Pro athletes, players’ unions seek to halt Pittsburgh ‘jock tax’ |

Pro athletes, players’ unions seek to halt Pittsburgh ‘jock tax’

Bob Bauder
Associated Press
The Pittsburgh skyline rises above Heinz Field.

Two professional hockey players, a former baseball player and players unions are challenging Pittsburgh’s so-named “jock tax” and seeking a court injunction that would prevent the city from collecting it.

The plaintiffs are former Penguin Scott Wilson, now in the Buffalo Sabres’ minor league system, Kyle Palmieri, a right winger with the New Jersey Devils, former baseball player Jeff “Frenchy” Francoeur and the players’ associations of the National Hockey League, National Football League and Major League Baseball. They filed a 525-page lawsuit with exhibits Tuesday in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Francoeur currently works as a baseball analyst for Fox Sports

They contend the city unfairly levies a 3% earned income tax on visiting professional athletes while taxing all other residents a 1% income tax.

Dan Gilman, Mayor Bill Peduto’s chief of staff, declined to comment citing the pending litigation.

Boston attorney Stephen W. Kidder, who represents the plaintiffs, said the city is unfairly targeting professional athletes.

“This is frankly a tax,” he said. “It’s not a fee, and it is applied only against visiting athletes. We think it’s completely unfair and unconstitutional under both the Pennsylvania Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.”

Pittsburgh since 2005 has charged nonresident entertainers and professional athletes who perform at publicly funded venues — including PNC Park, Heinz Field and PPG Paints Arena — a 3 percent “nonresident facility usage fee” on salaries they earn in the city.

Members of the Pirates, Steelers and Penguins pay the tax if they live outside city limits.

Entertainers pay their portion of the tax on the salary they earn in Pittsburgh.

The formula for hockey and baseball players is based on the salaries they earn for games played in the city, according to the lawsuit. Football players pay the tax on salaries earned during “duty days,” or the total number of days they work in a season. Duty days can include spring training, training camp, practice days, travel days and contractual public appearances.

Teams collect the taxes from their players and remit the money to the city.

Pittsburgh expects to generate $5.5 million in 2019 in “jock tax” revenue, according to its proposed operating budget.

Kidder said the city is constitutionally bound to levy income taxes uniformly to all people.

“At this point in time, athletes for the most part in jurisdictions around the country are treated just like other income taxpayers,” he said. “What’s happening here is nonresidents of Pittsburgh are effectively paying an income tax that’s three times the amount that they would be paying if they lived in Pittsburgh. You can’t treat a nonresident differently than a resident and unfairly penalize them.”

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-564-3080, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.