How Washington's Proposed Visiting Pro Athlete Tax Would Actually Work
In early 2024, Washington State proposed HB 2724, which included a controversial new tax provision targeting professional athletes who perform in Washington but live elsewhere. Section 404 of that bill would have imposed a state income tax on visiting athletes based on a formula that apportions compensation according to the proportion of their work-days spent in Washington.
This post is part of my series on Washington's new income tax. For the full picture — including resident athletes, college NIL, and planning considerations — see Washington's New Income Tax: What Founders, Investors, Athletes, and High Earners Need to Know.
This isn't a minor administrative tweak. It's part of a broader political effort to generate tax revenue and to shift tax burden onto high-income non-residents. Whether HB 2724 passes, fails, or gets modified, understanding how this athlete tax would work — and how other states already do it — is essential context for anyone involved in professional sports, team management, or high-income athlete tax planning in Washington.
This article walks through the mechanics of the duty-days apportionment formula, compares Washington's approach to the "jock tax" history pioneered by other states, examines the revenue projections, considers constitutional implications, and analyzes how this would interact with Washington's broader income tax environment.
The Duty-Days Apportionment Formula: How It Works
The core of the proposed Washington athlete tax is a deceptively simple formula:
Taxable Income = (Games/Work-Days in WA ÷ Total Games/Work-Days) × Total Compensation
This is called the "duty-days apportionment" method. It's not unique to Washington — it's the same formula used by California, New York, Illinois, and about a dozen other states with professional sports franchises.
Here's how it works in practice:
A basketball player signs a contract for $10 million per year. The season has 82 games. The team plays 41 games in Washington (home games). The formula would work like this:
- Numerator: Games played in Washington = 41
- Denominator: Total games = 82
- Apportionment fraction: 41 ÷ 82 = 50%
- Taxable income in Washington: 50% × $10M = $5M
- Washington tax at proposed rate (e.g., 7%): $5M × 7% = $350,000
The key concept: The player only pays tax on the income attributable to work performed in Washington. The rest of the compensation is taxable in the player's home state or allocated across all states where games are played.
Expanding "work-days" beyond games: While the formula above uses games as the measure, "duty days" is broader. It includes:
- Games played in Washington.
- Practice days in Washington (including training camp, if held in-state).
- Travel days for games in Washington (often counted as a partial day).
- Promotional appearances, media obligations, and other team-related work days in Washington.
This is why it's called "duty-days apportionment" — it tries to capture all days the athlete was obligated to work for the team, not just game days. For basketball, with an 82-game season plus training camp and practices, a player might have 200-250 "duty days" in a season. If roughly 50% are in Washington, then 50% of compensation is taxable in Washington.
Which Sports and Leagues Would Be Affected
The proposed Washington tax would apply to any professional athlete earning compensation for services performed in Washington. This includes:
- NBA players: The Seattle SuperSonics were sold in 2006, but if they return or if the Sonics are revived, NBA players would be subject to the tax. The Washington Huskies don't trigger it (they're college), but any NBA team playing games in Washington would.
- NFL players: The Seattle Seahawks play 8-9 home games per year in Lumen Field. All Seahawks players would be subject to the tax, along with visiting players on opposing teams.
- MLB players: The Seattle Mariners play 81 home games per year. Mariners players and visiting players would be taxed on the apportioned income.
- MLS players: The Seattle Sounders play 17 home games. This would apply to Sounders players and visiting teams.
- Minor league players: Any professional athlete, including minor league baseball, hockey, soccer, etc., would be subject to the tax if they perform in Washington.
- Individual sports: Tennis players, golfers, and athletes in other individual sports who compete in Washington (e.g., a PGA event, WTA tournament, or mixed martial arts event) would be subject to the tax.
- College athletes: Under current NCAA rules, college athletes are not professional athletes, so they wouldn't be subject to this tax (though NIL deals complicate this — see below).
The inverse question: Visiting athletes. The tax applies not just to resident athletes but to all athletes performing in Washington, regardless of residency. A Los Angeles Dodgers player who lives in California is taxed on the income earned during games played in Seattle against the Mariners. This is where the "visiting professional athlete tax" label comes from — it's primarily a tax on non-residents earning income in Washington.
