Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Pittsburgh's Jock Tax Discriminates Against Nonresidents

HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Pittsburgh’s 3% income tax on visiting professional athletes and performers at publicly funded stadiums discriminates against nonresidents. The seven-member court issued a unanimous decision, though justices were divided in their reasoning on the approach to interpreting the city’s tax scheme and its impact on nonresident workers.

Under the city’s system, residents who play or perform at the stadiums pay a 1% tax on income plus a 2% school district tax. Nonresidents, by contrast, are taxed at the full 3% rate with no school district levy. The city had argued that the overall tax burden for visiting athletes and performers balanced out when the resident and nonresident portions are combined, but the court rejected that explanation, noting nonresident workers do not face the school tax. "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 for the court.

The decision is expected to cost the city millions in lost revenue. The ruling is not only a legal victory for the nonresident plaintiffs but also a potential fiscal setback for Pittsburgh, which has relied on the jock tax as a source of revenue during years of financial strain. A mayoral spokesperson said the city has collected about $2.6 million from the tax so far in 2025, a figure that could be affected by changes following the ruling. Olga George, a spokesperson for Mayor Ed Gainey, said in a statement that the decision will shift the cost burden of essential city services onto residents while reducing the responsibility of performers and professional athletes to contribute to large public events, including the city’s role in hosting major sports and entertainment spectacles.

Judges also noted that state lawmakers authorized the tax in the early 2000s not to offset stadium construction costs but to bolster the city’s strained finances. The court’s opinion cited the legislative intent as part of a broader pattern of revenue-raising measures designed to support public events and city services during a period of fiscal stress.

The plaintiffs include former Pittsburgh Penguin Scott Wilson; Kyle Palmieri of the New York Islanders; former baseball player Jeff Francoeur; and the players’ associations of the National Hockey League, National Football League and Major League Baseball. Their filings argued that the tax violated principles of equal protection by imposing higher burdens on nonresident players and performers than on their resident counterparts.

Lower courts had previously ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, and Thursday’s decision aligns with those interpretations. While the court’s opinion was unanimous, the justices differed in their legal reasoning, reflecting ongoing debates about how cities may structure taxes tied to venues funded with public money.

By ruling that nonresident athletes and performers are treated differently from residents, the court clarified the legal framework governing the jock tax going forward.