Pittsburgh by Trey Ratcliff licensed under CC BY 2.0
Pro athletes visiting Pittsburgh may have thought they were getting a break when the city’s “jock tax” was struck down in court – but the tax has an opportunity for a comeback.
The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court has agreed to hear the City of Pittsburgh’s appeal to the legality of its tax on out-of-town performers and athletes. The City’s Non-Resident Sports Facility Usage Fee or “jock-tax” imposed a three percent levy on all income earned by visiting performers and athletes that used city owned venues back in 2016. This would include venues such as Acrisure Stadium, PPG Paints Arena and PNC Park.
Lawmakers in Pittsburgh submitted their appeal to the State Supreme Court in February after the appeals court upheld the 2022 ruling of the Common Pleas Court, which determined that the tax was unconstitutional.
The tax was challenged by player unions from three separate sports leagues in 2019, who argued that the tax violated the state’s uniformity clause. Besides ruling in favor of the athletes, the Common Pleas Court also issued an injunction against the city which prohibited the collection of the tax. However, the latest appeal has granted Pittsburgh the ability to resume collecting the tax once again.
The State Supreme Court has only agreed to hear arguments on whether the lower court has misinterpreted the state’s uniformity clause on uniformity in taxation. This clause requires that tax rates between both residents and non-residents must be exact. All other arguments in the City of Pittsburgh’s appeal were rejected by the court. City attorneys argue that the uniformity clause isn’t being violated with the tax as non-residents must pay a three percent tax, while residents must pay two percent school tax and a one percent income tax. It is up to the State Supreme Court to determine whether this rough uniformity meets the criteria under the state’s constitution.
Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey expressed his gratitude on X over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to hear their case and stated, “we believe that this tax is constitutional and will continue to collect it as we prepare to present our arguments to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court.”
Pittsburgh’s desperation to reinstate the jock-tax may be rooted in its shaky financial situation. Pittsburgh is projected to experience large budgetary shortfalls in 2025 and 2026 respectively. With the city estimated to collect $4.4 million in revenue from the jock-tax, it is clear Pittsburgh lawmakers are depending on a favorable ruling from the courts to let them continue picking the pockets of visiting athletes.