02/11/2026
I have been seeing a few memes and comments about players “losing money” by winning the Super Bowl because of high taxes in California. That is not how this actually works.
A few important clarifications.
First, almost every state has some version of what is commonly called the “jock tax.” When a professional athlete plays a game in another state, that state taxes the portion of the athlete’s annual compensation that is attributable to the days worked there. California is not unique in this. If the Super Bowl were in New York, Arizona, or almost anywhere else with an income tax, the same concept would apply.
Second, the state does not tax the bonus by itself. It taxes a fraction of the player’s entire annual salary based on duty days.
For example (round numbers):
Assume a player earns $10,000,000 for the season.
Assume he has 200 total duty days for the year.
Assume 5 of those days are in California for Super Bowl week.
California’s share of income:
$10,000,000 × (5 ÷ 200) = $250,000 of California sourced income.
California then applies its nonresident tax rates to that $250,000. Even at a high marginal rate (roughly 10 to 13 percent), that produces California tax of about $25,000 to $32,000, not hundreds of thousands.
Third, the Super Bowl bonus is simply additional income. If the player receives a $178,000 bonus, that amount is added to his already multimillion dollar salary. Federal tax applies regardless of location, and state tax applies based on sourcing rules. The bonus does not stand alone for tax purposes.
Fourth, and this part is critical: the player normally receives a credit on his home state return for taxes paid to California. This prevents double taxation. California may get a slice, but the player’s resident state reduces its tax by the same amount. The total state tax bill usually changes very little. It is mostly a question of which state receives it.
So the viral claim that someone “lost $71,000 by winning” assumes:
• California taxed more than the bonus itself
• none of that tax would have existed otherwise
• no resident state credit applied
All three assumptions are incorrect.
Bottom line: winning the Super Bowl does not create a net tax loss. It increases income. The game location only determines which state receives part of the state tax, not whether the player somehow loses money for winning.
If anyone would like a simplified example using their own situation (multi state income, remote work, travel days), I am happy to walk through it.
