SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant  ☒                    Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ☐

Check the appropriate box:

SBA Communications Corporation

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

NOTICE OF 2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

April 4, 2018

Dear Shareholder:

It is my pleasure to invite you to attend SBA Communications Corporation’s 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. local time at our corporate office, located at 8051 Congress Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida 33487. At the meeting, you will be asked to:

Only shareholders of record as of the close of business on March 16, 2018 may vote at the Annual Meeting.

It is important that your shares be represented at the Annual Meeting, regardless of the number you may hold. Whether or not you plan to attend, please vote using the Internet, by telephone or by mail, in each case by following the instructions in our proxy statement. This will not prevent you from voting your shares in person if you are present.

I look forward to seeing you on May 17, 2018.

Sincerely,

Steven E. Bernstein

Chairman of the Board

We mailed a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials containing instructions on how to access our proxy statement and annual report on or about April 4, 2018.

SBA’s proxy statement and annual report are available online at www.edocumentview.com/SBAC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  i

PROXY SUMMARY

This proxy summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement and does not contain all information that you should review and consider. Please read the entire proxy statement with care before voting.

2018 ANNUAL MEETING

PROPOSALS AND BOARD RECOMMENDATION

2017 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

In 2017, SBA continued to deliver steady financial and operational results, and we once again led the tower industry in Tower Cash Flow Margin, Adjusted EBITDA Margin and AFFO Per Share. Highlights include:

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  1

Adjusted EBITDA(1)(2) (in millions) AFFO Per Share(1)(2) (in dollars) Tower Cash Flow(2) (in millions)

PROXY SUMMARY

This performance has contributed to our ability to create significant shareholder value as we delivered 130% Total Shareholder Return (“TSR”) for the five years ended December 31, 2017. As the chart below demonstrates, our TSR over that period exceeds the TSR of the S&P 500 Index (approximately 108%), our large public tower company peer group (approximately 92%) and the FTSE NAREIT All Equity REITs Index. (approximately 60%).

For more information relating to SBA’s financial performance, please review our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, filed with the SEC on March 1, 2018.

GOVERNANCE AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION HIGHLIGHTS

2  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

Total Shareholder Returns

		SBA Communications Corporation 8051 Congress Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33487

PROXY STATEMENT

You are receiving this proxy statement because you own shares of our Class A common stock that entitle you to vote at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Our Board of Directors is soliciting proxies from shareholders who wish to vote at the meeting. By use of a proxy, you can vote even if you do not attend the meeting. This proxy statement describes the matters on which you are being asked to vote and provides information on those matters so that you can make an informed decision.

Date, Time and Place of the 2018 Annual Meeting

We will hold the 2018 Annual Meeting on Thursday, May 17, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. local time at our corporate offices located at 8051 Congress Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida 33487.

Questions and Answers About Voting at the Annual Meeting and Related Matters

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  3

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT VOTING AT THE ANNUAL MEETING AND RELATED MATTERS

Detailed instructions for Internet and telephone voting are set forth on the Notice, which contains instructions on how to access our proxy statement and annual report online. You may also vote in person at the Annual Meeting.

If you are a beneficial shareholder, you must follow the voting procedures of your nominee included with your proxy materials. If your shares are held by a nominee and you intend to vote at the meeting, please bring with you evidence of your ownership as of the record date (such as a letter from your nominee confirming your ownership or a bank or brokerage firm account statement).

We will also consider other business that properly comes before the meeting in accordance with Florida law and our Bylaws.

4  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT VOTING AT THE ANNUAL MEETING AND RELATED MATTERS

A proposal has received a majority of the votes cast if the votes cast “FOR” a proposal exceed the votes cast “AGAINST” a proposal. In addition, we intend to evaluate the advisory proposal, Proposal 3, using the same standard. Consequently, abstentions will have no impact on the results, as they are not counted as votes cast.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  5

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT VOTING AT THE ANNUAL MEETING AND RELATED MATTERS

The table below sets forth, for each proposal on the ballot, whether a broker can exercise discretion and vote your shares absent your instructions and if not, the impact of such broker non-vote on the approval of the proposal.

If you vote in advance and also attend the meeting, you do not need to vote again at the meeting unless you want to change your vote. Written ballots will be available at the meeting for shareholders of record.

6  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT VOTING AT THE ANNUAL MEETING AND RELATED MATTERS

Beneficial shareholders who wish to vote in person must request a legal proxy from the broker or other nominee and bring that legal proxy to the Annual Meeting.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  7

Introduction

Our Bylaws permit the Board of Directors to set the size of the Board. Our Board of Directors currently consists of eight directors. For the size and scope of our business and operations, we believe a board of approximately this size is appropriate as it is small enough to allow for effective communication among the members but large enough so that we get a diverse set of perspectives and experiences in our board room.

Our Board of Directors is currently divided into three classes. We believe that the classified Board is the most effective way for the Board to be organized because it ensures a greater level of certainty of continuity from year-to-year which provides stability in organization and experience. As a result of the three classes, at each Annual Meeting, directors are elected for a three-year term. Class terms expire on a rolling basis, so that one class of directors is elected each year.

Our current directors and classifications are as follows:

The terms of the three current Class I directors expire at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (“NCG Committee”) has recommended that Brian C. Carr, Mary S. Chan, and George R. Krouse, Jr., each a current Class I director, be nominated for re-election for a three-year term expiring at the 2021 Annual Meeting of Shareholders or until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Each of Messrs. Carr and Krouse and Ms. Chan has consented to serve if elected.

Our Bylaws provide that, in uncontested elections, directors will be elected by a majority of the votes cast, and in contested elections, directors will be elected by a plurality of the votes cast. Our Bylaws further provide that a director who is not elected by a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election must tender his or her resignation to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors, taking into consideration the recommendation of the NCG Committee, will then decide whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken.

We believe that each of our directors possesses the experience, skills and qualities to fully perform his or her duties as a director and contribute to SBA’s success. Our directors were nominated because each is of high ethical character, highly accomplished in his or her field with superior credentials and recognition, has a reputation, both personal and professional, that is consistent with SBA’s image and reputation, has the ability to exercise sound business judgment, and is able to dedicate sufficient time to fulfilling his or her obligations as a director. Our directors as a group complement each other and each of their respective experiences, skills and qualities so that collectively the Board operates in an effective, collegial and responsive manner. Each director’s principal occupation and other pertinent information about particular experience, qualifications, attributes and skills that led the Board to conclude that such person should serve as a director, appears on the following pages.

8  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

PROPOSAL 1 – ELECTION OF DIRECTORS  >  NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR

Nominees For Director

Class I Directors

For Terms that Expire at the 2021 Annual Meeting

Qualifications. The Board nominated Mr. Carr to serve as a director of the Board because of his experience in founding, growing and managing public and private companies, including extensive mergers and acquisitions experience, both domestically and internationally. The Board also recognized his accounting and financial experience gained initially through a Big Four public accounting firm and enhanced through his public and private company senior management positions.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  9

PROPOSAL 1 – ELECTION OF DIRECTORS  >  NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR

Qualifications. The Board nominated Ms. Chan to serve as a director of the Board because of her extensive experience in the telecommunications and wireless technology industries. The Board also recognized her management experience gained through various senior management positions at large multinational companies.

Qualifications. The Board nominated Mr. Krouse to serve as a director of the Board because of his years and depth of experience as a securities and M&A partner at a major law firm, where he counseled large companies on matters of corporate governance, risk oversight, capital markets, general business matters and acquisition transactions, as well as his senior financial and business management experience at this same firm.

10  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

PROPOSAL 1 – ELECTION OF DIRECTORS  >  DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE

Directors Continuing in Office

Class II Directors

Terms Expire at the 2019 Annual Meeting

Qualifications. The Board nominated Mr. Beebe to serve as a director of the Board because of his executive and management experience, and in particular his extensive experience in telecommunications.

