Boomer Esiason has sparked a heated discussion by suggesting that California should be banned from hosting the Super Bowl in the future. This statement comes on the heels of Seattle Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold's experience, where he reportedly ended up losing money after participating in the big game held in California.
Despite being a Super Bowl champion, Darnold faced a significant financial setback due to California's infamous "jock tax" and its high state income tax rates. The issue arises because the compensation for players in the Super Bowl is relatively modest when compared to their regular season salaries, causing some athletes to find themselves with larger tax bills than their game checks. The "jock tax" specifically targets non-resident athletes and entertainers, taxing them based on the days they work within the state. Given that the Super Bowl requires players to spend more time in California than a typical game, the tax burden can be substantial.
For instance, Darnold earned $178,000 from his Super Bowl victory. However, according to Esiason, after accounting for the duration of his stay in California—which included additional days playing against teams like the San Francisco 49ers and the LA Rams—Darnold's tax bill surged to a staggering $249,000. This led to a net loss of $71,000 despite his monumental win.
In Esiason's view, if he were part of the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), he would advocate for a ban on future Super Bowls in California. He argued that Darnold likely accumulated even more duty days than just those spent during the Super Bowl itself, potentially raising the total number of days he was taxed in the state to nine or ten or even more. He expressed frustration, saying, "If I’m the NFLPA, I’m saying, ‘we’re never going back to California.’ This is ridiculous!"
Yet, it’s noteworthy that, despite this outcry, the Super Bowl is indeed set to return to California next season, with Super Bowl LXI scheduled to take place in Los Angeles. While many may feel little sympathy for highly-paid athletes facing taxes, it’s still surprising to realize that Darnold will have to contend with such a hefty tax bill for participating in one of the biggest events in sports.
However, California isn’t the only state imposing such taxes; many states and even specific cities apply a jock tax to non-resident professional athletes, though California’s rate is among the highest. Thus, if the NFLPA is serious about prohibiting California from hosting future Super Bowls, they might need to consider a wide range of other locations that impose similar taxes. Notably, there could be widespread support for Miami becoming the default permanent location for the Super Bowl among players and fans alike.
What do you think? Should the NFLPA take a stand against states with high taxes on athletes? Or does the financial success of these players make it less of an issue? Feel free to share your thoughts!
