By Nicolas Frost, Executive Editor
Art Modell became a name that lives in infamy in Cleveland and most of Ohio when he moved the Cleveland Browns franchise to Baltimore in 1995. According to John Kroll, the former Online Editor for The Plain Dealer, it was no secret that Modell’s Browns were in trouble.[1] Everyone could see the “disappointing performance on the field [and the] declining revenue because of Modell’s miscalculation about the impact of a new stadium for the Indians, formerly his tenants.”[2]
But even with these troubles, the news introduced by then-Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening that Modell was the owner of the Baltimore Browns shocked all of Cleveland.[3] The Plain Dealer story revealing the news reflected the city’s bewilderment: “Art Modell finally ran the play he has been drawing up in secret for the Browns all season. He executed an end-around that could sweep professional football out of Cleveland despite a defensive blitz called by Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White.”[4]
A year later, the State of Ohio enacted a law to prevent a similar act from happening again and breaking their fans’ hearts. The reactionary law, nicknamed “the Art Modell law,” is codified as Revised Code 9.67.[5] Titled “Restrictions on owner of professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility,” the law states:
“No owner of a professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance from the state or a political subdivision thereof shall cease playing most of its home games at the facility and begin playing most of its home games elsewhere unless the owner either:
(A) Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
(B) Gives the political subdivision in which the facility is located not less than six months’ advance notice of the owner’s intention to cease playing most of its home games at the facility and, during the six months after such notice, gives the political subdivision or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area the opportunity to purchase the team.”[6]
In a nutshell, if an Ohio professional sports team “uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance,” then that team cannot stop playing most of its home games at that stadium, unless one of two conditions is met.[7] The first exception is that the government consents to the move.[8] Alternatively, the team must provide six months’ notice of an intention to relocate, and during that time, the team offers the political subdivision in which the facility is located or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area an opportunity to purchase the team.[9]
The law is facing its first application with Anthony Precourt, the CEO of Precourt Sports Ventures and the owner of the Major League Soccer (“MLS”) team, the Columbus Crew. Precourt is the first owner who is trying to move a professional sports team out of Ohio since the Modell Law was enacted. Specifically, Precourt wishes to move the Crew to Austin, Texas in hopes that the unofficial state motto is true: “Everything is bigger in Texas.”
Government consent is an unlikely option for the Crew, so Sports Illustrated legal analyst and writer Michael McCann addressed the latter exception in the context of the Crew’s attempted move, noting the numerous legal questions it raises and concluding that, as of now, there don’t appear to be clear answers.
“This is mainly because: (1) the Modell Law is arguably imprecise in regards to several key words and phrases; (2) application of the Modell Law in this situation could interfere with federal protections for interstate commerce; and, only adding to the uncertainty, (3) there have been no court rulings on the Modell Law—meaning it will be a legal question of “first impression” for whomever is assigned as the judge.”[10]
Typically, the biggest hurdle with moving professional teams is getting the commissioner’s approval because professional sports teams are privately owned. But in this case, Precourt appears to have that approval, as both Precourt and MLS Commissioner Don Garber “engaged in discussions with Austin city officials about a potential soccer stadium.”[11] However, the support of the commissioner may not be enough this time because an owner and commissioner have never faced the Modell law before.[12]
Sources
[1] http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2012/09/when_art_modell_moved_his_clev.html
[2] Id.
[3] http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bal-modell121795-story.html
[4] http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2012/09/when_art_modell_moved_his_clev.html
[5] http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baltimore-sports-blog/bs-sp-columbus-crew-modell-law-move-mls-20180307-story.html
[6] Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 9.67 (2018)
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/03/06/columbus-crew-lawsuit-austin-texas-relocation-precourt-mls-ohio-modell-law
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
