In short California will take more in taxes from individual players than they made from playing the single game in California.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/breaking-down-californias-insane-super-bowl-tax


Edited for mistake

Correction - In short, the state of California will take in more in taxes than some players made for playing in the Super Bowl.

Because of the state's "Jock Tax", they get to tax the athletes regular season income based on the total number of days they spent in California. Sam Darnold ended up owing the state over $70,000 above the $178,000 he made for playing in the Super Bowl. Screw that.

If I were an NFL player I would be pushing not to have any more Super Bowls in that whacked out state.

California will take more taxes. Not the NFL.

If I was an NFL player I would refuse to play any game in California.

Sorrry for the error. Corrected.

DevilD77 said:

---

If I was an NFL player I would refuse to play any game in California.

---

Then you wouldn't be an NFL player for long!





California continues to show on the regular why its slipping into being a complete failed state! Shameful some place with so much natural beauty has such ugly people in charge!

The NFLPA needs to push to only play the Super Bowl in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee due to the taxes they're hit with.

aTm2004 said:

---

The NFLPA needs to push to only play the Super Bowl in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee due to the taxes they're hit with.

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there. Make that part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

Quote:

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there.

---

California would love that, because that would be taxable income, too.

It's not important enough or will never be an issue for the vast majority of players to make it an issue to fight over

CA, NJ, and NY all go after non-NFL people as well. You work in the state for 1 day, they want their tax money. I got hosed by NY once - they came after me for taxes. BTW, the tax bracket you pay (even if for 1 day) is based on your household annual salary - not the 1 day.

I don't work in NY. Just spend 35-40 nights and days in the office there.

DevilD77 said:

---

If I was an NFL player I would refuse to play any game in California.

---

NFL players should all a clause to the contracts to be paid a "CA bonus" (of course the bonus is taxable) or better yet the "CA bonus" could be sent to conservative charities. In either case the owners would pay up. This would pressure the NFL not to have playoffs or super bowls in CA.

I believe only five states with NFL teams don't have a jock tax.

Would you propose would not put any pressure on the NFL at all. The Super Bowl is in California again next year.


While the California tax system is clearly egregious here (and many other areas) it's simply does not affect enough players to make this anything other than an interesting news story every few years.


The only thing that will make anything change on this is the California government crumbling

And the state is still bankrupt.

MasonB said:

---

Quote:

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there.

---

California would love that, because that would be taxable income, too.

---

Sure but it would get the league on the player's side for fighting this insanity.

LOYAL AG said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

The NFLPA needs to push to only play the Super Bowl in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee due to the taxes they're hit with.

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there. Make that part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

---

You basically agreed with aTm2004.

If the league is on the hook to pay the taxes, the game will be played somewhere else.

So, I like the way you think.

taxes are the reason an injured player -- especially in MLB -- doesn't travel with his team on road trips to certain states

he will get taxed while just sitting in the dugout on the injured list

BusterAg said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

The NFLPA needs to push to only play the Super Bowl in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee due to the taxes they're hit with.

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there. Make that part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

---

You basically agreed with aTm2004.

If the league is on the hook to pay the taxes, the game will be played somewhere else.

So, I like the way you think.

---

Again that would be considered income as well and would simply be taxed back to the player.

A 3rd party cannot pay income taxes for another.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

The NFLPA needs to push to only play the Super Bowl in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee due to the taxes they're hit with.

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there. Make that part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

---

You basically agreed with aTm2004.

If the league is on the hook to pay the taxes, the game will be played somewhere else.

So, I like the way you think.

---

Again that would be considered income as well and would simply be taxed back to the player.

A 3rd party cannot pay income taxes for another.

---

Would you rather pay $78k in taxes, or taxes on $78k in income?

It doesn't matter, because if the NFL has to foot the bill, the SuperBowl will be played in Jerry World, Vegas, or maybe even Gainesville.

wait till the college players find out how much back taxes on nil revenue they owe the states where they played, in addition to the feds take.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

The NFLPA needs to push to only play the Super Bowl in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee due to the taxes they're hit with.

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there. Make that part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

---

You basically agreed with aTm2004.

If the league is on the hook to pay the taxes, the game will be played somewhere else.

So, I like the way you think.