Qualifications. The Board nominated Mr. Langer to serve as a director of the Board because of his management and advisory experience with national and global companies as well as his vast experience in investment banking, including his experience in raising capital for companies and mergers and acquisitions.

Qualifications. The Board nominated Mr. Stoops to serve as a director of the Board because of his current and prior senior executive and financial management experience at SBA, his operational knowledge and experience at SBA and his business and competitive knowledge of the wireless infrastructure industry.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  11

PROPOSAL 1 – ELECTION OF DIRECTORS  >  DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE

Class III Directors

Terms Expire at the 2020 Annual Meeting

Qualifications. The Board nominated Mr. Bernstein to serve as a director of the Board because of his extensive senior management and operational experience in the wireless communications industry, including as the founder and first President and Chief Executive Officer of SBA.

Qualifications. The Board nominated Mr. Cocroft to serve as a director of the Board because of his past experience as a Chief Financial Officer and other financial oversight positions at large, global public companies, as well as other senior management experience including responsibility for information systems and human resources.

Recommendation of the Board of Directors

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the director nominees.

12  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Board Leadership Structure

As stated in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Board has not adopted a formal policy regarding the need to separate or combine the offices of Chair of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and instead the Board remains free to make this determination from time to time in a manner that seems most appropriate for SBA. Currently, SBA separates the positions of CEO and Chair in recognition of the differences between the two roles. The CEO is responsible for the strategic direction of SBA and the day to day leadership and performance of SBA, while the Chair provides guidance to the CEO, sets the agenda for the Board meetings and presides over meetings of the Board. In addition, SBA believes that the current separation provides a more effective monitoring and objective evaluation of the CEO’s performance. The separation also allows the Chair to strengthen the Board’s objective oversight of SBA’s performance and governance standards.

Lead Independent Director

In order to facilitate and strengthen the Board’s independent oversight of SBA’s performance, strategy and succession planning and to uphold effective governance standards, the Board has established the role of a lead independent director. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines only require the appointment of a lead independent director in the event that our Chair is not independent. Although our current Chair, Mr. Bernstein, is “independent” under the Nasdaq Listing Standards, the Board decided to continue to maintain a lead independent director for 2018 as it believes that the lead independent director provides additional perspective and expanded communication among directors. Mr. Langer currently serves as SBA’s lead independent director.

The lead independent director’s duties, which are listed in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, include:

Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Board of Directors has voluntarily adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines describe our corporate governance practices and policies and provide a framework for our Board governance. The topics addressed in our Corporate Governance Guidelines include director independence, director qualifications, committee membership and structure,

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  13

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

shareholder communications with the Board, director compensation and the annual performance evaluation of the Board. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide, among other things, that:

The NCG Committee reviews our Corporate Governance Guidelines not less than annually, and, if necessary, will recommend changes to the Board. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines are available to view at our website, www.sbasite.com, under the Investor Relations – Corporate Governance section.

Board Independence

Pursuant to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, we require that a majority of our Board of Directors and all members of our three standing Committees be comprised of directors who are “independent,” as such term is defined in the listing standards of the Nasdaq Stock Market (the “Nasdaq Listing Standards”). Each year, the Board undertakes a review of director independence, which includes a review of each director’s responses to questionnaires asking about any relationships with us. This review is designed to identify and evaluate any transactions or relationships between a director or any member of his or her immediate family and us, or members of our senior management or other members of our Board of Directors, and all relevant facts and circumstances regarding any such transactions or relationships. Consistent with these considerations, our Board has affirmatively determined that all of our non-employee directors and nominees, who are listed below, are independent.

14  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Executive Sessions. The independent members of the Board of Directors generally meet in executive session at each regularly scheduled meeting of the Board.

Meetings

During 2017, the Board of Directors held a total of 8 meetings. Each incumbent director attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (1) the total number of meetings of the Board during the period in which he or she was a director and (2) the total number of meetings of all Committees on which he or she served during the period in which he or she was a director. It is the policy of the Board of Directors to encourage its members to attend SBA’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders. All members of the Board of Directors in 2017 were present at SBA’s 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

Board Committees

The Board has three standing Committees: the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the NCG Committee. Copies of the Committee charters of each of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the NCG Committee setting forth the respective responsibilities of the Committees can be found under the Investor Relations – Corporate Governance section of our website at www.sbasite.com, and such information is also available in print to any shareholder who requests it through our Investor Relations department. Each of the Committees reviews, and revises if necessary, its respective charter not less than annually.

Audit Committee

Number of Meetings in 2017: 6

Responsibilities. The Audit Committee oversees our accounting and financial reporting processes and the audits of our financial statements. In doing so, it establishes our audit policies, evaluates the independence of and selects our independent auditors, and oversees the engagement of our independent auditors. The Audit Committee maintains free and open means of communication between our directors, management and the independent auditors. The Audit Committee also oversees the performance of our internal audit function, develops controls to insure the integrity of our financial statements and the quality of disclosure, and monitors our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. The Audit Committee Chair reports on Audit Committee actions and recommendations at Board of Director meetings.

Independence and Financial Expertise. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets the independence requirements under the Nasdaq Listing Standards and the enhanced independence standards for audit committee members required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that each of Messrs. Beebe, Carr and Cocroft meets the requirements of an audit committee financial expert under SEC rules. For information regarding Mr. Beebe’s, Mr. Carr’s and Mr. Cocroft’s business experience, see “Proposal 1 – Election of Directors.”

Compensation Committee

Number of Meetings in 2017: 5

Responsibilities. The Compensation Committee establishes salaries, incentives and other forms of compensation for our Chief Executive Officer, each of our executive officers (our Executive Vice Presidents) and our Chief Accounting Officer (collectively, the “Officer Group”), the terms of any employment agreements with the Officer Group and the compensation for our directors. In addition, the

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  15

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Compensation Committee administers our equity-based compensation plans, including awards under such plans, and our Stock Ownership Guidelines. The Compensation Committee also oversees and administers our Executive Compensation Recoupment Policy. The Compensation Committee also reviews the results of any advisory shareholder votes on executive compensation and considers whether to recommend adjustments to our executive compensation policies and practices as a result of such votes. The Compensation Committee Chair reports on Compensation Committee actions and recommendations at Board of Director meetings.

Role of Compensation Consultants and Advisors. The Compensation Committee has the authority, pursuant to its charter, to engage the services of outside legal or other experts and advisors as it in its sole discretion deems necessary and appropriate to assist the Compensation Committee in fulfilling its duties and responsibilities. For 2017, the Compensation Committee again selected and retained F.W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”), an independent management compensation consulting firm, and instructed FW Cook to provide the Compensation Committee with a review of competitive market data for each member of the Officer Group, and to work directly with the Compensation Committee to prepare proposals for 2017 executive compensation and director compensation. In addition, in 2017 the Compensation Committee again selected and retained Norton Rose Fulbright, which merged with Chadbourne & Parke in 2017 (“Norton Rose”), a law firm which provides compensation consulting services. Neither FW Cook nor Norton Rose performed any services for us other than their services to the Compensation Committee. We believe that the use of independent consultants provides additional assurance that our programs are reasonable and consistent with our objectives. The Compensation Committee reviewed the independence of each of FW Cook and Norton Rose in light of the SEC rules and the Nasdaq Listing Standards regarding compensation consultants and has concluded that neither FW Cook’s work nor Norton Rose’s work for the Compensation Committee during 2017 raised any conflict of interest and that each of FW Cook and Norton Rose is independent.

