By Christopher R. Deubert, Senior Writer
The Pittsburgh Steelers earn an estimated $650 million annually in revenue, according to Sportico. A substantial portion of that revenue comes from its dozens of sponsorship agreements with corporate partners. To facilitate that revenue stream, the team has an approximate 14-person team dedicated to sourcing, servicing, and activating those sponsorships. Chelsea Zahn, a long-time former employee, alleges that she was discriminated against and deprived of $100,625 in sponsorship commissions owed to her, despite bringing in $1.81 million in sponsorship revenue. The Steelers’ recent partial motion to dismiss only highlights the confusion about such arrangements.
Ms. Zahn with the ball
Ms. Zahn spent more than ten years with the Steelers, rising to Corporate Partnership Sales Manager before resigning in September 2024 to join Live Nation Entertainment.
In a January 13, 2026 Complaint filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Ms. Zahn alleges that she was treated and paid worse because of her sex and sexual orientation in violation of the federal Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Her final claim is for an alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL). That statute provides an avenue for employees to recover wages otherwise owed, plus liquidated damages of up to 25% of the wages and attorneys’ fees.
More specifically, Ms. Zahn alleges that the Steelers sent her a check for $50,000 rather than the $100,625 she says she was owed. She sued rather than cash the check.
The Steelers on defense
As an initial matter, the Steelers surprisingly do not seem to have had an agreement to arbitrate any disputes concerning Ms. Zahn’s employment, which would have prevented the public lawsuit the team is not facing.
Be that as it may, on March 24, 2026, the Steelers moved to dismiss only the claim under the WPCL. The Steelers argue that Ms. Zahn fails to identify the existence of a contract (oral or written) under which the organization was purportedly obligated to pay Ms. Zahn the alleged bonus.
However, in their motion, the Steelers also explained that Ms. Zahn’s offer letter “set forth” her “[e]ligibility for the bonus.” That offer letter, according to the Steelers, provided as follows:
You will be eligible for a discretionary bonus based on Company, department and individual performance. Any discretionary bonus awarded will be paid after the end of the season.
The Steelers then focus their motion on their position that the bonus was discretionary and thus insufficient to state a claim.
Not surprisingly, Ms. Zahn responded by arguing that the offer letter was a contractual obligation to pay her a bonus sufficient to state a claim under the WPCL.
As to whether the Steelers had the discretion to not pay the bonus, Ms. Zahn asserts that Pennsylvania law required the Steelers to exercise that discretion in good faith. She says the Steelers fail this test because the $50,000 bonus offer was not based on “Company, department and individual performance” as provided for in the offer letter. Instead, she claims that the reduced offer was made with a “discriminatory motive” and in retaliation for her having left the team.
Additionally, Ms. Zahn asserts that the Steelers orally agreed to pay the bonus as evidenced by “a course of conduct of paying individuals in Plaintiff’s position these wages.”
A better plan
In my 2022 law review article, Labor & Employment Law Guidance for Professional Sports Teams, I wrote about the challenges of crafting commission plans for sales employees like Ms. Zahn. More specifically, I advised that “[c]ommission structures should be clearly laid out in a company policy, provided to commission-based employees upon their joining the club, and reviewed at least annually with those employees.”
In determining the commission structure, I explained that clubs should consider at least the following:
- When is the employee thought to have earned the commission–when the payment is received or when the revenue is earned (which might not be until the game for which tickets are sold is played or certain sponsorship assets delivered)?
- How soon after the commission is earned will the commission be paid? Should employees only be paid if the money is received from the ticketholder or sponsor?
- Should the commission rate change based on the nature or amount of the deal? For example, if a league partner decides to do a local partnership with the club–without any material sales effort needed by the club–should a partnership sales representative receive a full commission on that arrangement?
- What if a ticket package, suite, or sponsorship deal comes through another avenue at the club–such as the events department or ownership? Should ticket sales or sponsorship sales representatives receive a full commission?
As the Steelers case demonstrates, failing to think through and memorialize these policies can result in confusion and litigation. Moreover, the case evidences that in considering these factors, teams (and all employers) need to be mindful of state law concerning when commissions are earned and when they must be paid. The Steelers seem to have a third-and-long scenario in moving to dismiss the WPCL claim. Its likely continued presence in the case would be a meaningful source of leverage for Ms. Zahn.
Deubert is Senior Counsel at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP
