top of page
joshua-1.jpg

OPINION: California’s “Jock Tax” Turned Sam Darnold’s Super Bowl Dream Into a Financial Loss — And That Should Concern All of Us

  • Writer: Richard Sykes
    Richard Sykes
  • 4 hours ago
  • 4 min read

CALIFORNIA — Sam Darnold finally reached the mountaintop. He led the Seattle Seahawks to a Super Bowl victory, lifted the Lombardi Trophy under the California lights, and cemented a redemption arc that fans across the league could appreciate. But when the confetti settled and the accountants stepped in, the Golden State delivered a gut‑punch reminder: in California, even champions can lose.


California Governor Gavin Newsome taxing Sam Darnold after his Super Bowl victory.
California Governor Gavin Newsome taxing Sam Darnold after his Super Bowl victory.

According to analyses from Sportico and Forbes, Darnold earned a $178,000 winner’s bonus for the Seahawks’ Super Bowl LX victory — but owes California an estimated $249,000 in state income taxes for the privilege of playing (and preparing) in Santa Clara. That’s a net loss of roughly $71,000, a surreal outcome for the quarterback who just delivered the biggest win of his career. 1

And this isn’t some obscure loophole. It’s the predictable result of California’s notorious “jock tax,” a system that allows the state to tax non‑resident athletes based on the number of “duty days” they spend working within its borders — including practices, media sessions, travel days, and game day itself. Darnold and the Seahawks spent at least eight such days in California leading up to the Super Bowl, giving the state the legal foothold to claim a slice of his annual income far larger than the bonus he earned. 2

A Championship That Costs More Than It Pays

Let’s be clear: Darnold isn’t going broke. He’s on a three‑year, $105 million contract. But that’s not the point. The point is that a player can win the biggest game in American sports and still walk away financially worse off simply because of where the NFL decided to host the event.

This isn’t about fairness. It’s about opportunism.

Boomer Esiason, never one to mince words, blasted the situation publicly, arguing that the NFLPA should refuse to play future Super Bowls in California because the tax burden is so disproportionate. He calculated that even if Darnold had lost the game, he still would have owed over $235,000 — meaning he would have been punished financially either way. 3

That’s not a tax system. That’s a deterrent.

California’s Message to Athletes: Your Success Is Our Revenue Stream

California’s top marginal income tax rate — roughly 14.6% when factoring in disability insurance — is the highest in the nation. Combine that with the duty‑day formula, and the state effectively treats a visiting athlete’s entire season as partially taxable simply because they spent a week preparing for the Super Bowl within its borders. 3

This isn’t about fairness. It’s about opportunism.

The jock tax was originally conceived as a way to ensure high‑earning athletes paid their “fair share” when working in a state. But California has turned it into a revenue‑maximizing machine, one that disproportionately targets non‑residents who have no political voice in the state and no ability to vote on the policies that affect them.

If a regular worker traveled to California for a week‑long conference and the state tried to tax a percentage of their entire annual salary, people would call it absurd. But when it happens to athletes, it’s treated as business as usual.

The NFL Should Rethink Where It Stages Its Biggest Game

The NFL is a business. And businesses respond to incentives.

If California’s tax structure means that the league’s highest‑profile event actively penalizes the very players who make it possible, then the league has a responsibility to reconsider its venue strategy. Esiason’s argument — that the NFLPA should refuse to play future Super Bowls in California — isn’t just bluster. It’s a rational response to a system that punishes excellence. 4

Super Bowl LXI is already scheduled for Los Angeles. If the league and the players’ union don’t address this issue, we’ll be having this same conversation next year — and the year after that.

This Isn’t Just About Athletes — It’s About Policy Priorities

California’s defenders will argue that the state is simply enforcing its tax laws. But laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They reflect priorities. And when a state chooses to squeeze temporary workers — even wealthy ones — for more than they earned in bonuses, it signals a deeper problem.

If the state is willing to do this to high‑profile athletes with national platforms, imagine how aggressively it taxes people without fame, leverage, or representation.

The jock tax is a symptom of a broader issue: a state government increasingly dependent on extracting revenue from anyone who steps foot within its borders, regardless of fairness or proportionality.

A Win That Should Have Been Celebrated — Not Taxed into Absurdity

Sam Darnold will be fine. He’ll cash his checks, enjoy his ring, and continue his career. But the principle matters.

A Super Bowl victory should be a moment of triumph, not a case study in how a state’s tax code can turn success into a liability. California didn’t just tax Darnold’s bonus — it taxed the spirit of the game.

And if the NFL doesn’t push back, it won’t be the last time a champion walks off the field owing more than he earned.




References (4)

1 Why Sam Darnold Reportedly Will Pay More Money In Taxes Than He Earned for Super Bowl Win. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/25396313-why-sam-darnold-reportedly-will-pay-more-money-taxes-he-earned-super-bowl-win

3 Sam Darnold Has to Pay Hefty California Tax After Seahawks’ Super Bowl Win. https://athlonsports.com/nfl/sam-darnold-has-to-pay-hefty-california-tax-after-seahawks-super-bowl-win

 

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page