The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed the Commonwealth Court and ruled that Pittsburgh’s Non-Resident Sports Facility Usage Fee (“Facility Fee”) unconstitutionally discriminates against nonresidents in violation of Pennsylvania’s Uniformity Clause. National Hockey League Players’ Ass’n v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 20 WAP 2024 (PA Sept. 25, 2025). This case demonstrates that in those states that have a uniformity clause in their constitutions, it can be a powerful tool in challenging a tax.

The Facts: Pittsburgh enacted the Facility Fee whereby nonresidents of Pittsburgh who use the City’s sports venues to engage in an athletic event or performance for remuneration are subject to a three percent assessment on personal income earned while in Pittsburgh. (Although sometimes referred to as a “jock tax,” the Facility Fee applies to athletes and other types of nonresident entertainers who render a performance in one of the City’s three publicly funded stadiums.) Similarly situated resident athletes and entertainers of Pittsburgh are not subject to the Facility Fee. Instead, they are subject to a one percent earned income tax.

The National Hockey League Players’ Association, Major League Baseball Players’ Association, National Football League Players’ Association, and a nonresident athlete from each association challenged the Facility Fee arguing that it violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Decision: The Court found that the Facility Fee violated the Uniformity Clause, which requires that taxes be uniform upon the same class of subjects, although there is an exception where there is a non-arbitrary, reasonable, and just basis for the disparate treatment.

The Court held that the Facility Fee was discriminatory since it levies a three percent income tax on nonresidents in comparison to the City’s one percent income tax on residents. The City’s attempt to justify the different tax rates by asserting that resident athletes and entertainers also pay a two percent income tax to the Pittsburgh school district was rejected since the school district is statutorily prohibited from imposing the two percent tax on nonresidents. Relying on one of its earlier decisions, the Court found that “a city cannot use a tax which, of necessity, only applies to residents to cover up the discriminatory effect of a separate, disuniform tax on nonresidents. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the disuniform tax on nonresidents is necessary ‘to equalize tax treatment between classes’ because no underlying disuniformity exists in the first place.”

The Court concluded that “because the City of Pittsburgh has not supplied a ‘concrete justification’ for treating resident athletes and entertainers differently from nonresident athletes and entertainers, we agree with the lower courts that the [F]acility [F]ee is unconstitutional.”

This case illustrates the importance of considering whether a department of revenue is violating a state’s uniformity clause in those jurisdictions where one exists.