NIL deals and endorsements: An important nuance: the proposed tax applies to compensation for services performed in Washington. A signature endorsement deal with Nike wouldn't be taxed (it's not tied to performance in Washington), but a local appearance fee for a promotional event at a Seahawks game would be. The distinction is whether the compensation is tied to the athlete's presence and work in the state.
The "Jock Tax" History: From Michael Jordan to Today
The concept of taxing visiting professional athletes isn't new. It started with Illinois in 1991.
The Michael Jordan precedent (1991): In 1991, Illinois passed a law imposing income tax on athletes for games played in Illinois. The impetus was the Chicago Bulls' championship run, which generated enormous media attention and revenue. The state essentially asked: "Michael Jordan and the Bulls are generating tax revenue in Illinois; why shouldn't we capture some of it?" The tax was sold as a way to fund education and infrastructure.
Michael Jordan famously complained about it, noting that he was being taxed on out-of-state income simply for playing basketball in Chicago. But the tax stuck, and Jordan's complaint probably generated more PR for the tax than any argument in favor.
Why other states followed: Once Illinois proved the concept was politically viable and generated revenue, other states with major sports franchises adopted similar taxes. By the early 2000s, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and several other states had versions.
How the formula evolved: Early versions were crude — sometimes just a flat tax on earnings during games in the state. Modern versions use the duty-days apportionment formula because it's more defensible and harder to challenge on constitutional grounds (it allocates only the income earned in the state, not total compensation).
Why the tax is politically durable: The athlete tax is a form of "sin tax" or "luxury tax" that's politically popular because it affects a small, wealthy, and often non-resident population. Voters like it because they perceive it as taxing out-of-state rich people, not themselves. Even though visiting athletes from opposing teams pay the tax (not just home team players), the optics are favorable to politicians.
Where it stands today: As of 2024-2025, roughly 15-20 states have some version of an athlete tax. California's is among the most aggressive. New York's is well-established. But there's been some pushback — several states have reconsidered or reduced their athlete taxes due to competition with neighboring states and political pressure from sports leagues.
Washington would be relatively late to this game, which is notable. The state's lack of a broad income tax has historically made it attractive to high-income individuals, including athletes. Adding an athlete tax shifts that calculus.
Revenue Projections: Are They Realistic?
HB 2724 and similar proposals typically come with revenue estimates. For Washington, the projected revenue from an athlete tax has been estimated at anywhere from $2-5 million annually, depending on the tax rate and which sports are included.
Let's reality-check this:
Scenario 1: NFL only (Seattle Seahawks).
- Total Seahawks payroll: ~$150-180 million per year (varies by draft, contracts, etc.).
- Home games: 8 per season (sometimes 9 if preseason counts).
- Total games: 17 per year (regular season).
- Apportionment: 8 ÷ 17 = 47%
- Apportioned income: ~$70M
- Tax at 7%: $4.9M
- But: Visiting players are also taxed. Opposite teams' payrolls add another ~$150M × 47% = $70M, taxed at 7% = $4.9M
- Total NFL component: ~$10M annually
Scenario 2: MLB (Seattle Mariners).
- Total Mariners payroll: ~$110-140 million per year.
- Home games: 81 per season.
- Total games: 162 per year.
- Apportionment: 81 ÷ 162 = 50%
- Apportioned income: ~$70M
- Tax at 7%: $4.9M
- Visiting teams: Add another ~$110M × 50% = $55M, taxed at 7% = $3.85M
- Total MLB component: ~$8.75M annually
Scenario 3: MLS (Seattle Sounders).
- Payroll: ~$20-25 million per year.
- Home games: 17 per season.
- Total games: 34 per year.
- Apportionment: 17 ÷ 34 = 50%
- Apportioned income: ~$12.5M
- Tax at 7%: $0.875M
- Total MLS component: ~$1M annually
Combined (NFL + MLB + MLS): ~$20M annually.
But the state's projection was only $2-5M, which suggests either:
- They're using a lower tax rate (perhaps 5% instead of 7%).
- They're being conservative and assuming some evasion or avoidance.
- They're only counting the home team (Mariners, Seahawks) and not visiting teams.
- The projection is understated politically to make the tax seem more modest.
