The Decision Could Reshape City Finances and Impact Professional Athletes and Performers

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to hear a case challenging Pittsburgh’s “jock tax”, a 3% levy imposed on non-resident athletes and entertainers who perform in the city’s publicly funded venues. The case follows a lower court ruling that found the tax unconstitutional, citing unfair treatment between residents and non-residents.

With millions in annual revenue at stake, the outcome could have significant financial implications for Pittsburgh—and for visiting athletes and entertainers who have long been subject to the tax.

The ‘Jock Tax’ Controversy

Pittsburgh has imposed the 3% non-resident tax since 2004, generating approximately $75 million in revenue. It applies to visiting athletes and performers who use city-funded venues such as:

1. Acrisure Stadium (home of the Steelers)
2. PPG Paints Arena (home of the Penguins)
3. PNC Park (home of the Pirates)

While the city argues that non-residents pay the same 3% rate as locals—who pay a 2% school tax and a 1% income tax—the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled in January that this system violates the state constitution’s “uniformity clause.”

Now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will determine whether the uniformity clause requires exact equality between residents and non-residents or if a “rough uniformity” is sufficient.

Potential Budget Impact for Pittsburgh

Despite a 2022 injunction preventing further collection of the tax, Mayor Ed Gainey’s 2024 budget still projects $4.4 million in revenue from it.

City Controller Rachael Heisler has repeatedly warned about the financial risks of relying on disputed tax revenue, urging city leaders to revise their budget to reflect reality.

“It’s time to get honest about the reality of city finances and prepare for the challenging years ahead,” Heisler stated.

She also noted that losing the tax would cost the city an estimated $22 million in lost revenue between now and 2029—at a time when Pittsburgh is already facing potential shortfalls.

Key financial concerns include:

1. Expiration of federal COVID relief funds
2. Rising debt service payments
3. Declining property values and lower real estate tax revenue

City budget projections show only a $3 million surplus in 2025 and 2026—a stark contrast to the $40.2 million surplus in 2023.

Despite these warnings, Pittsburgh officials, including Jake Pawlak, director of the Office of Management and Budget, maintain that the city is financially prepared for any shortfalls.

“We don’t have a structural challenge—we’re confronting a temporary fiscal challenge,” Pawlak said.

The Legal Battle: How We Got Here

The lawsuit challenging the tax began in 2019, when three professional athletes—Scott Wilson (NHL), Kyle Palmieri (NHL), and Jeff Francoeur (MLB)—sued Pittsburgh over the fee.

They argued that the tax unfairly targeted non-residents and violated the state constitution’s equal treatment provisions.

In September 2022, Common Pleas Judge Christine Ward ruled in favor of the players and issued an injunction barring Pittsburgh from collecting the tax.

The case gained national attention when the NFL, NHL, and MLB players’ associations joined the lawsuit, advocating for their members.

Now, after nearly five years of legal battles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision will determine the tax’s fate once and for all.

What’s at Stake?

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling, Pittsburgh could lose a critical revenue source—potentially forcing city officials to make budget cuts or find alternative funding.

If the ruling favors the city, non-resident athletes and entertainers will continue paying the tax—but the case could set a precedent for other cities with similar non-resident tax policies.

For Pittsburgh:

1. $4.4 million in projected annual revenue is at risk
2. Long-term financial planning could be impacted
3. Officials may need to find alternative revenue sources

For Athletes & Entertainers:

1. Possible end to an additional tax burden on visiting professionals
2. Potential legal challenges in other cities with similar taxes
3. Increased scrutiny of local tax laws affecting non-residents

Conclusion: A Critical Case for Pittsburgh and Beyond

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling on Pittsburgh’s jock tax will set a legal precedent with financial and constitutional implications.

For Pittsburgh, the decision could reshape the city’s budget. For professional athletes and entertainers, it could eliminate a tax they have long fought against.

With federal COVID relief funding expiring and Pittsburgh already facing financial strain, city officials must prepare for potential revenue losses—regardless of the outcome.

The final ruling will determine whether the city’s tax system is legally sound or if Pittsburgh must rethink its approach to taxation and budget management.

As a professional – Revolutionize your tax workflow with our complete suite of tools: onboarding links, initial interviews, compliance planning, calendars, messaging, task management, and TaxMan for advanced tax research. Please sign up. Our resource directory also offers valuable links to assist in managing various financial and legal aspects of a business or individual.