams’ decision to relocate has not been well-received by Cleveland’s leadership. Mayor Justin Bibb minced no words, calling the team’s decision “frustrating and profoundly disheartening.” The city had previously offered to contribute $461 million toward renovating Huntington Bank Field, hoping to spur lakefront development. But the Browns, citing prohibitive costs, opted for a fresh start in Brook Park-a move that could change the identity of the team and its connection to Cleveland forever.

For fans, it’s dj vu. Memories of the Browns leaving Cleveland once before are still raw, and now they face the possibility of losing their team, even if only to a suburb. Many are questioning whether the Haslams are repeating the same mistakes that Modell made nearly three decades ago. The Browns’ history, already tarnished by years of underperformance and controversy, seems to be on the verge of another chapter filled with tension.

Browns’ stadium move: A vision for progress or a betrayal of Cleveland’s legacy?

The Haslams argue that their decision is forward-thinking. A new domed stadium, they claim, will bring premier events and economic revitalization to the region. But for a city already battered by the Browns’ numerous struggles on the field, this move feels less like progress and more like abandonment. The strained relationship between the team and its city, worsened by the Deshaun Watson saga, now faces an even steeper climb toward reconciliation.

Legally, the Browns may have a tough battle ahead. The Modell Law, last used to prevent the Columbus Crew from leaving Ohio, has proven to be a formidable tool in protecting local sports teams from relocation. The Browns are hoping the courts will allow them to move forward with their Brook Park project, but the process is sure to be drawn out, with both sides digging in for a protracted fight.

While the legal and political wrangling unfolds, the Browns have put their relationship with Cleveland on the line. The city, once willing to work with the team on a renovation, now seems prepared to stand in their way. Whether the Browns can mend fences with the city-and their fans-remains to be seen, but the early signs are not encouraging.

For a franchise that has already been through the fire, this latest chapter feels like another self-inflicted wound. After the Deshaun Watson controversy, the Browns seemed in need of a public relations win. Instead, they have only deepened the divide between themselves and the people of Cleveland.