The reality: $2-5M is probably too low if the tax applies to all teams and games. But $20M is probably optimistic if players find ways to structure compensation to avoid apportionment (e.g., deferred compensation, endorsement deals, etc.). A realistic estimate is probably $8-15M annually, assuming a 6-7% rate and all professional sports included.
Political context: In a state budget of $60+ billion, even $15M is a rounding error. The tax is more about messaging ("we're taxing out-of-state millionaires") than about filling a budget gap. This is important because it suggests the tax might persist even if revenue falls short of projections.
Constitutional Considerations: Can Washington Even Tax Non-Residents?
This is where the athlete tax gets legally interesting. The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause limits states' ability to tax out-of-state residents and non-resident income. Washington's ability to impose an athlete tax hinges on whether the tax survives constitutional scrutiny.
The key question: Can a state tax income earned within the state by a non-resident?
The answer, broadly: Yes, under certain conditions. States can tax income that is earned within the state, even if the earner is a non-resident, provided:
- The tax is applied fairly and uniformly (equal to what residents pay).
- The tax is apportioned to the portion of income earned in the state (not the entire worldwide income).
- The tax has a reasonable nexus to the state (the work is performed there).
- The tax doesn't unduly burden interstate commerce.
This is why the duty-days apportionment formula exists — it's designed to survive constitutional challenges by taxing only the income earned in-state, not the athlete's entire compensation.
California's tax and constitutional history: California has imposed an athlete tax for decades and has successfully defended it against constitutional challenges. The California Supreme Court has ruled that taxing non-residents on income earned in California doesn't violate the Commerce Clause, as long as the tax is apportioned. This gives Washington some legal precedent.
Potential constitutional vulnerability: A Washington athlete tax could be challenged on a few grounds:
- Personal jurisdiction: Does Washington have the constitutional authority to tax a non-resident athlete who physically performs services in Washington? Likely yes, based on California precedent, but a challenge is possible.
- Dormant Commerce Clause: Does the tax discriminate against interstate commerce? If Washington residents are taxed differently or if visiting athletes face a higher effective tax rate than home-team athletes, a challenge could succeed. But if the formula is applied equally, it should survive.
- Full Faith and Credit Clause: If an athlete is already paying income tax in another state (like California or Texas), can Washington still tax the same income? Yes, under current law — multiple states can tax the same income, though credits and deductions help prevent double taxation.
Practical constitutional reality: While a challenge is possible, it's unlikely to succeed. California's version has survived scrutiny, and Washington's would likely follow the same legal framework. The duty-days formula is specifically designed to be defensible.
However, challenge costs money and time. A professional sports league or athletes' union might challenge the tax anyway, on principle, even if the legal odds are poor. This adds litigation risk and uncertainty to any Washington athlete tax.
How This Interacts With Washington's Broader Income Tax Situation
Washington has historically been a "no income tax" state (with some exceptions for capital gains and capital gains tax). This is changing.
ESSB 6346 and capital gains tax: In 2022, Washington passed ESSB 6346, which created a long-term capital gains tax (LTCG tax) on gains of $250,000+, effective January 1, 2023. This is nominally a capital gains tax, not an income tax, but it effectively imposes an income-like tax on certain high-income individuals and investors.
The capital gains tax was challenged immediately, and the Washington Supreme Court heard arguments about its constitutionality. As of early 2026, the legal status of the capital gains tax is still somewhat uncertain, though it remains in effect.
How an athlete tax fits in: An athlete tax is different from the capital gains tax because it targets earned income (salary), not investment gains. However, it signals a shift in Washington's tax philosophy — from "no income tax" to "yes income tax, but only on certain types of income or people."
The political implication: If Washington passes an athlete tax, it strengthens the precedent for other income taxes. It becomes harder for the state to argue it's a no-income-tax state if it's selectively taxing athletes and investors. This could pave the way for broader income tax proposals in future years.
Uncertainty for athletes and teams: If an athlete is already subject to the capital gains tax (if they have investment income) and would be subject to an athlete tax on compensation, the combined burden could be significant. This creates uncertainty for long-term athlete tax planning in Washington.
Practical Implications for Teams, Players, and Clubs
For individual players: If you're a professional athlete contracted to a team playing in Washington, an athlete tax would increase your effective tax rate on in-state earnings. You'd need to factor the tax into salary negotiations and retirement planning. Some athletes might negotiate for gross-up clauses in their contracts (the team reimburses the player for the additional tax), shifting the cost to the team.
