Learning Center

We keep you up-to-date on the latest tax changes and news in the industry.

October 1, 2025

Pittsburgh's Jock Tax Overturned: Impact on Cities and Athletes

The tides have turned for Pittsburgh as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has handed down a pivotal ruling. The court declared the so-called ‘jock tax,’ which imposed a 3% income tax on visiting athletes and entertainers using city stadiums, unconstitutional, based on the state's Uniformity Clause. This decision underscores the necessity for equitable tax policies across diverse professional domains.

The ruling stemmed from the lack of justification for imposing a heavier tax burden on nonresidents compared to city residents. Justice David N. Wecht elucidated in the opinion that there were no “concrete reasons” presented for such differential treatment.

Decoding Pittsburgh’s “Jock Tax”

Known legally as the Nonresident Sports Facility Usage Fee, this tax was permitted under state law, allowing cities like Pittsburgh to levy up to a 3% tax on nonresidents’ income at local venues. The idea was to balance local and nonresident tax burdens, claiming residents paid a 1% city tax plus a 2% school district tax. Yet, the court recognized the disparity: nonresidents were exempt from the school tax.

Olga George, spokeswoman for Mayor Ed Gainey, expressed concerns that the ruling shifts the fiscal burden onto local citizens, necessitating potential adjustments to the city’s financial strategy, particularly as $2.6 million collected in 2025 is now in question. City Controller Rachael Heisler highlighted the urgency of safeguarding the city's fiscal health.

Understanding the “Jock Tax”

The term “jock tax” refers broadly to taxes on earnings by nonresident athletes and entertainers working away from their home state. Originating prominently in 1991, when California taxed the Chicago Bulls for games played in Los Angeles, these taxes aim to capture locally generated income regardless of the taxpayer’s domicile. Florida, Texas, and Washington remain exceptions, lacking personal income taxes and thus not employing such tax regimes.

Legal and Political Dimensions of Pittsburgh’s Failure

Pittsburgh’s tax faced defeat due to key vulnerabilities:

Uniformity Clause Breach: State law mandates equitable taxation within classes, and the court deemed the nonresident burden unequal.
Lack of Justifiable Distinction: The city could not convincingly justify the imbalanced tax rate.
Erroneous “Equal Burden” Assumptions: Internal tax structures were mismatched to nonresidents’, failing the court's scrutiny.
Consistent Judicial Precedent: Lower courts’ rulings aligned, affirming uniformity breaches.

Consequences and Considerations

For Pittsburgh’s Finances – Losing the jock tax necessitates alternative fiscal strategies as the projected $6.1 million for 2025 evaporates, challenging the city’s budget planning.

For Affected Professionals – Nonresident athletes and entertainers who paid these taxes might now seek refunds, fueled by firms like Hemenway & Barnes.

For Broader Tax Policy – This decision could catalyze scrutiny and reassessment of similar taxes nationwide, emphasizing fairness and constitutional alignment.

At a national level, local governments should rigorously audit their tax policies on nonresidents to prevent potential litigations similar to Pittsburgh’s. This case not only highlights fiscal liabilities but stresses constructing legally substantiated tax structures. It is imperative that cities adopt tax policies that withstand constitutional checks while remaining fiscally sustainable.

Share this article...

Facebook

Twitter WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Pocket Reddit Email

Want our best tax and accounting tips and insights delivered to your inbox?

I confirm this is a service inquiry and not an advertising message or solicitation. By clicking “Submit”, I acknowledge and agree to the creation of an account and to the and .

Questions? We have answers.

FAQ

Please fill out the form and our team will get back to you shortly The form was sent successfully

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Mobile Number

Message *