Started By
Message
Jock tax
Posted on 2/10/26 at 6:43 pm
Posted on 2/10/26 at 6:43 pm
The bonus for winning the SB is 178K. Take home, not so much.
Why would the NFL host a game in CA? They aren't bright.
Drew Lock, as a member of the winning Seattle Seahawks roster in Super Bowl LX (2026), receives the standard NFL $178,000 player bonus (Super Bowl share) from the league's collective bargaining agreement. This is paid out pretax to all eligible players on the championship team.After taxes, the take-home amount varies based on individual circumstances like total income, filing status, deductions, residency, and—crucially—the "jock tax" triggered by the game being played in Santa Clara, California (a high-tax state with a top marginal rate around 13.3% plus additional factors).
Recent reports on Super Bowl LX (held in California) indicate that for typical winning players, the net after federal, state (including jock tax), and other deductions is approximately $86,000. This figure comes from economic analyses and expert estimates accounting for:Federal income tax (top marginal rate of 37% for 2026 on high earners, though the bonus itself is added to overall income).
California jock tax (prorated based on "duty days" in the state, often 8+ days for Super Bowl week, which can add significant state liability even for non-residents).
Other withholdings (e.g., Medicare, Social Security if applicable, agent fees in some cases).
This ~$86,000 net is a common ballpark cited for winners in this scenario—down from the gross $178,000 due to the combined tax hit. For context:Some high-earning players (like starter Sam Darnold) faced even steeper effective losses from jock tax on prorated contract income, sometimes exceeding the bonus itself.
Lower-earning or backup players like Lock (with a more modest contract) likely land closer to or around that $86,000 average, as their overall income might not push them into the absolute highest brackets on every dollar.
Why would the NFL host a game in CA? They aren't bright.
Drew Lock, as a member of the winning Seattle Seahawks roster in Super Bowl LX (2026), receives the standard NFL $178,000 player bonus (Super Bowl share) from the league's collective bargaining agreement. This is paid out pretax to all eligible players on the championship team.After taxes, the take-home amount varies based on individual circumstances like total income, filing status, deductions, residency, and—crucially—the "jock tax" triggered by the game being played in Santa Clara, California (a high-tax state with a top marginal rate around 13.3% plus additional factors).
Recent reports on Super Bowl LX (held in California) indicate that for typical winning players, the net after federal, state (including jock tax), and other deductions is approximately $86,000. This figure comes from economic analyses and expert estimates accounting for:Federal income tax (top marginal rate of 37% for 2026 on high earners, though the bonus itself is added to overall income).
California jock tax (prorated based on "duty days" in the state, often 8+ days for Super Bowl week, which can add significant state liability even for non-residents).
Other withholdings (e.g., Medicare, Social Security if applicable, agent fees in some cases).
This ~$86,000 net is a common ballpark cited for winners in this scenario—down from the gross $178,000 due to the combined tax hit. For context:Some high-earning players (like starter Sam Darnold) faced even steeper effective losses from jock tax on prorated contract income, sometimes exceeding the bonus itself.
Lower-earning or backup players like Lock (with a more modest contract) likely land closer to or around that $86,000 average, as their overall income might not push them into the absolute highest brackets on every dollar.
This post was edited on 2/10/26 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 2/10/26 at 6:46 pm to Ridgewalker
Makes you wonder why teams dont just prepare in lets say Arizona and avoid the circus until the day of.
That would put some heat on Newsome
That would put some heat on Newsome
Posted on 2/10/26 at 7:03 pm to Ridgewalker
I’ve always wondered how the NFLPA and other pro unions don’t argue the salary caps for teams that are located in CA or NY or other high tax states and cities needs to be higher.
The players in TX or TN get more of their money.
The players in CA get penalized.
So in essence the salary cap is NOT EQUAL amongst the teams.
$100m contract in CA is not close to the same value as one in TX
The players in TX or TN get more of their money.
The players in CA get penalized.
So in essence the salary cap is NOT EQUAL amongst the teams.
$100m contract in CA is not close to the same value as one in TX
This post was edited on 2/10/26 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 2/10/26 at 8:50 pm to Covingtontiger77
Because union leadership leans left. They are not going to criticize leftist policies, no matter how bad they are.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:10 pm to Covingtontiger77
There’s pros and cons to different locations in the NFL and the players know this
Don’t like cold and want to play in a big city? Too bad, you’re going to Cleveland
Want to live somewhere cheap and shoot a bunch of expensive guns going hunting? Nope, San Francisco just drafted you
Don’t like cold and want to play in a big city? Too bad, you’re going to Cleveland
Want to live somewhere cheap and shoot a bunch of expensive guns going hunting? Nope, San Francisco just drafted you
This post was edited on 2/10/26 at 9:11 pm
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:27 pm to MizzouTrue
quote:
Don’t like cold and want to play in a big city? Too bad, you’re going to Cleveland
Want to live somewhere cheap and shoot a bunch of expensive guns going hunting? Nope, San Francisco just drafted you
The NHL laughs at you.
Popular
Back to top
2







