2025 NFL Thread

[betarhoalphadelta]

Don't know if it's legit, but the explanation of how much he paid, and why, made no sense to me.  Neither Boomer nor the article articulated that very well. 

Here's a better explainer. 

https://www.foxla.com/news/super-bowl-lx-players-lose-thousands-californias-jock-tax-athlete-income

Exactly how they came up with the $249,000 number, I don't know. But the basics are that he's likely going to be paying a lot. 

[utee94]

Here's a better explainer.

https://www.foxla.com/news/super-bowl-lx-players-lose-thousands-californias-jock-tax-athlete-income

Exactly how they came up with the $249,000 number, I don't know. But the basics are that he's likely going to be paying a lot.

So it sounds like the tax base percentage is being applied to money earned outside of the state of California which seems pretty crazy to me.

[betarhoalphadelta]

So it sounds like the tax base percentage is being applied to money earned outside of the state of California which seems pretty crazy to me.

Not really... 

Let's say you're in the NFL. We'll say that counting mini camps / OTAs, training camps, meetings / practices / games during the season, required media days, etc, that you're officially "working" 150 days/year. Those are "duty days". 

Now assume you're Darnold and your salary is $30M/year, just to make the math easy. That calculates that you're earning $200K/day ($30M/150) because for the purposes of the taxes, only "duty days" count. 

Because the Super Bowl players were in CA for 8 days, and because of the high number of mandatory media and other events in addition to practices / meetings / the game, we'll assume that all 8 days qualify as "duty days". That means the tax base for CA is $200K * 8, or $1.6M. 

They're assuming that money is "earned" in CA. Because duty days are where your salary is earned.

It's NOT just days spent in CA. If you came to CA a day earlier or stayed 2 weeks after the Super Bowl (as perhaps Darnold might do b/c he's probably got family here), those are not duty days and you don't have to pay anything. Because you're not working. 

That's my understanding. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

And of course the "outrage" is that Darnold makes his $30M whether his team goes to the SB or not, so it was a grave "misfortune" that his season was extended 8 more duty days in the state of CA that he has to pay taxes on. 

Boo effing hoo. 

[847badgerfan]

Not good pub for the state though.

[utee94]

Not really...

Let's say you're in the NFL. We'll say that counting mini camps / OTAs, training camps, meetings / practices / games during the season, required media days, etc, that you're officially "working" 150 days/year. Those are "duty days".

Now assume you're Darnold and your salary is $30M/year, just to make the math easy. That calculates that you're earning $200K/day ($30M/150) because for the purposes of the taxes, only "duty days" count.

Because the Super Bowl players were in CA for 8 days, and because of the high number of mandatory media and other events in addition to practices / meetings / the game, we'll assume that all 8 days qualify as "duty days". That means the tax base for CA is $200K * 8, or $1.6M.

They're assuming that money is "earned" in CA. Because duty days are where your salary is earned.

It's NOT just days spent in CA. If you came to CA a day earlier or stayed 2 weeks after the Super Bowl (as perhaps Darnold might do b/c he's probably got family here), those are not duty days and you don't have to pay anything. Because you're not working.

That's my understanding.

Being in California for 8 days had nothing to do with Darnold earning $30M.  He was going to earn that money regardless.  He was going to earn that money if the team went 0-17 and entirely missed the playoffs, much less the Superbowl.  

Being in the state of California for 8 days had nothing to do with it, so why then should the state of California be entitled to any of it? 

I'm not outraged about a player who makes $30M getting taxed in a ridiculous manner-- I'm annoyed about pretty much any tax, but this is one obvious and goofy exmaple of a completely ridiculous tax.

[utee94]

On a side note, if the state of California is taxing him, is the state of California also allowing him to vote in general elections?

No taxation without representation, right?

[SFBadger96]

Speaking from wherever it is that I'm coming from, taxing players for attending playoffs (and other scheduled competitions) in the state seems rather silly. Seems like there should be some kind of reasonable cutoff to avoid freeriding, but I would put that somewhere around 30 days (?). In my job, no state that I'm traveling to taxes me for working while I am there. And California doesn't absolve me of paying taxes for the days I'm working in other states.

