doubledog said:

---

DevilD77 said:

---

If I was an NFL player I would refuse to play any game in California.

---

NFL players should all a clause to the contracts to be paid a "CA bonus" (of course the bonus is taxable) or better yet the "CA bonus" could be sent to conservative charities. In either case the owners would pay up. This would pressure the NFL not to have playoffs or super bowls in CA.

---

I believe Gary Sheffield did this when he signed with the Dodgers. Asked for a $1mm bonus due to COL.

California is very aggressive. I had a pro golfer for a tax client and California came after him on some of his endorsement money he earned. Seems like he got $50,000 for using some driver or something. He paid tax on the winnings in California, but the endorsement money, while reported on the federal return, was not reported on the California return. I can't remember if they did an allocation using his California winnings vs total winnings and applied that to the $50,000 to determine how much of it they said was California income or if f they based the allocation on the number of rounds played in California tournaments vs total rounds played in all tournaments.

I don't remember if it was this person or another person but in one case the endorsement was received prior to ever doing anything in California so the argument was it could not have been attributed to any appearance in that state.

If you pay taxes for work "earned" for temporary work in another state, can you deduct the taxed income off the income taxes you pay in your home state since the other state claims you earned it there?

American Hardwood said:

---

If you pay taxes for work "earned" for temporary work in another state, can you deduct the taxed income off the income taxes you pay in your home state since the other state claims you earned it there?

---

With a business that does work in multiple states you report and pay taxes on income earned in that state. The rules are more complicated that just "we worked in your state" but in a nutshell if you do $10m total and report $1m in California you wouldn't report $10m to Texas but rather $9m. I would assume personal works similarly but I'm not a tax guy.

Thanks. Being a Texas resident and rarely working out of state, I'm glad I don't have to deal with that headache. Just curious.

Maybe the NFL should pay the players $100 for playing the game and $175,000 for an appearance fee in a no-income-tax state.

If that idea pans out, I expect a consulting fee.

I am not surprised that California has a "jock tax," in which they tax non-resident professional athletes based on the number of "duty days" they spend in the statetraveling, practicing, attending meetings, or playing in a game. California faces severe fiscal and structural challenges despite having one of the highest tax burdens in the U.S., including a projected $58 billion budget deficit for the next fiscal year. Unfortunately, the NFL's reliance on California's 70,000+ seat stadiums and vast hotel infrastructure makes a total exit unlikely. The NFLPA needs to push for the NFL to cover the taxes for out of state players when these games are played there in the next collective bargaining agreement.

Touchless said:

---

Dawnguard said:

---

Cowboys have summer training camp in Oxnard California.

Dak probably pays taxes based on about 7-10% of his income due to "work" days in California. Only reason they're there is their owner.

---

Not sure I've ever seen the proper use of they're/there/their so close together and all in their proper form.

Coastag could never.

---

I appreciate the compliment. When they're there their words are most welcome.

Chetos said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Chetos said:

---

what till the college players find out how much back taxes on nil revenue they owe the states where they played, in addition to the feds take.

---

Unless they are performing the NIL "services" in that state, they aren't going to owe taxes there for NIL money.

---

I wonder if the advertising patches on uniforms being discussed would trigger that for nil?

I definitely would expect the new pay for play payments from the university to trigger state income tax where games are played.

---

Are the players directly receiving money form the advertising patches? Or does it go to universities and conferences?

If the players get a piece of advertising dollars, I'd guess they will pay taxes if the games aren't broadcast in California.

If the player is not receiving money directly for the patch on the jersey, then why would they be taxed for it?

Revenue sharing is expressing not pay-for-play**. It's a license to use NIL. I don't know the California tax code cases, but I am guessing there are very good arguments as to why this would create taxable income in California for games played there.



**yes, we all know it's really "pay for play" in practice; but legally they are doing everything to make sure it's not when reviewed by courts.

The left wholeheartedly ruined the most beautiful state in the country.

aTm2004 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

It's not important enough or will never be an issue for the vast majority of players to make it an issue to fight over

---

For those on their 2nd or 3rd contract, you're right. They're paid and set for life...or until they blow it all on cars and child support. But for those late round picks who are making league minimum and fighting for that 2nd contract, it certainly is.

---

Not defending the tax, but CA gonna CA...
This tax hit those big name first timers a lot harder than the third time's guys on league minimum. 3% of total annual salary pro-rated over the 7 days they were in the state.

Were the bonuses the same for all players and all positions/pay levels?

Yes the Seattle QB lost money on the whole thing because his base salary was so high compared to what he was paid directly for the SB.

Still dumb dumb

Quote:

---

for those late round picks who are making league minimum and fighting for that 2nd contract, it certainly is.

---

These players won't be in the Darnold situation of owing more than they make for that week. This group is the least likely to make this an issue during collective bargaining.

NFL should reimburse the players for screwing them and no more SuperBowls in that state.

Im Gipper said:

---

It's not important enough or will never be an issue for the vast majority of players to make it an issue to fight over

---

This is what is wrong with policy makers. They dont think about whether this is right or wrong. They rationalize it as "these guys make so much money they won't complain if take just a little bit."

Burdizzo said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

It's not important enough or will never be an issue for the vast majority of players to make it an issue to fight over

---

This is what is wrong with policy makers. They dont think about whether this is right or wrong. They rationalize it as "these guys make so much money they won't complain if take just a little bit."

---

thats not the issue.

its that so few players will be in the category of having to pay more in taxes than they make that week that there is no reason for the players to fight over that.