Role of Management and Delegation of Authority. As more fully discussed under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – Evaluating Compensation Program Design and Relative Competitive Position,” our CEO provides the Compensation Committee with (1) evaluations of each named executive officer, including himself, and (2) recommendations regarding base salary levels for the upcoming year for each named executive officer (other than himself), an evaluation of the extent to which the named executive officer met his annual incentive plan bonus target, and the aggregate total long-term incentive value that each named executive officer (other than himself) should receive. Our CEO typically attends all regularly-scheduled Compensation Committee meetings to assist the Compensation Committee in its discussion and analysis of the various agenda items, and is generally excused from the meetings as appropriate, including for discussions regarding his own compensation. The Compensation Committee may delegate to SBA’s management the authority to administer incentive compensation and benefit plans provided for employees, including the authority to grant awards to certain recipients under our equity-based compensation plans, as it deems appropriate and to the extent permitted by applicable laws, rules, regulations and Nasdaq Listing Standards.

Independence. The Board reviewed the background, experience and independence of the Compensation Committee members based primarily on the directors’ responses to questions relating to their relationships, background and experience. Based on this review, the Board determined that each member of the Compensation Committee meets the independence requirements of the Nasdaq Listing Standards, including the heightened independence requirements specific to compensation committee members.

16  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation. During the 2017 fiscal year, Messrs. Carr, Cocroft, Krouse and Langer served as members of the Compensation Committee, and none of these directors was, during 2017, an officer or employee of SBA, or formerly an officer of SBA.

There were no transactions during the 2017 fiscal year between SBA and any of the directors who served as members of the Compensation Committee for any part of the 2017 fiscal year that would require disclosure by SBA under the SEC’s rules requiring disclosure of certain relationships and related-party transactions.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

Number of Meetings in 2017: 5

Responsibilities. The NCG Committee (i) solicits, considers, recommends and nominates candidates to serve on the Board under criteria adopted by it from time to time; (ii) nominates a lead independent director in the event the Chair is not an independent director; (iii) recommends to the Board whether to accept or reject the resignation tendered by a director who failed to receive a majority of votes cast in any uncontested re-election; (iv) advises the Board with respect to Board composition and procedures and Committee composition, function, structure, procedures and charters; (v) oversees periodic evaluations of the Board and the Committees, including establishing criteria to be used in connection with such evaluations; (vi) reviews and reports to the Board on a periodic basis with regard to matters of corporate governance; and (vii) develops and reviews succession planning for Board members and executive officers. The NCG Committee also considers and recommends to the Board the approval of any waivers to SBA’s Code of Conduct (as defined below) for a director or executive officer. The NCG Committee Chair reports on NCG Committee actions and recommendations at Board of Director meetings.

Consideration of Director Nominees. The NCG Committee considers possible candidates for nominees for directors from many sources, including management and shareholders. The NCG Committee evaluates the suitability of potential candidates nominated by shareholders in the same manner as other candidates recommended to the NCG Committee, in accordance with the Criteria for Nomination to the Board of Directors, which is attached as Annex A to the NCG Committee charter. The Criteria for Nomination to the Board of Directors contains the following requirements, among others, for suitability:

The NCG Committee Charter requires, and the Criteria for Nomination provides, that, when considering nominees for the Board, the NCG Committee should seek to provide a diversity and

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  17

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

balance among directors of race, gender, geography, thought, viewpoints, background, skills, experience and expertise. Further, the NCG Committee Charter requires that any search firm retained to assist the NCG Committee in seeking candidates for the Board be instructed to seek to include diverse candidates in terms of the Criteria for Nomination from, among other areas, the traditional corporate environment, government, academia, private enterprise, non-profit organizations, and professions such as accounting, finance, marketing, human resources, and legal services.

The NCG Committee identifies nominees by first evaluating the current members of the Board willing to continue in service. Current members of the Board with skills and experience that are relevant to SBA’s business and who are willing to continue in service are considered for re-nomination, balancing the value of continuity of service by existing members of the Board with that of obtaining a new perspective. If any member of the Board does not wish to continue in service or if the NCG Committee or the Board decides not to re-nominate a member for re-election, the NCG Committee identifies the desired skills and experience of a new nominee in light of the Criteria for Nomination. Current members of the NCG Committee and Board are polled for suggestions as to individuals meeting the Criteria for Nomination of the NCG Committee. In addition, from time to time, the NCG Committee has engaged, and may in the future engage, the services of executive search firms to assist the NCG Committee and the Board of Directors in identifying and evaluating potential director candidates.

Shareholder Nominations of Director Candidates. Our Bylaws permit an eligible shareholder or group of eligible shareholders of any size to nominate up to 25% of our board of directors for inclusion in our proxy statement if they have continuously owned at least 3% of our Class A common stock for at least three years. However, candidates who were previously nominated by shareholders for any of the two most recent annual meetings and who received less than 20% of the total votes cast at any of those annual meetings are not eligible to be nominated utilizing the proxy access provisions. Shareholders who wish to nominate directors for inclusion in our proxy statement or directly at an annual meeting in accordance with the procedures in our Bylaws should follow the instructions under “Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations for 2019 Annual Meeting” in this proxy statement.

Executive Compensation Recoupment or “Clawback” Policy

Our Board has adopted the Executive Compensation Recoupment or “Clawback” Policy (the “Recoupment Policy”), which covers all our executive officers (the “Covered Officers”), and applies to incentive compensation paid or awarded from the 2014 fiscal year and onwards. Under the Recoupment Policy, in the event of (1) a restatement of SBA’s financial results due to the material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws or (2) a determination by the Compensation Committee that a financial, operational or other metric upon which incentive-based compensation was paid or awarded was inaccurate, in either case regardless of fault, the Compensation Committee will review the impact, if any, of such events on the incentive compensation paid or awarded to the Covered Officers. If the Compensation Committee determines that a Covered Officer was paid or awarded more than he or she would have been paid or awarded absent the financial restatement or inaccurate performance metrics, then the Compensation Committee may, to the extent permitted by applicable law, seek to recover such excess compensation. This recovery may include repayment by the Covered Officer, forfeiture of unvested restricted stock units and unvested stock options, offset against any severance payable to such Covered Officer, and other legal or equitable remedies that might be available to SBA. Incentive-based compensation paid or awarded during the three years preceding any financial restatement or inaccurate performance metrics is subject to recoupment.

18  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Code of Ethics/Related Party Transaction Policy

The Board of Directors has adopted our Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers (“Code of Ethics”) and our Code of Conduct for Directors, Officers and Employees (“Code of Conduct”), each of which we periodically revise to reflect best corporate governance practices and changes in applicable rules.

Code of Ethics. Our Code of Ethics sets forth standards of conduct applicable to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer to promote honest and ethical conduct, proper disclosure in SBA’s periodic filings, and compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations. Our Code of Ethics is available to view at our website, www.sbasite.com, under the Investor Relations – Corporate Governance section. We intend to provide disclosure of any amendments or waivers of our Code of Ethics on our website within four business days following the date of the amendment or waiver.

Code of Conduct/Related Party Transaction Policy. Our Code of Conduct requires directors, officers and all other employees to conduct themselves in an honest and ethical manner, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Our Code of Conduct generally requires (i) officers and directors to disclose any outside activities, financial interests or relationships that may present a possible conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict to the General Counsel and (ii) employees to disclose any outside activities, financial interests or relationships that may present a possible conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict to their immediate supervisor. The General Counsel will determine if any such outside activities, financial interests or relationships constitute a conflict of interest and a related person transaction on a case-by-case basis and will promptly disclose such activities, interests or relationships to the appropriate Committee for their review and appropriate action, if necessary. It is our preference to avoid related person transactions generally. Under applicable Nasdaq Listing Standards, all related person transactions must be approved by our Audit Committee or another independent body of the Board of Directors. Current SEC rules define transactions with related persons to include any transaction, arrangement or relationship (i) in which SBA is a participant, (ii) in which the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and (iii) in which any executive officer, director, director nominee, beneficial owner of more than 5% of SBA’s Class A common stock, or any immediate family member of such persons has or will have a direct or indirect material interest. All directors must recuse themselves from any discussion or decision affecting their personal, business or professional interests. All related person transactions will be disclosed in our applicable SEC filings as required under SEC rules.

