Pittsburgh just received a huge tax ruling: According to the AP, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously overturned the so-called "jock tax," which imposed a 3% income tax on visiting athletes and entertainers at publicly funded stadiums. The court ruled it illegal under the state's Uniformity Clause since nonresidents were taxed more than municipal residents.
"The city does not provide concrete reasons that would justify taxing nonresident athletes and entertainers more than resident athletes and entertainers," stated Justice David N. Wecht wrote in his majority ruling.
Pittsburgh's version of this legislation was formally known as the Nonresident Sports Facility Usage Fee. It was approved by state law, allowing a city with publicly supported sports or entertainment venues to levy up to a 3% tax on nonresidents' income received at those facilities.
The city stated that local residents who earned revenue in those venues already paid 1% municipal tax and 2% school district tax, making the net burden "equal." However, the court denied it since nonresidents were legally free from the school tax, resulting in a 3% burden for nonresidents while residents' additional school tax created a distinct structure for their total.
City officials are fighting back. According to Olga George, a spokesman for Mayor Ed Gainey, this move will increase the expense of important city services for citizens while lessening the duty of artists and professional athletes to contribute.
However, officials warned of budgetary ramifications. By 2025, the city had already received $2.6 million from this tax. According to 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 noted that the city will need to rethink its budget without the "jock tax" "We'll have to make adjustments … in what we'll be proposing."
The term "jock tax" refers to taxes on income received by nonresident performers, athletes, or professions while working in a territory where they do not live. This includes events like Taylor Swift's Eras Tour, as well as visits by NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA teams throughout the year. The logic here is that a city or state claims it should tax revenue earned locally, regardless of the taxpayer's residence.
Jock taxes have been present for decades in the United States. In 1991, California notably placed a tax on Chicago Bulls players who earned money in Los Angeles, spurring reciprocal and competitive movements among states.
By 2014, many major sports jurisdictions have established similar policies, while states without personal income tax (such as Florida, Texas, and Washington) often do not participate in jock tax schemes. Legal objections to jock taxes are not uncommon. Some have already been overturned for utilizing questionable calculations or discriminating against nonresidents.
Pittsburgh's tax was vulnerable on multiple fronts:
1.Uniformity Clause Violation.
Pennsylvania's constitution requires that taxes be uniform among classes. Because the school tax only applied to residents, nonresidents incurred a disproportionate burden, which the court deemed discriminatory.2. Lack of Justification
The city failed to present compelling reasons why nonresidents should face a harsher penalty. Justice Wecht chastised the city for not providing "concrete reasons" for the disparate treatment. 3. Misinterpretation of the "equal burden" argument
Pittsburgh's defense relied mainly on the argument that resident and school taxes effectively matched the 3% burden. The court rejected this logic, stating that the separate tax cannot be incorporated into the uniformity analysis.4.Precedent and judicial consistency.
Lower courts had reached identical conclusions, and the Supreme Court simply recognized that the tax violated longstanding constitutional norms.
Losing the jock tax strains Pittsburgh's budget. The city had estimated $6.1 million in collections for 2025. Without it, they will need to find alternative cash streams or make cuts.
Athletes and performers - Nonresident professionals who paid previous jock taxes may seek refunds under this verdict. According to one press release, Hemenway & Barnes (the law firm) are "looking 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 decision may encourage challenges to jock taxes elsewhere. It emphasizes that taxing out-of-towners has constitutional and equitable constraints, even for high-income targets.
For the policy story, this serves as a warning that while flamboyant taxes on visiting stars may appear appealing politically, they frequently fail to withstand judicial examination. They face blowback, possibly refunds, and budgetary instability.
In the United States as a whole, every jurisdiction proposing or implementing jock taxes must carefully assess if their schemes affect nonresidents more harshly than locals—and whether the disparity can be justified. Pittsburgh's jock tax may be gone, but the fight over charging nonresidents continues. This decision serves as both a warning and a precedent: even rich earners are not immune to constitutional checks, and towns must create tax regimes that are defensible, not just popular inside an arena.