In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines the jock tax, its impact on athletes and entertainers, and why Congress should establish fairer rules for work across state lines.

While taxes can pay for the common good, like roads and infrastructure improvements, should taxes harm individuals for being successful? Jock taxes seem to go after talent because of their income levels, not their actual impact in the state.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

A recent conversation with a tax attorney colleague raised a question about fairness in sports: should athletes face another state or city income tax obligation every time their work takes them on the road? The same question goes for entertainers who perform in other states. While taxes can pay for the common good, like roads and infrastructure improvements, should taxes harm individuals for being successful? Jock taxes seem to go after talent because of their income levels, not their actual impact in the state. Imposing another tax obligation for a brief work visit seems excessive and gratuitous, particularly when proposed federal legislation would protect many traveling employees while expressly excluding professional athletes and entertainers.

Famously, former Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton faced an estimated California tax bill of approximately $87,800 attributable to seven duty days surrounding Super Bowl 50, exceeding his $51,000 bonus for appearing in the game. Adding insult to financial tax injury, the Panthers lost to the Denver Broncos at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California. The estimate allocated part of Newton’s annual compensation to California rather than taxing only his Super Bowl bonus. That distinction matters, but so does the result: the estimated tax associated with the visit exceeded the additional compensation received for playing in the championship.

California’s tax laws are especially egregious in their reach. For professional team athletes, compensation is generally allocated using California duty days divided by total duty days, including applicable practices, travel, and games. The FTB’s Residency and Sourcing Technical Manual, Sections 3980–3995, identifies Revenue and Taxation Code §17954 and discusses the athlete allocation rules. Entertainers also face California tax on income sourced to the state, although the allocation depends on the services and compensation involved. These rules create another filing obligation and potential tax liability even when the California work lasts only a small part of the year.

A significant and often overlooked aspect of the financial burden imposed by California’s and other states’ jock taxes is the cost of tax attorneys and certified public accountants hired to address multiple returns, recordkeeping, and compliance. Credits for taxes paid to another state can reduce overlapping taxation, so it should not be assumed that every road tax is added in full to the athlete’s home-state tax. However, a credit does not eliminate the work required to calculate the income, prepare the returns, and document the claim. Athletes and entertainers should not be excluded from protections offered to other traveling workers simply because their work is more visible.

Courts have imposed limits on jock taxes. In Hillenmeyer v. Cleveland Board of Review (2015), the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected Cleveland’s games-played allocation because it reached compensation for work performed outside the city, while recognizing the city’s authority to tax locally earned compensation. The court also upheld the exclusion of professional athletes from Ohio’s then-existing 12-day exemption against an equal-protection challenge. In NHLPA v. City of Pittsburgh (2025), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania invalidated Pittsburgh’s discriminatory nonresident facility tax under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Uniformity Clause. These decisions establish limits, but they do not eliminate the underlying taxing authority. A tax can survive a constitutional challenge and still represent poor policy.

Interestingly, the introduced text of S. 1443, the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2025, generally proposes a threshold of more than 30 workdays in a calendar year before a nonresident state can tax covered employee compensation. It expressly excludes professional athletes and entertainers under §2(d)(2), along with certain production employees and public figures. This is proposed legislation, not an existing nationwide exemption. Again, beyond the income and visibility associated with these professions, why should they be treated differently? Not every athlete or entertainer earns a superstar’s income. Maybe if California eased its tax burdens, more former Californians would move back to the Golden State and more athletes and entertainers would choose to work here permanently.

States have a legitimate interest in funding the services that support sporting events and performances. That interest does not answer why athletes and entertainers should be excluded from protections proposed for other traveling workers. Congress should use its authority over interstate commerce to end discriminatory athlete and entertainer taxes and establish consistent protections for brief work visits. At a minimum, those protections should include the professional athletes and entertainers expressly excluded from the proposed 30-day threshold. Athletes and entertainers would continue paying federal income taxes and applicable taxes in their state of residence.

Part of this is common sense to attract more business to highly taxed states. Part of this is making sure innovation and talent are not penalized for being successful. California legislators seem unlikely to do this on their own, and Congress should take action. The state’s Proposition 40 would impose a one-time wealth tax on covered billionaires, although real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts generally would be excluded. The concern is whether such a tax could eventually expand to reach additional taxpayers. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also recognizes that some billionaires could leave California in response, reducing ongoing state income tax revenue.

The jock tax is unfair and warrants federal reform. Business sense and people’s behavioral patterns should be considered when passing laws. Many Californians have begun to accept the high taxes here as a “beauty and weather tax,” but have those taxes not already become too burdensome?

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.