Columbus, Ohio – An adequate political battle for the grill is underway in Ohio, where state republican leaders face if they stand out the Cleveland Browns to help build a New suburban stadium with dome or impose tax increases to finance Stadium updates for Cincinnati Bengals and other long -term equipment.
No idea is without criticism in both parties, who argue that the subscription of the stadiums of the National Football League diverts money from the political priorities of the State, including financing infrastructure and public schools.
The most heated debate focuses on a proposal from the Sports Group of Haslam, owner of the Browns, to relocate from the existing outdoor stadium of the team on the shore of the lake of the center of Cleveland, where they have played since 1999, to a new complex of $ 2.4 billion in Brook Park, about 15 miles (24.14 kilometers) to the south. The team has proposed a private public association to which the State would contribute $ 600 million.
After the money was approved by Ohio’s house last week, the commissioners in Hamilton County, the home of the Bengals, resisted. They quickly moved to increase their $ 350 million application for the Paycor stadium, where the flashing contract of the Bengals has increased on June 30, 2026. The question follows the Bengals, the comments of the executive vice president Katie Blackburn in the recent meetings of the NFL in Florida, where he said: “We could, I suppose, go wherever we wanted this year,” They are advanced in negotiations.
The stadium’s debate goes to Ohio’s Senate after his two -week spring vacation.
Dee and Jimmy Haslam, generous republican campaign donors, say they want a “consistent installation with other world -class NFL stages.” With the addition of a dome, the Browns could organize events throughout the year during the severe winters of the Northeast of Ohio and “catalyze a significant economic impact” on an adjacent entertainment complex. They point out that eight out of 10 game attendees at home live outside the city limits.
The leaders in Cleveland, where Browns games attract a coveted economic activity to the center and the tourist district along the Erie Lake, are lvid. The existing field of Huntington Bank of $ 247 million was funded mainly for the city’s tax and county dollars. For many, it is a symbol of the commitment of the Sports City of Luck with the team that almost lost when the then owner Art Modell was notoriously packed in Baltimore in 1996.
Modell’s disorderly departure, also hooked to a stadium dispute, led to a state law that says that no owner of an Ohio professional sports team that plays most of his games at home in a stadium backed by tax can go to another place without an agreement with his host city or less than the host city receives six months with an opportunity to buy the equipment.
Cleveland’s Democratic Mayor Justin Bibb, and City Hall members have threatened for months to Invokes the “Modell Law” To prevent Browns from leaving their current location, where the lease contract extends during the 2028 season. The city plans to rebuild the so -called “north coast” with the view towards accessibility, economic development and environmental protection. The team has presented a constitutional challenge to the law and the city sued him back.
Meanwhile, the clock to assign dollars to the project is exhausting: legislators face a June 30 deadline to finish the state budget over the next two years.
The budget proposal of Republican Governor Mike Dewine asked to raise the $ 600 million by double the Tax on Sports Betting companies from 20% to 40%. The idea was to create a long -term income flow that could help both Browns and Bengals, and other teams.
“The governor’s plan goes beyond a team,” said Dewine spokesman Dan Tierney. “The General Income Fund cannot afford that. Therefore, we need to see something that is more sustainable and can help all teams.”
The Ohio camera led by the Republican party, however, rejected Dewine’s plan in a vote last week. Its version of the operational budget requires issuing $ 600 million in general obligation bonds to pay the Browns project. Paying the bonds would cost the State around $ 1 billion in 30 years.
The president of the House of Representatives, Brian Stewart, told journalists that the “metric” of the bonds are better for Ohio’s taxpayers because the officials project that the fiscal income of the “megaproject” of the Browns will be broad to cover the $ 40 million a year that will take the bonds.
As the Senate assumes the bill, it must weigh the opposition to the current plan from all sectors: Dewine, the city of Cleveland, the Bengals, the Legislative Democrats and Republican Attorney Dave Yost, who is postulated to happen to Dewine next year.
“Ohio is preparing to spend more money on a new stadium in a city for a football team than will spend on the construction of new roads over the next two years throughout the state,” Yost wrote in a recent opinion article by Columbus Dispatch. He called Money State for the project a “gift of waste to a billionaire.”
The Democrats of the House of Representatives fought without success to stop the financing proposal completely, citing unanswered questions about income projections, economic impacts and commitments of private developers. Cleveland’s representative, Terrence Upchurch, told journalists that legislators have more important priorities than to help Browns owners, “especially because they only won three games (expletives) last year,” referring to the 3-14 record of the team.
A Democratic companion in the Republican Senate of overcoming has proposed to prohibit public dollars from going to any professional sports franchise without a winning record in three of its five past seasons.
___
The sports writer AP Joe Reedy at Cleveland contributed to this report.
