The Cleveland Browns franchise is navigating a complex and often controversial landscape, battling public perception on two major fronts: the financial implications and on-field performance of quarterback Deshaun Watson, and a multi-million dollar legal and financial dispute with the city of Cleveland over a proposed new stadium in Brook Park. Both sagas intertwine, raising questions about team management, taxpayer responsibility, and the franchise’s long-term direction.
The Cleveland Browns, a franchise with a storied and often tumultuous history, currently find themselves at the epicenter of two high-stakes narratives. One involves the colossal and continuously restructured contract of quarterback Deshaun Watson, whose tenure has been marred by suspension and injuries. The other centers on a divisive and costly battle over a new stadium, culminating in a significant settlement between the team and the city. These twin dramas offer a deep dive into the business of the NFL, the politics of urban development, and the emotional connection between a team and its fan base.
Deshaun Watson’s Contract Odyssey: A Financial Quagmire
The saga of Deshaun Watson’s contract began in 2022 when the Browns acquired him from the Houston Texans. Immediately, they inked him to a massive five-year, $230 million fully guaranteed contract. The deal’s initial structure, with a base salary of just $1.035 million for the 2022 season and a large signing bonus, drew immediate criticism. This arrangement was widely believed to be an intentional move to protect Watson from forfeiting substantial money during an anticipated NFL suspension related to numerous sexual assault allegations, allowing him to lose only a fraction of his 2022 compensation.
This financial maneuver reportedly did not sit well with other NFL owners and league executives. One influential NFL person told Peter King of NBC Sports that it “doesn’t sit well with the league or 31 other owners that the Browns rigged the Watson contract.” Watson ultimately lost just under $350,000 during his six-game ban, a minimal impact compared to the overall deal.
Fast forward to 2024, and the Browns have restructured Watson’s contract multiple times. These restructures, aimed at creating salary-cap space and flexibility, have become a recurring theme. The latest move, reported in October 2024, was to ease the team’s cap burden for years to come, spreading the dead cap hit over two years instead of taking it all in 2027. Despite these adjustments, Watson is still owed $92 million fully guaranteed over the next two years.
Watson’s on-field performance with the Browns has been a concern, with him playing only 19 games in three seasons due to the NFL suspension and injuries, including a ruptured Achilles tendon that required surgery in October 2024. His 9-10 record as a starter and the team’s disappointing 3-12 season in 2024, following a playoff appearance with Joe Flacco at quarterback, have led to speculation about the team’s future at the position. These repeated restructures are seen by some as a clear sign that the Browns plan to bring in quarterback competition for Watson, potentially through free agency, a trade, or the 2025 NFL Draft.
The Stadium Saga: Cleveland’s Fight to Keep the Browns
Simultaneously, the Cleveland Browns have been embroiled in a contentious battle with the city over the team’s future home. The team’s current lease for Huntington Bank Field (formerly FirstEnergy Stadium) on Cleveland’s lakefront expires after the 2028 season. Owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam have expressed their intention to build a new $2.4 billion domed stadium and an adjacent entertainment complex in Brook Park, Ohio, approximately 15 miles south of the city.
This proposal ignited a familiar fear among Browns fans, reminiscent of 1995 when former owner Art Modell moved the franchise to Baltimore, leading to the enactment of the “Modell Law.” This 1996 law states that any professional sports team using state funding for its facility cannot leave without permission or advance notice, and it gives residents a chance to buy the team or find a new buyer. The city of Cleveland filed a lawsuit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, claiming the Browns violated the Modell Law.
The legal standoff culminated in October 2025 with a $100 million deal between the city of Cleveland and Haslam Sports Group (HSG) that aims to end the lawsuits and pave the way for the Brook Park stadium. The terms of this significant agreement include:
- The city of Cleveland dropping its lawsuits against the team.
- The Haslams agreeing to pay Cleveland $25 million by December 1, followed by $5 million annually for five years starting in 2029.
- HSG committing to pay $30 million to tear down Huntington Bank Field.
- The Haslams pledging $20 million over 10 years for Community Benefit Projects.
- Both parties agreeing to support infrastructure plans related to roads and the airport at the new stadium site.
While Mayor Justin Bibb hailed the deal as a “historic” achievement that would “unlock the full potential of our lakefront,” not everyone shares this sentiment. Ohio’s former Attorney General, Marc Dann, who represents state taxpayers in a separate lawsuit, argued that the $100 million settlement is “not nearly enough” to cover the subsidies the team has received from the city over the past eight decades. Dann’s lawsuit aims to stop lawmakers from allocating $600 million in unclaimed state taxpayer funds to help pay for the new Brook Park stadium. As economist J.C. Bradbury of Kennesaw State University noted to The Center Square, “This is not free money. You can’t just pull public stadium funding out of the air.” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost also opposes the plan to use unclaimed taxpayer funds for the new stadium, underscoring the deep division over public financing for sports facilities.
Connecting the Threads and Looking Ahead
The intertwined sagas of Deshaun Watson’s contract and the stadium relocation reflect a turbulent period for the Cleveland Browns. On one hand, the team’s massive investment in Watson, despite ongoing performance and injury concerns, signals a long-term commitment that has tied up significant financial resources and cap flexibility. On the other, the contentious stadium negotiations highlight the perennial struggle between professional sports franchises seeking modern facilities and cities grappling with the financial demands of retaining beloved teams.
For the Browns’ loyal fan base, these developments mean both potential excitement and considerable anxiety. The prospect of a new, state-of-the-art domed stadium in Brook Park offers upgraded amenities and a potential boost to the region. However, the use of taxpayer funds and the team’s relocation away from downtown Cleveland raise concerns about public burden and the loss of a lakefront landmark. Similarly, the continuous restructuring of Watson’s contract provides short-term cap relief but prolongs the team’s commitment to a quarterback who has yet to fully deliver on his record-setting deal.
As these two narratives continue to unfold, they will undoubtedly shape the future trajectory of the Cleveland Browns, impacting their competitive standing, financial stability, and relationship with their devoted community. The outcomes of these decisions will be closely watched by fans, city officials, and NFL observers alike, offering a compelling case study in the complexities of modern professional sports.
