AMS is now part of the LedgerWay ecosystem of Accounting, Tax, and CFO advisors! Click here to get your....
Pittsburgh Strikes Out: Supreme Court Invalidates “Jock Tax” — What It Means for Athletes, Cities & Tax Policy
Pittsburgh just had a major tax ruling come down: Per the AP, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously struck down the so-called “jock tax” that levied a 3% income tax on visiting athletes and entertainers in publicly funded stadiums. The court found it unconstitutional under the state’s Uniformity Clause, because nonresidents were being taxed more heavily than city residents.
“The city does not provide concrete reasons that would justify taxing nonresident athletes and entertainers more than resident athletes and entertainers,” Justice David N. Wecht wrote in the majority opinion.
What Was the Pittsburgh “Jock Tax”?
Pittsburgh’s version of this legislation was officially called the Nonresident Sports Facility Usage Fee. It was authorized under state law, allowing a city with publicly funded sports or entertainment venues to impose up to a 3% tax on nonresidents’ income earned within those venues.
The city claimed that local residents who earned income in those venues already paid 1% city tax plus 2% school district tax, so the net burden was “equal.” But the court rejected that, because nonresidents were exempt from the school tax by law — meaning nonresidents bore a 3% burden, while residents’ additional school tax made their total overlap a different structure.
City officials are pushing back. Olga George, spokeswoman for Mayor Ed Gainey, said in a statement shared by the AP: “This decision will further shift the cost burden of essential city services onto our residents … while reducing the responsibility of performers and professional athletes to contribute.”
However, officials also warned of budget consequences. The city had already collected $2.6 million in 2025 from this tax. As City Controller Rachael Heisler put it, “This decision only makes it more urgent that we do everything possible to protect the City’s financial health and continue to deliver essential services.”
And, Deputy Mayor Jake Pawlak cautioned that the city will need to rework its budget without the “jock tax”, “We’ll have to make adjustments … in what we’ll be proposing.”
What Exactly Is a “Jock Tax”?
The phrase “jock tax” is shorthand for taxes on income earned by nonresident performers, athletes, or professionals while working in a jurisdiction where they don't reside. This includes events like Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, and NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA teams coming into town throughout the year. The logic here is that a city or state argues it should tax income generated locally, regardless of the taxpayer’s home base.
Jock taxes have been around for decades in the U.S. In 1991, California famously imposed a tax on Chicago Bulls players earning money in Los Angeles—sparking reciprocal and competing moves among states.
By 2014, many major sports jurisdictions had adopted similar rules, though states lacking personal income tax (such as Florida, Texas, Washington) generally don’t participate in jock tax regimes. Legal challenges to jock taxes are not new. Some have previously been struck down for using problematic formulas or for discriminating against nonresidents.
Why Pittsburgh’s Plan Failed, Legally and Politically
Pittsburgh’s tax was vulnerable on several fronts:
Uniformity Clause Violation
Pennsylvania’s constitution mandates that taxes be uniform within classes. Because the school tax applied only to residents, nonresidents bore a heavier load, which the court saw as discriminatory.Lack of Justification
The city failed to provide concrete reasons why nonresidents should be punished with a higher rate. Justice Wecht criticized the city for lacking “concrete reasons” for the differential treatment.Misinterpretation of “equal burden” arguments
Pittsburgh’s defense leaned heavily on asserting that resident plus school taxes effectively matched the 3% burden. The court rejected that logic, saying the separate tax cannot be folded into the uniformity analysis.Precedent and judicial consistency
Lower courts had ruled similarly, and the Supreme Court simply affirmed that the tax failed under longstanding constitutional standards.
Impacts & Broader Implications
For Pittsburgh’s budget – Losing the jock tax puts pressure on city finances. The city had forecast $6.1 million in collections for 2025. Without it, they’ll need alternate revenue sources or cuts.
For athletes and performers – Nonresident professionals who paid past jock taxes may pursue refunds under this ruling. As one press release noted, Hemenway & Barnes (the law firm) “look forward to completing the process of securing refunds for the many professional athletes who have been forced to pay this unconstitutional tax for many years.”
For other cities and states – The ruling may embolden challenges to jock taxes elsewhere. It underscores that taxing out-of-towners has constitutional and fairness limits—even for high-income targets.
For the policy narrative – This is also a reminder: flashy taxes on visiting stars look tempting politically, but they often don’t hold up under legal scrutiny. They risk backlash, potential refunds, and budget instability.
In the United States as a whole, any jurisdiction considering or maintaining jock taxes will need to carefully analyze whether their schemes treat nonresidents more harshly than locals—and whether they can justify the distinction. Pittsburgh’s jock tax may be gone, but the debates around taxing nonresidents continue. This ruling serves as both a caution and a precedent: even high earners aren’t safe from constitutional checks, and cities must build tax regimes that are defensible, not just popular inside an arena.
Want tax & accounting tips and insights?
Sign up for our newsletter.