Learning Center
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.
NEVER MISS A STORY.
Sign up for our newsletters and get our articles delivered right to your inbox.
Rose Tax & Financial
Cedar Crest, New Mexico 87008
Sat: 10:00am to 2:00pm
Check the background of your financial professional on FINRA's BrokerCheck
Avantax affiliated Financial Professionals may only conduct business with residents of the states for which they are properly registered. Please note that not all of the investments and services mentioned are available in every state. Securities offered through Avantax Investment Services℠, Member FINRA, SIPC, Investment Advisory services offered through Avantax Advisory ServicesSM, Insurance services offered through an Avantax affiliated insurance agency. 3200 Olympus Blvd., Suite 100, Dallas, TX 75019. 972-870-6000.
The Avantax family of companies exclusively provide financial products and services through its financial representatives. Although Avantax Wealth Management® does not provide or supervise tax or accounting services, Avantax representatives may offer these services through their independent outside business. Content, links, and some material within this website may have been created by a third party for use by an Avantax affiliated representative. This content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not represent the views and opinions of Avantax Wealth Management® or its subsidiaries. Avantax Wealth Management® is not responsible for and does not control, adopt, or endorse any content contained on any third party website.
This information is not intended as tax or legal advice. Please consult legal or tax professionals for specific information regarding your individual situation.
The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences.
For Important Information and Form CRS please visit https://www.avantax.com/disclosures.