My post was removed, I guess because it referred to a state with high tax rates that cost Sam Darnell $71,000 to play in the Super Bowl. Can you imagine getting a $178,000 bonus for playing in the game and having to pay $249,000 in taxes. So it cost him his bonus plus $71,000.
I didn’t remove your post, however it was clearly political and that is why it was removed. Also, I can tell you that it is total b.s.
I am a tax professional, I have worked with athletes in the NFL & MLB. First, he wasn’t taxed $249,000 on his $178,000 bonus - that doesn’t happen. He would be taxed on his income for each state & some cities he plays in. His income for that state, assuming he is a non-resident, would be a proportion of his salary and bonuses that he earned while playing in that state. So, if he did pay $249,000 of income tax in a particular state, it wasn’t on $178,000 of income. If you want to discuss it further, send me a dm.
7 Likes
Because they “worked” in California for 7 days, California lumped his bonus in with his total income for the year and taxed him based on that. However you slice it, his bonus was $178,000 and California taxed him $249,000 meaning it cost him net $71,000 to play in the Super bowl.
1 Like
You earn income where you perform services. He performed services for 1 week in CA. So 1 week of his earnings will be taxed there. That’s generally true everywhere that has a state income tax and not a CA specific concept.
3 Likes
Incorrect still. He was paid more than just his bonus while he was in California for the Superbowl. His California income was not $178,000. A portion of his salary is allocated to California where it was earned.
And I don’t know why you say “worked”, because it is professional sports so it is work and yes he worked in California.
Also, there’s nowhere in the USA that has anything near a 140% income tax rate.
2 Likes
Saw a clip yesterday from a PGA player talking about how he was taxed on income he received from his sponsors during the British Open. He had to send in his yearly income earned from each sponsor that was visible on his apparel and his bag during the tournament so they could determine how much he made that week and hit him with a number that he owed them. He wasn’t too thrilled about it.
One more thing. If his tax in California was $249,000 and his only California income was from the NFL then he likely earned somewhere around $1.66Million that was allocated to California - assuming a nongraduated rate of 15% (thats a bit more than the highest bracket rate). California also does give nonresidents a tax credit for taxes paid in their home state under some limitations. That’s just a back of the envelope calculation.
Now more specifically…
According to google, Sam Darnold’s total earnings from the NFL (not including royalties, licensing & the like) was $41 million. $5.3 Million base, $32 million signing bonus, $4million performance bonuses.
So, assuming it was a 23 week season and 7 days a week that could potentially be 161 “duty days” for the season. If he worked in California for 7 days, then 4.3% of his income from the NFL would be considered California income. Which against $41 Million comes up with $1.763 Million in California income. Of course this is a rough calculation and I’m not sure if thats the correct number of duty days.
2 Likes
That’s interesting, I can see that argument though. If you’re paid to endorse something and it is an advertisement you’re wearing then wherever you’re wearing it is where you would be earning that income. I’m sure that’s extra work for the CPA to determine that.
Whereas an NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. athlete generally wouldn’t have that issue since they aren’t paid directly for the endorsements on their uniforms as it goes to the league. Then for most athletes, their endorsements would just be assigned to income in their resident state.
People will believe the wildest stories if they involve California in any way. 
7 Likes
True and I know California and New York are very aggressive for taxes but that claim shouldn’t pass the smell test.
1 Like
Wait a minute here… I just realized another reason this story is bull.
You’re saying that he was taxed $249,000 on his $178,000 Super Bowl bonus. The thing is, he played in the Super Bowl in 2026 so that bonus was paid in 2026. The team does withhold taxes for his portion of the income and it might be that $249,000 was withheld from his apportioned income for that game (salary + bonus). However, that doesn’t mean that next year when he actually does his tax return for 2026 that his exact tax for it will be $249,000. It could end up being less (with the credit I mentioned previously or other factors) but likely will be more because he will play some more games in California in 2026.
Now, looking at the Seahawks schedules. Assuming he played in every game, during 2025 they had two away games in California. Which likely used duty days of 2 or 3 days for each game but you could say 7 total duty days in California for arguments sake.
For 2026, the Super Bowl - 7 duty days, then he has two more scheduled California games so. his duty days would be around 13 - assuming there aren’t playoff games in 2026 played in California.
So that would change the apportionment figures as well. Plus his income would go up for playoffs too.
In otherwords, it isn’t as simple as you’re trying to make it. Should it be simpler? Sure.
Darn, I got myself in the weeds on this one.
3 Likes
They should really teach the basics of tax in high school.
1 Like
I don’t disagree.
I’ll say it over and over again. Old people need to stay off social media.
5 Likes
I wonder if NIL will impact Big10 players who travel to Cali for a game?
It will likely depend on the NIL contract. I’d guess it’s very much a facts and circumstances issue that’s being audited and litigated as we speak.
You better believe the states are going to try to get a piece of it.
Yea, I’m not clear on that exactly for the NIL portion. I would assume the revenue sharing though would affect the players based on any state they play in. If I get a wild hair I may research it further.
There’s no shortage of young people that should do the same.
5 Likes
Taxes and death…
Jock tax treatment can vary by state. Many use a duty days calculation against total earned income for playing the sport (salary, bonuses, etc…). Endorsements are not included.
Regarding NIL & revenue sharing, I think only two income taxing states currently exempt these payments from tax. Not 100% sure, but NIL from a company to pitch a product (endorsement) or be part of a product (ex. video games) would be exempt from multi-state jock tax and only be subject to home/resident state; NIL from a collective as well as revenue sharing from a university is not exempt from multi-state jock tax.
That would make sense to me but I hadn’t looked into it as I haven’t had a need to.