CA “Robbed” Super Bowl Players

California’s infamous “jock tax” just stripped tens of thousands of dollars from Super Bowl LX players’ paychecks, proving once again that the Golden State’s insatiable appetite for revenue knows no bounds—even when targeting athletes who spent just days within its borders.

Story Snapshot

California taxed Super Bowl LX players at the nation’s highest rate of 13.3% on both bonuses and prorated annual salaries based on “duty days” in the state
Winning players saw $178,000 bonuses slashed to roughly $86,000 after tax, while a $10 million salary player lost over $33,000 for just five duty days in California
The jock tax originated in 1991 as California retaliation against Chicago Bulls players, creating a punishing precedent now costing top earners over $100,000 for a single game
States with no income tax like Florida and Texas allow players to keep full bonuses, highlighting California’s aggressive revenue extraction amid ongoing budget deficits

California’s Tax Grab Hits Super Bowl Players Hard

California’s Franchise Tax Board imposed its notorious jock tax on every Super Bowl LX player who set foot in Levi’s Stadium for the February 2026 championship game. The state calculated taxes using a duty-day formula that prorates each player’s entire annual salary based on time spent in California, then applied its crushing 13.3% top marginal rate—the highest in the nation. A player earning $10 million annually who logged just five duty days in California for the Super Bowl faced a $33,250 tax bill on salary alone, with bonus taxation pushing total losses past $100,000 for top earners like quarterbacks.

Duty Days Formula Creates Outsized Financial Damage

The jock tax doesn’t simply tax game-day earnings—it captures a slice of a player’s full-season compensation. Teams typically arrive about eight days before the Super Bowl for practices and media obligations, with California counting every travel day, practice, and the game itself as taxable duty days. With approximately 200 duty days in a standard NFL season, even five California days represent 2.5% of annual income subject to the state’s 13.3% rate. Winning players received bonuses around $178,000 to $182,000, but after California’s cut, winners netted roughly $86,000 while losing team members took home just $49,800 from their $103,000 bonuses.

1991 Origins Reveal California’s Revenue Hunger

California pioneered the jock tax in 1991 when its Franchise Tax Board billed Chicago Bulls players after they defeated the Lakers in the NBA Finals, triggering a nationwide adoption of similar state policies targeting nonresident athletes. What began as apparent retaliation evolved into a sophisticated tracking system that follows players across state lines, calculating tax obligations down to individual practice sessions and travel days. Other states mirrored California’s approach, creating a patchwork of tax rules, but none match California’s 13.3% rate—a stark contrast to states like Florida, Texas, and Nevada where players competing in Super Bowls keep their full earnings without state income tax consequences.

State Deficits Drive Aggressive Collection Enforcement

California defends the jock tax as fair taxation on income earned within state borders, but the policy conveniently generates millions in revenue for a state grappling with persistent budget deficits. Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration touts Super Bowl LX’s $18 billion-plus economic benefits while the Franchise Tax Board quietly issues tax bills that drain player paychecks. Academic research from Georgia Southern University analyzing 1994-2016 data suggests host-state tax rates may even influence team performance, with California’s punishing rate creating the steepest financial penalty for Super Bowl participants. Players from states with income taxes can claim credits against home-state obligations, but California’s high rate typically exceeds those offsets, leaving athletes with net losses despite playing in football’s biggest game.

Policy Threatens Future Venue Selections

The Super Bowl tax controversy illuminates a broader problem with California’s approach to high earners—aggressive taxation that drives talent and events toward more fiscally friendly states. Tax experts call the math “punishing” and critics label the policy “insane” for taxing an entire season’s income based on a single game appearance. While the NFL rotates Super Bowl venues regardless of tax implications, the stark difference between keeping full bonuses in no-tax states versus losing 40-50% in California creates obvious incentives for future venue preferences. This isn’t about fairness or reasonable taxation of income earned in-state; it’s about a state so desperate for revenue that it’s willing to punish the very athletes whose presence generates billions in economic activity, all while claiming fiscal responsibility.