COLUMBUS, Ohio—A new state analysis calls into question the Cleveland Browns’ economic arguments behind a new covered stadium in suburban Brook Park, including the team’s estimates for how many visitors the stadium would attract and how many jobs would be created. The April 25 analysis, conducted by the nonpartisan Legislative Service Commission’s legislative budget office, also says that it’s an “open question” as to whether lawmakers’ plan to issue $600 million in state bonds to help pay for the new stadium would be allowed under the Ohio Constitution. The study marks the first time that a state study regarding the economics of a new Browns stadium has been publicly released. Ohio lawmakers are currently considering approving $600 million toward the $2.4 million stadium via the 2025-2027 budget. Until now, the only financial projections available about the Brook Park stadium plan have been from partisan sides in the debate: a Browns-commissioned study by the consulting firm Robert Charles Lesser & Co., and a a report from EConsults Solutions issued by Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb, who opposes a Browns move to Brook Park. The legislative budget office analysis was ordered and publicly released by Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, a Lakewood Democrat. The study’s authors, whose names were redacted in the copy of the analysis that Antonio released, stated they couldn’t verify the economic claims made by the Browns because the the team hasn’t released the full study underpinning those claims. However, the legislative budget office study concluded Browns’ economic projections “implied an outcome that would outperform other similar developments previously studied in peer-reviewed academic literature.” The study particularly critiqued the Browns’ assertion that a new Brook Park stadium would attract 1.5 million visitors per year, concluding it “may be overly optimistic.” It also tartly noted that the part of the Browns-commissioned economic analysis cautioned against using the study’s projections for the purpose of financing the stadium. The Plain Dealer/cleveland.com has reached out to a Browns spokesman for comment on the study. Antonio, a vocal critic of state aid for a new Browns’ stadium, said in a statement that the legislative budget office study “raises serious legal and financial concerns” about the proposal. “We should not move forward (with state aid) until we know the courts, the numbers, and the public are on board,” she said. Attendance calculations Of the 1.5 million new visitors the Browns say would come to a Brook Park stadium, 30,000 of them at most would watch the Browns in person, the legislative budget office study noted. That’s because the proposed Brook Park stadium’s anticipated capacity of 70,000 people would only be 3,000 more than Huntington Bank Field, the Browns’ current home, and the Browns play an average of 10 home games per season. To reach 1.5 million visitors, then, 21 additional, non-Browns events would need be sold out at the new stadium every year, the study stated. But none of the three NFL domed stadiums closest to Cleveland – in Detroit, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis -- have been able to attract anywhere near that many non-football events, according to a report from nults Solutions previously issued by Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb, a strong opponent of the Browns moving to Brook Park. Of those three domes, Ford Field in Detroit had the most major events in 2023, with 12. The domes in each of those cities also hosted between four and 10 smaller events – like high-school tournaments, conventions, and motocross – though the Bibb-released report didn’t list an average attendance for those events. In summary, the legislative budget office, concluded, even under the most optimistic scenario -- if the Browns sold out every home game, 12 additional major events were sold out, and 50% of seats were filled at 10 other, smaller events -- that would only attract a total of 1.22 million new visitors, not 1.5 million. And that doesn’t factor in how many of those non-football events would be relocated to the new stadium away from other venues in Ohio, the study added, noting that the Columbus Crew moved their Major League Soccer game versus InterMiami earlier this month to Huntington Bank Field to capitalize on demand to watch InterMiami star Lionel Messi. The legislative budget office study dismissed the Browns’ assertion that a Brook Park stadium would add new events to Northeast Ohio, rather than compete with Rocket Arena. “An individual cannot attend a Taylor Swift concert at the proposed domed stadium and a Cleveland Cavaliers game at (the) Arena simultaneously,” the study stated. “Even if the events are held on different days, the consumer has a limited budget and may not be able to afford both.” Job creation The Browns’ economic study claims a new Brook Park stadium would support 6,000 temporary construction jobs, 5,370 full-time equivalent jobs, and 2,540 indirect and induced jobs in Cuyahoga County. Of those full-time jobs, 870 would be at the new stadium, 2,520 would be in the surrounding mixed-use development, and 1,980 would be at surrounding businesses. But most, if not all, of the 870 stadium jobs wouldn’t be new, the legislative budget office noted – they would be relocated from the Browns’ current stadium. To a lesser extent, the same would be true of the projected 2,520 jobs in the surrounding development, as at least some of those “will come at the expense of similar jobs in Cleveland,” the study stated. In addition, the projections of 2,520 new mixed-used development jobs and 1,980 new full-time jobs at surrounding businesses are likely derived from assumptions about “multiplier effects” -- how, for example, a concert at the new stadium would lead event promoters to increase their employees’ hours. While the Browns haven’t released enough information about how those projections were calculated, the legislative budget office study pointed to academic literature documenting how “multiplier effects” are frequently misused “to inflate the reported economic impacts of sport stadiums.” As for the promised 6,000 temporary construction jobs, the study noted, the Browns haven’t explained how that number was calculated. The study noted that a 2022 review of decades of research found that the construction of new sports stadiums largely had no effect on employment. The Ohio Constitution Both the Browns and legislative leaders like House Speaker Matt Huffman, a Lima Republican, have said that the $600 million in state bonds being proposed for the Brook Park stadium would be general obligation bonds. That means they would be backed by the full faith and credit of the state of Ohio. But the legislative budget office study asserts they would instead be special obligation bonds, as they would be backed only by state tax revenue generated by the stadium and surrounding development. One reason that matters is that the state usually can get a better interest rate with general obligation bonds than special obligation bonds. But as the legislative budget office study stated, it also matters because, under the Ohio Constitution, special obligation bonds can only be issued for a specific list of reasons – and there’s no mention on that list of sports facilities. The study suggested that the Brook Park stadium could be eligible under one of the categories on the list: “housing an agency of state government.” It noted that in the 1990s, a state court upheld special obligation bonds for Cincinnati’s new performing arts center by placing the project in that category. However, the legislative budget office concluded that if the $600 million in bonds pass, it would be up to a judge to determine with finality what type of bonds they are and if they’re allowed under the state constitution.