No Related Party Transactions in 2017. Since January 1, 2017, we have not had any relationships or transactions with any of our executive officers, directors, beneficial owners of more than 5% of our Class A common stock or any immediate family member of such persons that were required to be reported pursuant to Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K.

Risk Management

Board Role in Management of Risk

The Board is actively involved in the oversight and management of risks that could affect SBA. This oversight and management is conducted primarily through Committees, as disclosed in the descriptions of each of the Committees above and in the charters of each of the Committees, but the full Board has retained responsibility for general oversight of risks. The NCG Committee is responsible for annually reviewing and delegating the risk oversight responsibilities of each Committee and

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  19

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

ensuring that each Committee should be primarily responsible for that oversight. The Audit Committee is primarily responsible for overseeing the risk management function, specifically with respect to management’s assessment of risk exposures (including risks related to liquidity, credit, operations, regulatory compliance and information systems), and the processes in place to monitor and control such exposures. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Audit Committee works closely with Internal Audit and other members of SBA’s enterprise risk management team. In addition, each of the Committees of the Board considers the risks within their areas of responsibility. The Board satisfies its oversight responsibility through full reports by each Committee chair regarding the Committee’s considerations and actions, as well as through regular reports directly from officers responsible for oversight of particular risks within SBA.

Compensation Risks

In early 2018, as part of our risk management process, we conducted an annual comprehensive review and evaluation of our compensation programs and policies. The assessment covered each material component of executive and non-executive employee compensation. In evaluating our compensation components, we took into consideration the following risk-limiting characteristics:

Director Compensation

General. The Board maintains a compensation arrangement for the non-employee directors of the Board. The Board compensation arrangement is comprised of the following types and levels of compensation:

20  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Pursuant to this policy, on May 18, 2017, each non-employee director of the Board was granted 807 restricted stock units, which represents a contingent right to receive 807 shares of Class A common stock. In addition, on May 18, 2017, each non-employee director of the Board was granted stock options to purchase 1,977 shares of Class A common stock with an exercise price of $132.00 per share, the closing price of the Class A common stock on May 18, 2017. The restricted stock units and stock options vest and become exercisable in three equal annual installments on May 1 of 2018, 2019, and 2020.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  21

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The following table sets forth information regarding the compensation of our non-employee directors for 2017. Mr. Stoops, our Chief Executive Officer and President, is omitted from the table as he does not receive any additional compensation for his services as a director. For more information on Mr. Stoops’ compensation, see “Executive Compensation” beginning on page 44.

22  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Set forth below is certain information relating to our current executive officers and key employees. Biographical information with respect to Mr. Stoops is set forth above under “Proposal 1 – Election of Directors.”

Brendan T. Cavanagh, CPA, has served as our Executive Vice President since January 2014 and Chief Financial Officer since September 2008. Prior to serving as Executive Vice President, from September 2008 to December 2013, Mr. Cavanagh served as our Senior Vice President. Mr. Cavanagh joined SBA in 1998 and has held various positions, including serving as Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer from June 2004 to September 2008 and Vice President – Site Administration from January 2003 to June 2004. Prior to joining us, Mr. Cavanagh was with Arthur Andersen LLP.

Kurt L. Bagwell has served as our Executive Vice President and President – International since January 2014. From October 2010 to December 2013, Mr. Bagwell served as our Senior Vice President and President – International. Mr. Bagwell joined SBA in February 2001 as Vice President of Network Services and served as our Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from January 2002 to October 2010. Prior to joining us, Mr. Bagwell served as Vice President – Site Development for Sprint PCS.

Mark R. Ciarfella has served as our Executive Vice President – Operations since January 2014. From October 2010 to December 2013, Mr. Ciarfella served as our Senior Vice President – Operations. Mr. Ciarfella has more than 20 years of experience in the wireless telecommunication industry. He joined SBA in July 2007 as our Vice President – Tower Development. From 1997 to 2007, Mr. Ciarfella was the co-owner of a Florida based site development services company that provided site acquisition, zoning, construction management and program management services to the wireless telecommunication industry and was a partner in a communication tower company that specialized in building towers in the State of Florida.

Thomas P. Hunt has served as our Executive Vice President since January 2014, General Counsel since September 2000 and Chief Administrative Officer since May 2007. Prior to serving as Executive

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  23

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Vice President, from September 2000 to December 2013, Mr. Hunt served as our Senior Vice President. Prior to joining SBA, Mr. Hunt was a partner with Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., a South Florida law firm, where he practiced for 16 years in the corporate and real estate areas. Mr. Hunt is a member of the Florida Bar.

Jason V. Silberstein has served as our Executive Vice President – Site Leasing since January 2014. From February 2009 to December 2013, Mr. Silberstein served as our Senior Vice President – Property Management. Mr. Silberstein joined SBA in 1994 and has held various positions with us, including Vice President – Property Management from April 2000 to February 2009.

Below is a summary of the business experience of each of our key employees.

Brian D. Lazarus, CPA, has served as our Senior Vice President since January 2014 and Chief Accounting Officer since September 2008. Prior to serving as Senior Vice President, from September 2008 to December 2013, Mr. Lazarus served as our Vice President. Mr. Lazarus joined SBA in October 2006 and served as SBA’s Controller from October 2006 to September 2008. Prior to joining SBA, Mr. Lazarus was the Corporate Controller for AllianceCare, a privately owned multi-state health care organization, from December 2003 until October 2006. Mr. Lazarus previously was a Senior Audit Manager with Ernst & Young LLP and spent six years with KPMG LLP.

Brian Allen has served as our Senior Vice President of Site Leasing since January of 2014, and is responsible for site marketing and tower space sales of SBA owned and managed towers sites in the United States. Prior to serving as our Senior Vice President, from July 2011 to December 2013, Mr. Allen served as our Vice President. Mr. Allen originally joined SBA in January 1992, and has served in a variety of roles, including Project Director, Area Director and General Manager. In addition to his service at SBA, he served as a Business Development Manager for TowerCo, an independent wireless tower company, and as an independent consultant providing site development services to wireless service providers and public utility companies.

Jorge Grau has served as our Senior Vice President since January 2014 and Chief Information Officer since January 2006. Prior to serving as our Senior Vice President, from January 2006 to December 2013, Mr. Grau served as our Vice President. Mr. Grau joined SBA in August 2003 as the Vice President of Information Technology. Prior to joining SBA, from July 2002 through August 2003, Mr. Grau was Director of Information Technology for Vision Care Holdings and, from August 1989 to May 2002, Mr. Grau served as Chief Information Officer of Bentley’s Luggage Corporation.

Jo Carol Rutherford has served as our Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer since January 2014. Ms. Rutherford joined SBA in July 2001 as Vice President of Human Resources. Prior to joining SBA, Ms. Rutherford spent 9 years with Invacare Corporation, an ISO certified manufacturer of home health care products. From 1998 until 2001, she was Corporate Director of Human Resources for Dixon Ticonderoga where she managed all HR functions to include collective bargaining, plant consolidations and organization restructuring. Ms. Rutherford is certified by the Society for Human Resource Management as a Senior Certified Professional.

Neil H. Seidman has served SBA in merger and acquisition activity since June 1997. From June 1997 to December 2001, Mr. Seidman served as our Director of Acquisitions and Associate General Counsel. From January 2002 to December 2008, Mr. Seidman served as our primary outside mergers and acquisitions counsel as a partner in the law firm of Seidman, Prewitt, DiBello & Lopez, P.A. On January 1, 2009, Mr. Seidman rejoined SBA as our Vice President – Mergers and Acquisitions. Since January 2014, Mr. Seidman has served as our Senior Vice President – Mergers and Acquisitions. Mr. Seidman is a member of the Florida, New York, Maryland and Washington D.C. bars.

