Pittsburgh’s controversial tax on nonresident pro athletes just got slammed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
Just The News reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the city’s levy, which targeted visiting athletes and entertainers, unfairly discriminated against them compared to residents.
This legal showdown started six years ago when the NHL, NFL, and MLB, alongside players like Kyle Palmieri, Scott Wilson, and former MLB star Jeff Francoeur, challenged the tax in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.
One glaring example? Wilson was hit with a $6,000 bill from Pittsburgh back in 2016 for games played there.
Pittsburgh defended the tax, arguing it was a fair way to recoup taxpayer funds poured into building major sports stadiums. The city claimed the right to charge nonresident athletes up to 3% of their earnings in the city. But let’s be real—taxing outsiders more than locals smells like a shakedown, not a solution.
While residents pay a 1% earned income tax to the city plus 2% to the school district, nonresidents in the sports and entertainment world were slapped with a flat 3% rate.
Pittsburgh insisted there was no disparity since both groups paid 3% total. Sorry, but the math doesn’t mask the unfairness when you dig into who’s footing what bill.
The state Supreme Court saw through this flimsy excuse, siding with lower courts that found the tax violated constitutional principles. Justice David Wecht didn’t mince words in the ruling, pointing out the lack of justification for treating nonresidents as a separate class to exploit.
“[W]e must determine whether there exists ‘some concrete justification’ for treating the relevant taxpayers as members of distinguishable classes,” wrote Justice David Wecht.
“Absent such a legitimate distinction, the imposition of unequal tax burdens upon similarly situated taxpayers is unconstitutional,” he continued. With no solid reasoning from the city, this tax was dead on arrival.
Pittsburgh’s argument hinged on a previous case involving the City of Sharon, but the court rejected that precedent after a deep dive into the state’s history of nonresident taxes. If history teaches us anything, it’s that cherry-picking old rulings won’t justify a bad policy today.
For the leagues and players, this ruling is a touchdown, a home run, and a hat trick all rolled into one. It’s not just about the money—it’s about fairness and pushing back against government overreach that targets a specific group for extra punishment.
Think about it: why should a visiting hockey player pay more for playing a game in Pittsburgh than a local accountant pays for a year’s work? This kind of selective taxation reeks of the kind of bureaucratic nonsense conservatives have long warned against. It’s a small but satisfying win against big-government overreach.
Now, Pittsburgh is left scrambling to figure out how to fund its stadiums without dipping into the pockets of out-of-town talent. Maybe it’s time for city officials to rethink how they balance their books instead of relying on discriminatory cash grabs.
At the end of the day, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on Sept. 25 reaffirmed that equal treatment under the law isn’t just a catchy phrase—it’s a mandate.
For athletes like Palmieri, Wilson, and Francoeur, it’s a well-earned victory against a policy that never should have seen the light of day.
Let’s hope this ruling prompts a broader conversation about how cities fund public projects without resorting to gimmicky taxes that punish specific professions. If Pittsburgh wants to keep its sports teams and stadiums thriving, it’s time for creative, fair solutions—not more of the same old tax-and-spend playbook.