Washington Dems considering 'jock tax' on visiting pro, college athletes: report

As Washington state’s economy continues to decline from rising unemployment to small business closures, Democratic lawmakers are toying with the idea of taxing visiting professional athletes and potentially college athletes as well, as part of a proposed new income tax.

A newly circulated 47-page draft, obtained by The Washington State Standard, would not only tax wealthy residents but also include a provision called a “jock tax,” which would tax a portion of income earned by athletes while playing games in Washington. Jerry Cornfield, politics editor for the outlet, told Seattle’s Morning News on KIRO Newsradio, “There is a section in this draft that would specifically target the visiting professional athletes and get a piece of their salary.”

Jock taxes are common in states with income taxes. They typically allocate an athlete’s income based on the number of games or duty days played in a state, then tax that portion accordingly. Under Washington’s proposal, the tax would fall under a broader 9.9 percent income tax on income above $1 million, a framework first outlined by Gov. Bob Ferguson in December. For a professional athlete earning $10 million annually, a single game in Seattle could result in Washington taxing roughly $588,000 of income, amounting to about $58,000 in state taxes.

While the current draft focuses on professional athletes, Cornfield said he expects the final bill to expand further. “It does not now, but I think it will in the end have language for the college athletes and the income they make from NIL,” he said, noting that some college athletes now earn millions through endorsement deals. That could affect visiting athletes competing against Washington schools, as well as Washington-based athletes earning NIL (name, image, likeness) income while traveling out of state.

The draft does not yet include explicit language taxing touring performers, such as musicians or comedians, but Cornfield suggested lawmakers are likely to address that gap. “They’re trying to cover everything, which is always a challenge,” he said.

The proposal faces steep obstacles in a state with a long history of rejecting income taxes. Since 1932, Washington voters have rejected income tax measures 11 times. Most recently, voters approved Initiative 2111 in 2024, explicitly banning state income taxes. Washington’s constitution also prohibits graduated income taxes, setting the stage for immediate legal challenges. Even supporters acknowledge that implementing the tax could require a constitutional amendment, which would have to be approved by voters statewide. The current draft also lacks an emergency clause, meaning the measure could be referred to voters even if it passes the legislature.

The renewed push comes as Washington’s economy continues to deteriorate. The state’s unemployment rate recently climbed to 4.7 percent, even as the national rate declined. Over the past year, Washington lost 6,600 jobs, with the deepest cuts in professional and business services, a sector closely tied to tech layoffs in the Puget Sound region. At the same time, small businesses across Seattle say they are under more financial pressure now than during the pandemic, citing lower foot traffic, rising costs, and the disappearance of relief programs. Over the past year, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta laid off thousands in the Puget Sound region. Meta also backed out of occupying two office buildings in Bellevue, allowed expansion rights for five additional development sites in the area to lapse, and vacated a 190,000-square-foot office in South Lake Union. Additionally, more Amazon layoffs are expected to be announced this coming week.

Even if lawmakers advance the proposal this session, Washingtonians should not expect new revenue anytime soon. Legal challenges are widely expected, and court battles could stretch on for years before any tax collections begin.