24  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis is designed to provide our shareholders with a clear understanding of our compensation philosophy and objectives, compensation-setting process, and the 2017 compensation of our named executive officers, or NEOs. As discussed in Proposal 3 on page 59, we are conducting a Say on Pay vote this year that requests your approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation of our named executive officers as described in this section and in the tables and accompanying narrative contained in “Executive Compensation.” As part of that vote, you should review our compensation philosophies, the design of our executive compensation programs and how, we believe, these programs have contributed to the strong financial performance that SBA has provided to shareholders over the long term.

Our named executive officers are those executive officers listed below:

Executive Summary

We Have Delivered Strong Shareholder Value-Creating Results

Our primary focus is the creation of shareholder value. We take a long-term view of our business, and we believe that growth in AFFO per share has the greatest impact on shareholder value creation. This metric underscores the strength of our business and long-term recurring cash flow potential of SBA. In order to maximize growth in AFFO per share, during the past five years we have focused on Adjusted EBITDA growth, same-tower organic growth, margin enhancements, portfolio growth on attractive terms, optimizing our capital structure, and a disciplined approach to capital allocation.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  25

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following graphs illustrate our strong performance over the past five years.

(1)  Annualized Adjusted EBITDA for the fourth quarter-ended. See Appendix A for reconciliation of Non-GAAP Metrics.		(2)  For 2016, excludes the Oi Reserve. See Appendix A for reconciliation of Non-GAAP Metrics.

(3)  See Appendix A for reconciliation of Non-GAAP Metrics.		(4)  See Appendix A for reconciliation of Non-GAAP Metrics.

We believe that these financial results have resulted in our delivery of significant long-term shareholder value, reflected through our TSR growth of 130% over a five-year period compared to increases in TSR of 108% for the S&P 500, 92% for our public tower company peers, American Tower and Crown Castle, 60% for the FTSE NAREIT All Equity REITS Index and 76% for our 2017 Compensation Peer Group over that same five-year period.

26  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

Annualized Adjusted EBITDA(1) and Adjusted EBITDA Margin(1) AFFO Per Share(2) Tower Cash Flow(3) and Tower Cash Flow Margin(3) Return on Invested Capital (“ROIC”)(4) Total Shareholder Returns

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our Executive Compensation Program Is Responsive to Shareholders

During the last seven annual Say-On-Pay advisory votes on the compensation of our named executive officers, our shareholders have expressed strong support of our executive compensation program. In 2017, 85.3% of the votes cast on the proposal were cast in favor of our executive compensation program. Last year in connection with our “Say-on-Pay” proposal we reached out to shareholders representing almost 77.5% of our outstanding shares to engage in discussions regarding our executive compensation programs. Based on such engagement efforts we were able to communicate with all those shareholders who expressed interest in discussing our compensation program, representing 65.3% of our outstanding shares. An overwhelming percentage of shareholders with whom we communicated expressed support for the elements and design of our executive compensation program. In light of evolving compensation governance trends, in 2017 our Compensation Committee committed to requiring that all future grants of equity to officers be subject to “double-trigger” acceleration. Specifically, the vesting of all equity awards to officers commencing in 2018 will only be accelerated after a change in control to the extent that the employment of such officers is terminated without cause or the officer resigns for good reason in connection with such change in control. In addition, our CEO voluntarily agreed to retroactively apply this “double-trigger” acceleration provision to his outstanding equity awards.

The core of our executive compensation philosophy is that our executives’ pay should be linked to the performance of SBA. Accordingly, our executives’ compensation is heavily weighted toward compensation that is performance-based or equity-based. For 2017, 90% of our CEO’s target total compensation and an average of 84% of our other NEOs’ target total compensation was performance-based or equity-based. As a result, our executives only recognize value approaching their target compensation when our shareholders have enjoyed value creation.

Our Performance Metrics Drive Shareholder Value

We reward financial, operational and qualitative corporate metrics that we believe will drive long-term shareholder value appreciation. For 2017, our annual incentive bonus for our CEO and each of our NEOs was:

30% based on the performance level of Annualized Adjusted EBITDA achieved;

30% based on the performance level of AFFO per share achieved; and

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  27

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

40% based on achievement of selected financial, operational and qualitative metrics and a subjective analysis of the contribution of such executive towards the attainment of such metrics. For 2017, these metrics included (i) institutional contribution, including cross-departmental collaboration, succession planning and improved business processes and communications, (ii) tower acquisitions and ground lease extensions and acquisitions, (iii) leasing results on owned towers, (iv) the financial and operational performance of SBA’s international operations, (v) total cash selling, general and administrative costs as a percentage of total cash revenue, and (vi) executive performance, which includes numerous areas of focus based on the executive, including regulatory compliance, audit results and capital allocation. Based on his responsibilities, each NEO was assigned three to four of these financial, operational or qualitative metrics upon which he was evaluated.

Our Strong Corporate Governance Policies Further Align our Executives’ Interests With Those of our Shareholders.

28  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY AND OBJECTIVES

We encourage you to read this Compensation Discussion and Analysis for a detailed discussion and analysis of our executive compensation program, including information about the 2017 compensation of the NEOs.

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

The Compensation Committee believes that the caliber and motivation of all of our employees, and especially our executive leadership, are essential to SBA’s performance. The Compensation Committee believes our management compensation programs contribute to our ability to differentiate our performance from others in the marketplace and thereby deliver shareholders superior value. Moreover, we believe that SBA’s overall executive compensation philosophy and programs are market competitive, performance-based and shareholder aligned. The three principles of our compensation philosophy are as follows:

This philosophy is the basis of the Compensation Committee’s decisions regarding each of the following three components of pay: base salary, annual incentive compensation and equity-based compensation, each of which is discussed in detail below.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  29

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION SETTING PROCESS

The Compensation Committee does not decrease total direct compensation based upon realized or unrealized gains from prior compensation nor does it increase or decrease total direct compensation to compensate for stock price fluctuations. The Compensation Committee believes that doing so would reduce the motivation for continued high achievement and lower the correlation to gains or losses of our shareholders. Similarly, our severance and change in control arrangements, which we discuss later in this proxy statement under the heading “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control” on page 49, have not affected the Compensation Committee’s decisions regarding other components of compensation. Those arrangements serve very specific purposes that are unrelated to the determination of an NEO’s total direct compensation for a specific year.

In determining annual incentive compensation, the Compensation Committee calculates the actual results during the year on a constant currency basis (utilizing the budgeted exchange rates to eliminate the impact of movements in foreign currency) due to the belief that an individual should not benefit nor be penalized as a result of movements in foreign currency that are outside their control. No adjustments are made to equity-based compensation for movements in foreign currency exchange rates, consistent with the impact of such movements to our shareholders.

Compensation Setting Process

Annually, the Compensation Committee evaluates the design and competitiveness of SBA’s executive compensation program. As discussed above under the responsibilities of the Compensation Committee on page 16, the Compensation Committee has authority to retain compensation consultants, outside legal counsel and other advisors as it deems appropriate to assist in fulfilling its responsibilities. For 2017, the Compensation Committee selected and retained F.W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”) to:

FW Cook does not perform any other services for SBA other than its consulting services to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee has reviewed the independence of FW Cook in light of SEC rules and Nasdaq Listing Standards regarding compensation consultants and has concluded that FW Cook’s work for the Compensation Committee during 2017 did not raise any conflict of interest and that FW Cook is independent.

Evaluating Compensation Program Design and Relative Competitive Position

At the beginning of the executive compensation setting process each year, the Compensation Committee, in consultation with its independent compensation consultant, determines the process by which it will ensure that SBA’s executive compensation is competitive. As in prior years, the Compensation Committee decided to maintain a peer group with companies from both the

30  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  PROGRAM DESIGN AND COMPETITIVE POSITION

communications-related industry and the real estate investment trust (“REIT”) industry as the Compensation Committee continues to believe that using companies from these two industries is appropriate as it believes that each of these two industries have business characteristics that are similar to our business. Four of the communications-related peer companies have also elected REIT status (American Tower Corporation, Crown Castle International Corporation, Digital Realty Trust and Equinix). The primary size measures used in selecting companies for the Peer Group were revenue, EBITDA, market capitalization and enterprise value. In addition to reviewing the continued suitability of current peers, the Compensation Committee reviews evaluations from FW Cook which identifies potential candidates for addition to the group, based on US-based public companies in related industries and within 1/3X –3X SBA’s size relative to the identified measures.

