http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathangoldman/2026/02/10/sam-darnold-won-the-super-bowl---but-lost-money-due-to-the-jock-tax/

By Nathan Goldman, Contributor
(Nathan Goldman is a tax prof. at NC State Univ.)
Forbes
Feb. 10, 2026

Sam Darnold may have led the Seattle Seahawks to a Super Bowl title, but his victory came at a loss — in terms of after-tax income. Due to the intersection of the low payments to Super Bowl players, the high state income tax rate in California and the "jock tax," high-paid players like Darnold are leaving California with a higher tax bill than their gameday paycheck. Playing Super Bowls in California could leave some players with less after-tax income than if the game had been played in a lower-tax state. Put differently, under certain duty-day assumptions, the California tax triggered by a Super Bowl appearance could exceed the $178,000 bonus itself.

Super Bowl Payouts

The NFL playoffs are incremental games that are not implicitly part of players’ contracts. While some players have varying bonuses built into their contracts for making it further in the season, the NFL compensates each player directly based on how far they go in the playoffs. For instance, according to Heavy, wild-card games feature a payment for each player on every team participating at a flat rate of $53,500. This payment goes up to $58,500 for the divisional round and $81,000 for the conference championship games.

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.

While earning $178,000 — nearly $3,000 per minute of gameplay — may seem like a good deal, it is a significant drop-off in compensation for most players. For instance, Darnold signed a three-year, $100,500,000 contract this offseason. This contract means that the quarterback receives an average of $33,500,000 per season, or $1,970,588 for each of the 17 games on the Seahawks’ schedule. His $178,000 paycheck from winning the Super Bowl is relatively small compared to his normal gameday paycheck.

How The Jock Tax Impacts Super Bowl Compensation

The Jock Tax impacts players’ after-tax compensation substantially based on which team the player plays for. The reason for this is that some teams play significantly more games in low- or no-income-tax-rate jurisdictions.

To compute a player’s Jock Tax, the player must determine the total number of duty days — the number of days spent playing, practicing and training. From there, the player must calculate the percentage of duty days in each jurisdiction and apportion their salary and bonus income to those jurisdictions.

Players who play for a team in the AFC South play more of their games in low- or no-income-tax-rate jurisdictions (Florida, Texas, Tennessee and Indiana). Meanwhile, players who play for teams like the Los Angeles Rams and San Francisco 49ers not only play their home games in California, which has a top state income tax rate of 13.3%, but they also have additional duty days in the state, increasing their players’ jock tax owed.

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.

Some assumptions are difficult to validate without knowing the precise number of duty days players record and exactly how many days players record as duty days for the Super Bowl. However, assuming that Darnold has 180 duty days each year, these eight Super Bowl days represent 4.44% of his year, and California will apportion approximately $1.5 million of his compensation, levying a 13.3% state income tax on this compensation.

The net impact from even the most basic calculations suggests that Darnold will be in a worse financial position for playing in Super Bowl LX than if his team did not make it. For instance, ignoring any bonuses earned and federal tax deductions, this simplified and illustrative model suggests that Darnold will owe an incremental $197,771 in California state income taxes despite only being paid $178,000.

How The NFL Can Address Tax Issues Surrounding Super Bowl Compensation

The notion that state income taxes can influence athletes’ take-home income for championship events is not a new phenomenon. The 2025 U.S. Open winner, J.J. Spaun, effectively lucked out by winning in the major golf championship in 2025 (Oakmont Country Club) rather than in 2026 (Shinnecock Hill Golf Club) because the state income tax rate on the $4.3 million prize is 3.07% at the 2025 venue and over 9% at the 2026 venue. However, unlike Darnold, Spaun earned significantly higher pay for his 2025 U.S. Open victory, and golf earnings are taxed based on how much was directly won in each jurisdiction (rather than an apportionment of the season-long salary).

There are two simple solutions to this tax conundrum. First, for sports leagues like the PGA and NFL that play their championships in different locations annually, they can choose to play fewer (or none) of these championships in high-tax-rate jurisdictions. This solution appears to be unlikely since it would eliminate many important markets.

Second, the leagues can introduce variable pay to help offset some of the tax burdens. For instance, NFL players playing in a Super Bowl in California can earn more for Super Bowls located in this high-tax jurisdiction than players playing in a Super Bowl in a low-tax-rate jurisdiction.

For instance, in 2025, the Super Bowl was played in New Orleans. Louisiana levies income tax at a 3% rate. While the Super Bowl compensation did increase from $170,000 to $178,000 for the winning team from 2025 to 2026, the additional compensation does not make up for the incremental tax burden these players face. Furthermore, players of the losing team receive a much smaller income despite the additional tax burdens being faced when playing in a Super Bowl in California, further penalizing these athletes’ after-tax income. With the 2027 Super Bowl slated to take place at Sofi Stadium in Inglewood, California, the NFL needs to carefully consider increasing players’ compensation to ensure that they are being made whole for their tax burdens.

The NFL is potentially among the most affected leagues by these jock tax nuances. However, college sports are now entering the fold. Following the House v. NCAA ruling, college athletes can now be compensated based on revenue sharing from their schools. This type of compensation, which differs from NIL compensation, is now expected to be subject to the jock tax. Like the NFL, the NCAA plays its championships in neutral-site locations, meaning that those athletes advancing to later rounds in their respective championship tournaments are likely to be differentially impacted by the location of these championship games.

All else equal, no player would pass on playing for a Super Bowl championship due to the potential tax consequences. However, the intersection of players’ large salaries, the jock tax and a Super Bowl being located in a high-tax-rate jurisdiction like California can leave some players with less after-tax income than if the championship had been played in a lower-tax state.

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence