There May be no Future Superbowls in Ca After Next Year

After Darnold and the rest of the team get their tax bill the NFL Players Assoc may not want any more Super Bowls in Ca.

From Forbes

The players’ payments increase substantially and vary by outcome for the Super Bowl. Each player on the winning team gets paid $178,000, whereas the players on the losing team receive $103,000.

The Jock Tax impacts players’ after-tax compensation substantially based on which team the player plays for.

The intersection of the jock tax, high season-long compensation for some players and the Super Bowl being played in California has created a perfect storm for some players to leave Super Bowl LX with a larger tax bill than their gameday check.

The reason for this tax enigma is simple, as outlined by AthlonSports: Darnold accrued eight incremental duty days by playing in the Super Bowl. While the $178,000 in additional compensation gets added to his total 2025 season take-home pay, his total contract, which is over $33 million dollars annually on average, will now face an incremental apportionment to the state of California.

Darnold will owe an incremental $197,771 in California state income taxes despite only being paid $178,000.

That's how it has been done for years. Most states (blue&red) tax you if you earn income in their state even if you aren't resident of their state.

But is it getting worse.  Players shouldn't have to owe all their check plus more money

If that is the case, play the game somewhere else.

There woulden't be many places left for them to play.

As of January 1, 2026, 22 states have no meaningful nonresident filing threshold, requiring most nonresidents to file an individual income tax return if they spend even a single day working in the state. Meanwhile, 19 states have filing thresholds that relieve nonresidents from filing when they perform limited work in the state. Of these, eight states’ thresholds are based on the number of days worked in the state, ranging from 20 days (with a mutuality requirement, explained later) in North Dakota to 30 days (with no mutuality requirement) in Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, and Montana.

Nine states’ thresholds are based on the amount of income earned in the state, ranging from $100 in Vermont to $15,300 in Minnesota. Two states, Connecticut and Maine, require nonresidents to file only if they spend a certain number of days working in the state and earn a certain amount of income in the state. Finally, nine states do not levy an individual income tax on wage or salary income at all, while federal law prohibits the District of Columbia from applying its individual income tax to nonresidents.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/nonresident-income-tax-filing/

Regardless of any taxation policy the NFL will never give up playing in California as the TV market is too large to ignore and two of the newest stadiums in the NFL are there. 

What if the players union says no?  Tax rates shouldn't be 100%+ of what one makes.

They can rotate in Az, Vegas, Florida and New Orleans

It is not.  The tax is also based on a portion of his $ 33 million-a-year salary, not just on what he made in the Super Bowl. 

But if the game was played in Az he would have been able to keep more of his money.  By playing in Ca he lost money.

Would you go to work in Ca for 10 days if you were told your tax rate for those 10 days would be over 100%? 

I don't think many of the players care about how much the Super Bowl pays.

Let's explode this latest Tom-stupid bleat. If Darnold earns $1 million in California, his earnings in his home state will be $1 million less. So he will pay the maximum rate in CA tax on that $1 million, but he'll be paying (the maximum rate) x ($1 million) LESS in home-state income taxes. So the true cost to him is the difference between those two numbers.

If his home state doesn't have an income tax, he would lose out, paying the CA tax on that $1 million, but he could still take the $40K SALT deduction.

The only reason why he might care where the Super Bowl is held is if it was held in a no income tax state. And even then...the highest state tax rate is CA at 14%. He visits for eight days...about 3% of the year. So he pays extra...14% of 3%, or less than one half of one percent overall. Playing the Super Bowl in a no-income tax state would save him about $165 K. Playing it in a state where the max income tax is, say, 8% would cost him maybe $100K. 

If he files his primary return in a state that taxes income, he can also take a credit for out-of-state income taxes paid against his home state income tax.

You're right, Tom, he should stay home and watch the game.