For 2017, the Compensation Committee decided, with the recommendation of FW Cook, to maintain the same group of 20 peer companies that was used in 2016 (the “2017 Peer Group”) as this group of companies continues to align with SBA’s size and business profile, based on available public information in late 2016.

The table below sets forth the companies included within the 2017 Peer Group.

The table below reflects SBA position compared to the 25^th, median and 75^th percentile of the 2017 Peer Group with respect to the four measures identified by the Compensation Committee.

Data Source: S&P’s Capital IQ ($M)

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  31

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  PROGRAM DESIGN AND COMPETITIVE POSITION

Once the 2017 Peer Group had been selected, the Compensation Committee began the 2017 executive compensation setting process by reviewing historical 2015 compensation data and estimated 2016 and 2017 target compensation levels of the 2017 Peer Group. The Compensation Committee sets target compensation in January and February of each year. Therefore, the historical compensation data available to the Compensation Committee is based principally upon the data available from each company’s prior year’s proxy statement (which reflects compensation paid for two years prior). As a result, the Compensation Committee also reviewed FW Cook’s estimated 2016 and 2017 target compensation levels for the 2017 Peer Group, which was based on an assessment of historical data, SEC filings made after the relevant proxy statements, and market intelligence on executive compensation trends. Estimated 2017 compensation levels assumed a five percent increase (based on a historical analysis of the Peer Group) to prior year base salaries, target bonus levels, and long-term incentive grants, unless a company had actually disclosed a different increase or reduction prior to the time that the 2017 Peer Group data was compiled.

The Compensation Committee compared (1) base salaries, (2) target total cash compensation (salary plus annual bonus target), (3) long-term incentive (“LTI”) awards and (4) target total direct compensation (“TDC”) (salary plus annual bonus target plus value of LTI payable to each NEO) to the 25^th percentile, the median and 75^th percentile target opportunity of the 2017 Peer Group. Traditionally, the Compensation Committee has sought to set target TDC at up to 110% of the 50^th percentile (or median) of the target TDC of the relevant Peer Group. The Compensation Committee seeks to set base salaries and target total cash compensation moderately below the median of the Peer Group. The Compensation Committee then uses long-term incentive awards, being “at-risk”, to ensure that TDC is at the desired level. The Compensation Committee utilizes this comparative data to ensure that SBA is setting target compensation at a competitive level and, to the extent that SBA’s compensation diverges from the 110% of the median, that the Compensation Committee understands and is cognizant of such divergence.

Based upon the factors set forth above, the independent compensation consultant prepared a review of the compensation data for the 2017 Peer Group. The review indicated that SBA’s average base salaries and target total cash compensation were below the median of the 2017 Peer Group for each of the NEOs, while the average target TDC for our NEOs was 110% of the median of the target TDC of the 2017 Peer Group.

2018 Peer Group. In mid-2017, in preparation for the upcoming 2018 compensation setting process, the Compensation Committee requested that FW Cook reevaluate the companies that comprise the Peer Group to determine if the Peer Group continues to reflect the size and other characteristics of SBA. As a result of this evaluation, FW Cook recommended and the Compensation Committee approved the removal of Akamai Technologies from the Peer Group and the addition of Zayo Group, which had been identified as a closer comparator to SBA in terms of operations and capital structure. There were no changes to the REIT peers. The 2018 Peer Group continues to be comprised of 20 companies, 10 of which are communications-related companies and 10 of which are REITs. Relative to the new 2018 Peer Group, for the four most recent fiscal quarters and at June 30, 2017, (1) SBA’s revenue was between the 25th percentile and the median (2) SBA’s EBITDA was approximately at the median, (4) SBA’s market capitalization was slightly below the median and (5) SBA’s enterprise value was slightly above the median.

32  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  PROGRAM DESIGN AND COMPETITIVE POSITION

Consideration of Shareholder Advisory Vote

As part of its compensation setting process, the Compensation Committee annually reviews and considers the results of the prior-year’s shareholder advisory vote on our executive compensation. The Compensation Committee believes that this advisory vote can provide useful feedback regarding whether shareholders believe that the Compensation Committee is achieving its goal of designing an executive compensation program that promotes the best interests of SBA and its shareholders by providing its executives with the appropriate compensation and meaningful incentives. In establishing the 2017 compensation program, the Compensation Committee took note that at the 2016 annual meeting 98% of the votes cast on the advisory vote supported SBA’s executive compensation program. The Compensation Committee took into consideration this overwhelming support in its decision to maintain the current compensation program and philosophy. The Compensation Committee intends to annually review the results of the advisory vote and will be cognizant of this feedback as it completes its annual review of each pay element and the total compensation packages for our NEOs.

Evaluating Company and NEO Performance

Annually, our CEO provides the Compensation Committee a performance assessment for each named executive officer, including himself, and a compensation recommendation for each named executive officer, other than himself. The performance assessment includes an analysis of SBA’s performance against each of its quantitative and qualitative metrics and an evaluation of the contributions of each NEO to such performance. Our CEO also reviews each executive’s three-year compensation history and current compensation data provided by our independent compensation consultant. On the basis of this evaluation, our CEO provides the Compensation Committee recommendations regarding base salary levels for the upcoming year, an evaluation of the extent to which the NEO met his annual incentive plan target, and the aggregate total long-term incentive value that each NEO should receive. In addition, the CEO offers his proposal for the performance metrics, relative weightings and threshold and target levels for our annual incentive compensation for the upcoming year.

Establishing Individual Executive Compensation Packages

The Compensation Committee conducts an annual review of the executive compensation packages. Based on this review, the Compensation Committee approves, after considering the CEO’s recommendations, the following:

The Compensation Committee also approves such compensation package components for the CEO.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  33

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

Executive Compensation Components and 2017 Compensation Decisions

To achieve its compensation philosophy and objectives, the Compensation Committee has utilized three components of total direct compensation (“TDC”): (1) base salary, (2) annual incentive compensation and (3) equity-based incentive compensation, or LTI. As previously stated, we do not currently provide our NEOs with a pension plan, deferred compensation or other long term incentive compensation other than the ability to contribute their earnings to SBA’s 401(k) Plan.

As discussed further below, each element of our 2017 compensation program is intended to encourage and foster the following results and behaviors.

We designed our compensation program to provide executives the appropriate incentives to pursue quality long-term growth without encouraging inappropriate risk taking. As discussed below, under our program, our annual incentive opportunities are capped for each of our NEOs. We provide our equity-based incentive compensation component using a mix of equity instruments: one-third (1/3^rd) of the award is granted in the form of restricted stock units and two-thirds (2/3^rds) of the award is granted in the form of stock options. Providing a portion of long-term equity awards in the form of restricted stock units reduces the share dilution impact to shareholders and reduces the structural risk associated with providing one form of equity. However, two-thirds (2/3^rds) of an executive’s equity-based compensation is still comprised of stock options, which generate realized value to the executive only if our stock price experiences long-term price appreciation. The mix of compensation components is reviewed annually.

34  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

Total Direct Compensation Objectives/ structure behavioral focus fixes component base salary provides competitive level of fixed compensation approximately 20% or less of TDC for NEOs rewards core competence relative to level of responsibility, experience and contribution performance –based component Annual Incentive Compensation Provides at-risk variable pay opportunity for short-term performance Approximately 20% or less of TDC for NEOs Paid in cash Rewards on the basis of financial and operational results of SBA and the executive’s individual performance Equity-Based Incentive Compensation Provides at-risk variable pay opportunity for long-term performance Approximately 65%-75% of TDC for NEOs Paid in equity- 1/3 restricted stock units, 2/3 stock options Rewards on the basis of long-term performance of SBA Aligns executive compensation with creation of shareholder value Serves as a retention tool

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

Base Salaries

Why we pay base salaries. The Compensation Committee believes that payment of competitive base salaries is an important element for attracting, retaining and motivating our executives. In addition, the Compensation Committee believes that having a certain level of fixed compensation allows our executives to dedicate their full-time business attention to our company. Each executive’s base salary is designed to provide the executive with a fixed amount of annual compensation that is competitive with the marketplace.