---

Again that would be considered income as well and would simply be taxed back to the player.

A 3rd party cannot pay income taxes for another.

---

Correct, but if the employer has to pay a "tax premium" to its employee they might be inclined to avoid that state in order to not pay the "tax premium".

This isnt a difficult concept to understand even if the wording the other posters used is technically incorrect.

Chetos said:

---

what till the college players find out how much back taxes on nil revenue they owe the states where they played, in addition to the feds take.

---

Unless they are performing the NIL "services" in that state, they aren't going to owe taxes there for NIL money.

It's also not difficult to understand that the NFL deciding to avoid "jock tax" states is as likely as JFF taking over as QB in buffalo this fall

BMX Bandit said:

---

Chetos said:

---

what till the college players find out how much back taxes on nil revenue they owe the states where they played, in addition to the feds take.

---

Unless they are performing the NIL "services" in that state, they aren't going to owe taxes there for NIL money.

---

I wonder if the advertising patches on uniforms being discussed would trigger that for nil?

I definitely would expect the new pay for play payments from the university to trigger state income tax where games are played.

BTKAG97 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

The NFLPA needs to push to only play the Super Bowl in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee due to the taxes they're hit with.

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there. Make that part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

---

You basically agreed with aTm2004.

If the league is on the hook to pay the taxes, the game will be played somewhere else.

So, I like the way you think.

---

Again that would be considered income as well and would simply be taxed back to the player.

A 3rd party cannot pay income taxes for another.

---

Correct, but if the employer has to pay a "tax premium" to its employee they might be inclined to avoid that state in order to not pay the "tax premium".

This isnt a difficult concept to understand even if the wording the other posters used is technically incorrect.

---

Y'all think the League that decided Bad Bunny was a good move is going to make the wise financial decision over politics? The NFL will still go to California, and they will make some kind of deal with the players to compensate.

But THEY won't be paying anything, YOU will as the consumer through ticket prices, merchandise, and licensing fees. Haven't y'all learned how the system works by now? The only way to combat the stupidity is to not watch and don't buy. Don't pay the stupid tax.

Serious question, what happens when you are a Texas resident and ignore California taxes?

Cowboys have summer training camp in Oxnard California.

Dak probably pays taxes based on about 7-10% of his income due to "work" days in California. Only reason they're there is their owner.

Im Gipper said:

---

DevilD77 said:

---

If I was an NFL player I would refuse to play any game in California.

---

Then you wouldn't be an NFL player for long!





California continues to show on the regular why its slipping into being a complete failed state! Shameful some place with so much natural beauty has such ugly people in charge!

---

Mexico has spectacularly gorgeous natural beauty

Look how that place turned out

Im Gipper said:

---

It's not important enough or will never be an issue for the vast majority of players to make it an issue to fight over

---

This. I bet most players really have no idea how much $$$ is coming in and going out. They leave it to an agent and a manager and as long as they see a bunch of zeros on their account balance they good.

BMX Bandit said:

---

It's also not difficult to understand that the NFL deciding to "jock tax" states is as likely as JFF taking over as QB in buffalo this fall

---

How can the NFL "jock tax" a state?

If you mean the NFL is not going to avoid states who have adopted a "jock tax" then you are correct.

My post was to stop an arguement over semantics that could derail the thread.

Newtonag said:

---

Serious question, what happens when you are a Texas resident and ignore California taxes?

---

California will attempt to use garnishment.

Dawnguard said:

---

Cowboys have summer training camp in Oxnard California.

Dak probably pays taxes based on about 7-10% of his income due to "work" days in California. Only reason they're there is their owner.

---

Not sure I've ever seen the proper use of they're/there/their so close together and all in their proper form.

Coastag could never.

LOYAL AG said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

The NFLPA needs to push to only play the Super Bowl in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee due to the taxes they're hit with.

---

Or push for the league to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there. Make that part of the next collective bargaining agreement.

---

That's nothing more than income that Commiefornia will tax.

Im Gipper said:

---

It's not important enough or will never be an issue for the vast majority of players to make it an issue to fight over

---

For those on their 2nd or 3rd contract, you're right. They're paid and set for life...or until they blow it all on cars and child support. But for those late round picks who are making league minimum and fighting for that 2nd contract, it certainly is.