For teams: Teams based in Washington (like the Seahawks or Mariners) might face increased payroll costs if athletes demand gross-ups. Teams visiting Washington would have to withhold and file the tax on visiting athletes' apportioned compensation, creating administrative burden. The NFL, MLB, and other leagues might negotiate collectively with Washington over the tax implementation, trying to reach favorable terms.
For sports agents and tax advisors: The tax creates complexity in contract structuring. Agents might recommend deferred compensation, signing bonuses, or incentive structures that reduce the apportioned in-state income. Tax advisors would need to project the athlete's potential tax burden across all states where they play and optimize compensation structure accordingly.
For teams' competitiveness: An athlete tax might make it harder for Washington teams to attract free agents (in free-agency sports like basketball or soccer) because players would prefer higher-tax-free compensation from teams in states without an athlete tax. For drafted players or teams with significant home games, the effect might be more muted.
Comparison to California and New York: How Aggressive Is Washington's Approach?
California's athlete tax:
- Applies to professional athletes performing in California.
- Tax rate: Subject to California's standard income tax rates (which range from ~1% to ~13.3% at the top, depending on income level).
- Apportionment: Duty-days formula.
- Effect: For a high-income athlete, the California tax rate applied to apportioned California income is brutal. A $10M-earning athlete might pay $1-1.5M just on California apportioned income.
- Unique feature: California also has extremely high capital gains taxes and wealth taxes (though the wealth tax was struck down). It's one of the most aggressive states for high-earner taxation.
New York's athlete tax:
- Similar to California in structure.
- Tax rate: New York's standard income tax rate is ~8.8% at the top (lower than California).
- Apportionment: Duty-days formula.
- Effect: For a $10M athlete, roughly 50% apportioned to New York games/duty days, taxed at 8.8% = ~$440K.
Washington's proposed athlete tax:
- Proposed rate: 7% (or variable depending on final bill language).
- Apportionment: Duty-days formula (expected to follow California/New York model).
- Effect: For a $10M athlete, roughly 40-50% apportioned to Washington games/duty days, taxed at 7% = ~$280-350K.
- Unique feature: None yet. It would be a straightforward copy of California/New York's structure, but at a slightly lower rate.
How aggressive is Washington's rate? Washington's proposed 7% is less aggressive than California's 13.3% but similar to New York's ~8.8%. However, Washington's lack of existing state income tax makes the athlete tax feel like a bigger shift. For athletes, Washington would still be preferable to California or New York, but less favorable than currently (with no tax).
Competitive implications: If Washington passes an athlete tax at 7%, and California and New York rates are higher, Washington might actually become more attractive than those states — a relative gain despite the new tax. This could actually support recruitment of free agents to Seattle teams.
Bottom Line
Washington's proposed athlete tax — if passed — would impose state income tax on professional athletes' compensation apportioned to work performed in Washington, using a duty-days formula similar to California and New York. The tax would apply to all professional sports and would tax both resident athletes (Seahawks, Mariners, Sounders players) and visiting athletes.
The mechanism is straightforward: (Days worked in WA ÷ Total days worked) × Compensation × Tax rate. Revenue would likely be $8-15M annually, not the $2-5M sometimes projected. The tax is likely to survive constitutional challenges if applied uniformly to all athletes.
The broader implication is that Washington is shifting from a no-income-tax state to a selective-income-tax state. This opens the door to future broad income tax proposals and signals a change in the state's tax policy philosophy.
For athletes, teams, and franchises in Washington, the tax is a new planning consideration but not a make-or-break deal. Compared to California or New York, even a 7% athlete tax in Washington is favorable. The key is understanding the mechanics now so that tax planning, contract structuring, and team budgeting can account for it before any new law takes effect.
Keep Reading
- Washington's New Income Tax: The Complete Guide for Founders, Investors, and High Earners
- stock option Exercise Timing: Planning Before Washington's 2028 Income Tax
- ING Trusts Won't Save You from Washington's Income Tax. Here's What Might.
- The Washington Supreme Court Just Fast-Tracked the Income Tax Referendum Case. Here's What It Means.