How base salaries are determined. To the extent that we have entered into an employment agreement with an NEO, such employment agreement provides a minimum level of base salary for the NEO. The Compensation Committee, however, is able to increase each officer’s salary as it deems appropriate. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Compensation Committee reviews our CEO’s salary recommendations for each other NEO, and then establishes salaries for such year through Compensation Committee deliberations. When we set the base salaries for the NEOs, we consider a number of factors, including compensation market data discussed above, the position’s complexity and level of responsibility, the position’s importance in relation to other executive positions, and the assessment of the executive’s performance and other circumstances, including, for example, time in position. In addition, the Compensation Committee takes into consideration evaluations of each individual NEO, market changes and the economic and business conditions affecting SBA at the time of the evaluation.

2017 Base Salary Decisions. In early 2017, upon an evaluation of the 2016 Peer Group compensation data, the Compensation Committee decided to increase salaries by 7% for Mr. Stoops and to a range of 9% to 11% for our other NEOs.

Annual Incentive Compensation

Below is information regarding our annual incentive compensation program for our NEOs. Our annual incentive compensation program has traditionally consisted of an annual cash bonus payment that we award based on (1) achievement of company-wide annual performance measures and (2) a subjective evaluation of the executive’s contribution to SBA’s other financial, operational and qualitative metrics during the year. The Compensation Committee believes that by providing annual incentive compensation in the form of a cash bonus, it achieves an appropriate balance between cash (salary and annual incentive) and non-cash annual compensation for our NEOs.

Why we pay annual incentive compensation. The Compensation Committee believes that the annual incentive compensation program encourages executive officers to focus on those short-term financial, operational and qualitative performance metrics that will be the basis of long-term growth. The Compensation Committee annually reviews, and revises if necessary, the appropriateness of each of these performance metrics, their correlation to SBA’s overall growth strategy and the impact of such performance metrics on long-term shareholder value.

How annual incentive compensation awards are determined. Annual incentive compensation awards in 2017 were determined in five steps:

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  35

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

How performance is measured. At the end of each year, the Compensation Committee determines the level at which SBA met its company-wide performance metric(s). For 2017, achievement at the minimum level (set slightly below budget), entitled the NEO to approximately 50% of the amount of bonus earnable by the NEO for the applicable performance metric. Achievement at the budget level entitled the NEO to 75% of the amount of bonus earnable by the NEO for the applicable performance metric. Achievement at the stretch entitled the NEO to 100% of the amount of bonus earnable by the NEO for the applicable performance metric. Achievement at the maximum level entitled the NEO to 200% of the amount of bonus earnable by the NEO for the applicable performance metric. If SBA achieved between the minimum and the budget, between the budget and the stretch or between the stretch and maximum of any performance metric, the amount of the bonus payment with respect to that metric was calculated on a linear basis.

With respect to the subjective component of the annual cash incentive compensation, the Compensation Committee first determined the extent to which SBA met the selected financial, operational and qualitative metrics that were set at the beginning of the year and then evaluated, based on the CEO’s recommendation, the contribution that each executive made in the attainment of such metric. The subjective component, similar to the financial and/or operational performance metrics, was awarded a score, with approximately 50% being performance at the minimum level for which a bonus would be awarded, 75% for performance at budget or expected levels, 100% for an excellent year and 200% for an extraordinary year. This evaluation is inherently subjective and depends on an overall analysis of the effectiveness of the individual executive and his contribution to SBA’s performance.

2017 Annual Incentive Compensation Decisions

For 2017, the Compensation Committee modified the annual incentive compensation program design to increase the percentage of the bonus that was earned based on the achievement of financial metrics from 50% to 60% and divided accomplishment of that goal between Adjusted EBITDA and AFFO per share. Based on its evaluation of market competitiveness and its determination that the overwhelming percentage of the 2017 Peer Group as well as other public companies of similar size have bonus opportunities equal to 200% of the executive’s target, the Compensation Committee decided to increase the cap of the bonus opportunity from 100% to 200% of the annual bonus target. The bonus targets remained at 150% of base salary for Mr. Stoops and 100% for the other NEOs. Although the bonus opportunity was increased, the difficulty of the performance levels was maintained and the curve for performance rewarded was just extended. As a result, for each NEO:

36  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

The table below sets forth the performance levels set by the Committee for Annualized Adjusted EBITDA and AFFO per share for 2017 and the actual amount achieved in 2017.

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  37

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

In early 2017, the Compensation Committee reviewed SBA’s Annualized Adjusted EBITDA and AFFO per share performance against the minimum, budget, stretch and maximum levels. The Compensation Committee determined that both Annualized Adjusted EBITDA and AFFO per share were above budget but below the stretch and that each NEO earned 81.5% and 85.7% of their respective opportunity for Annualized Adjusted EBITDA and AFFO per share results. In addition, the Compensation Committee reviewed the extent to which SBA met its other financial, operational and qualitative metrics and the contribution that each NEO made in attainment of such metric. In determining the subjective score earned by each NEO, the Compensation Committee highlighted the following results of SBA during 2017, among others:

The Compensation Committee then evaluated the contribution that each NEO made to these financial, operational and qualitative measures that the Compensation Committee believed strengthened SBA for the long-term and thereby created value for shareholders.

38  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

The table below sets forth, in dollars and percentages, the annual bonus target of each of our NEOs in 2017 and the annual incentive bonus earned by each NEO for his 2017 performance as a percentage of annual bonus target.

Equity-Based Compensation

Why we pay equity-based compensation. The Compensation Committee’s philosophy is that a majority of an executive’s compensation should be based directly upon the value of long-term incentive compensation in the form of restricted stock units and stock option awards so as to align the financial interests of our executives with those of our shareholders. The Compensation Committee believes that providing executives with the opportunities to acquire significant stakes in our growth and prosperity (through grants of equity-based compensation), while maintaining other components of our compensation program at competitive levels, will incentivize and reward executives for sound business management, develop a high-performance team environment, foster the accomplishment of short-term and long-term strategic and operational objectives and compensate executives for improvement in shareholder value, all of which are essential to our ongoing success.

How equity-based compensation is determined. Annually, the Compensation Committee evaluates the appropriate form and mix of equity-based compensation that SBA will grant as part of its long-term incentive compensation and approves the dollar value of long-term equity awards that will be granted to each NEO. In addition, the Compensation Committee approves the final list of equity award recipients.

Initially, the Compensation Committee reviews the various forms of equity that may be awarded, including stock options, restricted stock and other forms of equity-based compensation and receives reports from its compensation consultant with alternatives and recommendations. Since 2010, we have provided long-term incentive awards as follows: 1/3^rd in the form of restricted stock units and 2/3^rds in the form of stock options. Both the restricted stock unit awards and the stock options vest over four years. The Compensation Committee believes, and conversations with our largest shareholders reinforce, that stock options provide strong alignment with shareholder interests as options have no value unless our stock price increases, which benefits shareholders. The Compensation Committee believes that restricted stock units are also an important component of long-term incentive as they (1) facilitate our stock ownership program, (2) improve retention, (3) materially reduce projected future share usage in our equity compensation plans and (4) mitigate structural risk associated with using purely stock options as equity compensation. The Compensation Committee chose restricted stock units, rather than restricted stock, as it believed that NEOs should not receive voting rights or dividend rights until, and that the shares should be counted as outstanding only once, the award had vested. While the Compensation Committee believes that restricted stock unit awards are “at-risk,” they do not view them as performance-based. Consequently, to continue to ensure that a significant portion of

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  39

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

compensation continues to be performance-based, the Compensation Committee decided once again to limit restricted stock units to 1/3^rd of the total value of the 2017 long-term equity incentive grant. Conversations with our largest shareholders indicate that our shareholders understand and support our current structure and use of equity as part of the executive compensation program.