At most, you are looking on the high end at most 10 players a year that will owe more than they made. Over a 10 year period, nfl will be in a place where this tax will apply no more than 5 times.

So assuming its never the same team twice, thats 50 players over the course of a 10 year CBA; or 2.5% of the current total NFLPA.

the vast majority of players are not going to vote to not play over the tiny percent chance they might have to pay more taxes if they make it to a super bowl. I'd guess you would not find even more than 1-2 total players that would think this was worth fighting over.

health benefits, post-career benefits, percentage of revenue given to players, practice time are all much much higher on the agenda.

No. The issue is that California shouldn't be entitled to any of it.

What California should or should not be taxing is a completely different issue than whether or not players are going to make paying the jock tax a collective bargaining issue.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

It's not important enough or will never be an issue for the vast majority of players to make it an issue to fight over

---

This is what is wrong with policy makers. They dont think about whether this is right or wrong. They rationalize it as "these guys make so much money they won't complain if take just a little bit."

---

thats not the issue.

its that so few players will be in the category of having to pay more in taxes than they make that week that there is no reason for the players to fight over that.

At most, you are looking on the high end at most 10 players a year that will owe more than they made. Over a 10 year period, nfl will be in a place where this tax will apply no more than 5 times.

So assuming its never the same team twice, thats 50 players over the course of a 10 year CBA; or 2.5% of the current total NFLPA.

the vast majority of players are not going to vote to not play over the tiny percent chance they might have to pay more taxes if they make it to a super bowl. I'd guess you would not find even more than 1-2 total players that would think this was worth fighting over.

health benefits, post-career benefits, percentage of revenue given to players, practice time are all much much higher on the agenda.

---

This and your next post are excellent points. Thanks for that perspective.

LOYAL AG said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

It's not important enough or will never be an issue for the vast majority of players to make it an issue to fight over

---

This is what is wrong with policy makers. They dont think about whether this is right or wrong. They rationalize it as "these guys make so much money they won't complain if take just a little bit."

---

thats not the issue.

its that so few players will be in the category of having to pay more in taxes than they make that week that there is no reason for the players to fight over that.

At most, you are looking on the high end at most 10 players a year that will owe more than they made. Over a 10 year period, nfl will be in a place where this tax will apply no more than 5 times.

So assuming its never the same team twice, thats 50 players over the course of a 10 year CBA; or 2.5% of the current total NFLPA.

the vast majority of players are not going to vote to not play over the tiny percent chance they might have to pay more taxes if they make it to a super bowl. I'd guess you would not find even more than 1-2 total players that would think this was worth fighting over.

health benefits, post-career benefits, percentage of revenue given to players, practice time are all much much higher on the agenda.

---

This and your next post are excellent points. Thanks for that perspective.

---

Another successful TA hookup.

Texas12&0 said:

---

NFL should reimburse the players for screwing them and no more SuperBowls in that state.

---

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that this just increases the taxable income?

Why is our tax system so messed up that someone employed by a company in one state, paid by that same company from that same state, who happens to perform some form of work in another state, can be taxed by the state that the work was done in, even though no money came from that particular state?

I get that the NFL operates in 20 or so states, including California, and there is some revenue sharing in the CBA, so much of what I am asking doesn't apply to this particular situation.

Say an acquaintance of mine offers to pay me $2000 to pick up a vehicle in California and drive it back to Texas. This person is based in Texas, has no operations in California, and pays me in Texas. Do I need to file a tax return with the state of California?

If you think this is bad, imagine how much an NBA player from a Texas team would pay in additional taxes by
Going to 7 games against the Clippers in the first round as the road team.
Going to 7 games against the Lakers in the second round as the road team.
Going to 7 games against the Warriors in the third round as the road team
Playing the Knicks as the road team in a 7 games series and losing.

Something like $400,000 additional pay to play all those series. $70 million in income. Call it 60 extra days of play, 50% in those locations so 30 taxable days. 260 day season in total. 30/260=11.5% of working days * 70.4m = $8.1 million attributable to those states * ~13.5% = just under $1.1 million in taxes on $400,000 in incremental income.

Don't know about California but my company takes out Virginia income tax when our non-Virginia employees do field service there and we are in Texas.

Virginia also does not give the Feds a tax exemption on sales and hotel taxes like most states do.

It's typical leftist / Dem stupidity. They think the $$ problems are due to lack of tax revenue and have to find ways to tax everything. They never look at spending and all the fraud, waste and abuse. You can never tax enough for them.

California is not the only one. There are like 20 states with a jock tax and at least 8 other municipalities who also have additional jock taxes for playing in their city.


Any given athlete in professional sports has to file a tax return in basically every state they play a game in. Its insanity.

If I remember correctly, California has been taxing a portion of NFL MLB & NBA salaries for games that take place in California, regardless of the players state of residence, for years.

It's not just California, and this is definitely not a new phenomenon.

It's been going on since at least the 90s

Martels Hammer said:

---

In short California will take more in taxes from individual players than they made from playing the single game in California.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/breaking-down-californias-insane-super-bowl-tax


Edited for mistake

---

The NFL/NFLPA needs to game the system.

Make playoff games payouts be a flat $1K for every player.

Then add end of year bonuses for cumulative season outcome based on number of games played/won/loss.

Quote:

---

The NFL/NFLPA needs to game the system.

Make playoff games payouts be a flat $1K for every player.

Then add end of year bonuses for cumulative season outcome based on number of games played/won/loss.

---

So you want every player to owe more in taxes than they make for an individual game?