AND I agree with BRAD that I'm not feeling all that sorry for these very wealthy people having to pay a small fraction of their earnings in taxes...but in principal, I agree that they shouldn't have to.

[847badgerfan]

I would not be happy if I went anywhere on business and had to pay for it (other than my hotels, meals, transportation, etc.). I'm already putting a lot of money into the economy of the place through sales, hotel - whatever else - taxes and should not have to pay more.

Do any other states do this?

[utee94]

Speaking from wherever it is that I'm coming from, taxing players for attending playoffs (and other scheduled competitions) in the state seems rather silly. Seems like there should be some kind of reasonable cutoff to avoid freeriding, but I would put that somewhere around 30 days (?). In my job, no state that I'm traveling to taxes me for working while I am there. And California doesn't absolve me of paying taxes for the days I'm working in other states.

AND I agree with BRAD that I'm not feeling all that sorry for these very wealthy people having to pay a small fraction of their earnings in taxes...but in principal, I agree that they shouldn't have to.

Call me old fashioned for advocating for equivalent treatment for ALL pepople, even if I don't particularly like their creed, or income bracket.

Regardless, it does seem like a legitimate point for the players' association to contend.  It's reasonable for them to ask either for no rotating competitions to be allowed in any state with such a tax, or for the billionaire owners to foot the bill if/when it happens.  Seems like a very basic negotiation to me.

[betarhoalphadelta]

I would not be happy if I went anywhere on business and had to pay for it (other than my hotels, meals, transportation, etc.). I'm already putting a lot of money into the economy of the place through sales, hotel - whatever else - taxes and should not have to pay more.

Do any other states do this?

From the Fox 11 LA article:

"The players have a really complex tax situation where they can have 10 or more different states that they're having to file taxes for," he said. "This is why a lot of these young players, it's really important for teams to settle them in with sharp financial advisors and tax advisors so that they don't lose their shirts, so to speak."

So, yes... It sounds like some other states do. 

I can say that I've heard about things like this for golfers too... Win money in a PGA Tournament in CA? You pay CA tax on that. Win money in a tournament in Australia? You pay Australia tax on that. (And yes, I know Australia isn't a state.)

I'm not saying it's fair, but it's not unique to CA. 

[847badgerfan]

Which other states? I've done business/worked in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Louisiana as an Illinois resident and never had to pay any taxes.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Being in California for 8 days had nothing to do with Darnold earning $30M.  He was going to earn that money regardless.  He was going to earn that money if the team went 0-17 and entirely missed the playoffs, much less the Superbowl. 

Being in the state of California for 8 days had nothing to do with it, so why then should the state of California be entitled to any of it? 

I'm not outraged about a player who makes $30M getting taxed in a ridiculous manner-- I'm annoyed about pretty much any tax, but this is one obvious and goofy exmaple of a completely ridiculous tax.

It's true that he'd make that money whether they went to the Super Bowl or not. But the Seahawks play at the 49ers and at the Rams once each per year... I'm guessing they're paying this exact same tax for those two games.  

Now, I'm not necessarily saying I'm in favor of such a thing. I would think it much more fair that you only pay taxes in the state in which your team [your direct employer] is domiciled. That's how things work for us working schlubs who travel as part of our jobs. 

On a side note, if the state of California is taxing him, is the state of California also allowing him to vote in general elections?

No taxation without representation, right?

Yeah, and how many states / localities just LOVE to jack up hotel taxes, much of which is likely paid by out-of-staters who don't get a vote. And Nevada makes their revenue mostly off of gamblers staying in hotels in Vegas/Reno/Laughlin. States just LOVE them some tourist tax dollars and they don't let them vote. 

Taxing outsiders who can't vote is a favorite tactic of states and localities... Because they don't have the ability to vote to make the rates lower, and the people who vote to make them higher don't pay them!

Is it fair? Of course not. But it's not unique to CA. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Which other states? I've done business/worked in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Louisiana as an Illinois resident and never had to pay any taxes.

Here's an article about the "jock tax" specifically: https://www.winstoncpagroup.com/post/what-is-the-jock-tax

Here's an article about nonresident income generally: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/nonresident-income-tax-filing-laws/