The Compensation Committee then approves a target dollar value of the long-term incentive grants (“LTI Value”) for each NEO based on a review of the Peer Group analysis and an evaluation of the individual NEO’s responsibilities, contributions and performance in the prior year. Once a target LTI Value is approved, the Compensation Committee then determines (1) a target number of restricted stock units based on dividing one-third of the LTI Value by a derived price equal to the average closing price of our common stock in the two calendar months of January and February (the “derived price”) and (2) a target number of stock options by dividing two thirds of the LTI Value by the estimated compensation expense of an option under FASB ASC Topic 718 (successor to SFAS 123(R)) assuming a stock price equal to the derived price. However, the actual exercise price of a stock option is the closing price of the common stock on the date of grant, which determines the actual compensation expense under GAAP and the amount reflected in the Summary Compensation Table. The Compensation Committee believes that utilizing the two-month measurement period of January 1 through the end of February is appropriate because a two month reference period mitigates the potential short-term volatility of SBA’s stock price.

2017 Long-Term Incentive Awards. In February 2017, upon an evaluation of the 2017 Peer Group compensation data, the Compensation Committee approved slight increases to the LTI Value granted to certain of our NEOs based on market comparables. Specifically, the Compensation Committee approved the following restricted stock unit and stock option awards for our NEOs:

The stock options were granted on March 6, 2017 with an exercise price of $115.17. The actual grant date value of the restricted stock units and stock options granted to our NEOs is set forth under “Stock Awards” and “Option Awards” on the “Summary Compensation Table” later in this proxy statement.

Other Benefits

We do not provide pension, supplemental retirement benefits or material perquisites to our executives as they are not tied to performance. Consequently, “All Other Compensation” constitutes less than 0.5% of the total compensation paid during 2017 to our CEO and the average of our other NEOs’ compensation.

Our NEOs are eligible to participate in our active employee flexible benefits plans, which are generally available to all full-time employees. Under these plans, all employees are entitled to medical, vision, dental, life insurance and long-term disability coverage. All full-time employees are also entitled to

40  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

vacation, sick leave and other paid holidays. SBA also provides all full-time employees, including our NEOs, with a 75% match on their 401(k) contributions up to $4,000. In addition to the benefits provided to all full-time employees, SBA’s officers, including our NEOs, are provided supplemental medical reimbursement insurance. Supplemental medical reimbursement insurance reimburses the officer for co-pays, out-of-pocket expenses and most uncovered expenses. The Compensation Committee believes that SBA’s commitment to provide these employee benefits recognizes that the health and well-being of SBA’s NEOs contributes directly to a productive and successful work life that enhances results for SBA and its shareholders.

Severance and Change in Control Benefits

We currently have employment agreements with each of Messrs. Stoops, Cavanagh, Bagwell and Hunt that provide for certain severance payments and benefits if the executive’s employment terminates under certain circumstances, including as a result of, or following, a change in control. These severance and change in control severance benefits, as well as a summary of potential payments relating to these and other termination events, can be found under the heading “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control” on page 49.

Other Compensation Practices

Equity Grant Practices. It is the Compensation Committee’s practice to insure that equity awards are not impacted by the release of material non-public information. Traditionally, the Compensation Committee has granted employee and executive officer equity awards subsequent to the release of SBA’s annual financial and operational results. Commencing in 2009, the Compensation Committee adopted an equity grant policy which provides that annual employee grants will be made on the fourth business day in March, absent any material non-public information, in part to assure the prior public dissemination of our annual report on Form 10-K. The exercise price of a stock option will continue to be equal to the closing price of our common stock on the date of the grant.

Officer and Director Stock Ownership Guidelines. Our Stock Ownership Guidelines establish minimum equity ownership requirements for our CEO, our Executive Vice Presidents, each of our other officers and each member of our Board. The purposes of the Guidelines are to align the interests of those officers and directors with the interests of shareholders and further promote our commitment to sound corporate governance. The minimum required ownership is determined (i) with respect to each officer, as a multiple of the officer’s annual base salary as of the date of calculation and (ii) with respect to each director, as a multiple of the director’s annual retainer as of the date of calculation and, in each instance, then converted to a fixed number of shares. The minimum ownerships levels are as follows:

The Guidelines provide that (1) outstanding shares directly owned, (2) outstanding shares indirectly owned (but only to the extent that the officer or director has an economic interest in, or a voting right over, such shares) and (3) shares held in savings, retirement or deferred compensation plans may be

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  41

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  >  COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND DECISIONS

included in determining whether an officer or a director has met the minimum ownership requirement. Until such time as an officer or director has met his or her minimum required ownership, he or she must retain 100% of all shares, net of taxes, received from the settlement of restricted stock unit awards granted under our incentive plans. Shares that are used in determining if an officer or a director has met the minimum ownership requirements may not be pledged.

Prohibition on Hedging. Officers and directors are not permitted to enter into hedging arrangements with respect to shares of SBA Class A Common Stock that they beneficially own.

Tax Deductibility of Compensation

Code Section 162(m). Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), imposes a $1 million limit on the amount that a public company may deduct for compensation paid to covered employees. However, prior to the adoption of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“Tax Act”), performance-based compensation, as defined in the tax law, was fully deductible if the programs were approved by shareholders and met other requirements. We believe that tax deductibility is only one factor to take into consideration in connection with executive compensation decisions. Consequently, during 2017 we made payments, such as restricted stock units or other payments under the annual incentive plan, that were not fully deductible when, in our judgment, such payments are necessary to achieve our compensation objectives and to protect shareholder interests. In December 2017, the U.S. tax code was amended by the Tax Act, restricting the availability of tax deductibility for executive compensation paid to our NEOs. The Committee is continuing to assess the impact of the Tax Act on our compensation programs.

Code Section 409A. Under Section 409A of the Code, amounts deferred by an NEO under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan (including certain severance plans) may be included in gross income when earned and subject to a 20% additional federal tax, unless the plan complies with certain requirements related to the timing of deferral election and distribution decisions. We administer our plans consistent with Section 409A requirements and have amended plan documents to reflect Section 409A requirements.

Code Sections 280G and 4999. Sections 280G and 4999 of the Code limit a public company’s ability to take a tax deduction for certain “excess parachute payments” (as defined in Sections 280G and 4999) and impose excise taxes on each executive that receives “excess parachute payments” in connection with his or her severance from a public company in connection with a change in control. The Compensation Committee considers, as one of many factors, the adverse tax liabilities imposed by Sections 280G and 4999, as well as other competitive factors, when it structures certain post-termination compensation payable to our NEOs. The potential adverse tax consequences to our company and/or the executive, however, are not necessarily determinative factors in such decisions.

Non-GAAP Reconciliation

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis includes the following non-GAAP financial measures: Annualized Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA Margin, AFFO per share, Tower Cash Flow, Tower Cash Flow Margin and Return on Invested Capital. Please see Appendix A of this proxy statement for a reconciliation of such measures.

42  SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the disclosure set forth above under the heading “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” with management and, based on such review and discussions, it has recommended to the Board that the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” be included in this proxy statement.

Respectfully submitted by the Compensation Committee of the Board,

The Compensation Committee

Jack Langer

Brian C. Carr

Duncan H. Cocroft

George R. Krouse, Jr.

March 20, 2018

SBA Communications Corporation  |  2018 Proxy Statement  43

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Summary Compensation Table

The following table presents certain summary information for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 concerning compensation earned for services rendered in all capacities by our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer and our other three most highly compensated executive officers, in each instance whose total compensation exceeded $100,000 during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. We refer to these officers collectively as our named executive officers.