When the Super Bowl Comes with a Super Tax Bill

In February 2026, the NFL's championship game was played in Santa Clara, California. For most fans, the Super Bowl represents the ultimate reward for a season of work. Players receive postseason bonuses that are set under the collective bargaining agreement, and a Super Bowl victory comes with a substantial payout. But for the athletes themselves, what they earn and what they actually keep can be two very different numbers depending on where the game is held.

California imposes what is commonly known as a jock tax on professional athletes. This is not a separate or special tax, but rather the application of state income tax to non-residents who earn income while working within California's borders. The calculation is more complex than simply taxing the Super Bowl bonus. Instead, the state uses a duty-day formula that counts how many days a player spends working in California, including practices, meetings, media obligations, and the game itself. A portion of the player's entire annual salary is then allocated to California and taxed at the state's income tax rate.

California has one of the highest top marginal state income tax rates in the country, exceeding 13% for high earners. For players with multi-million-dollar contracts, even a few extra duty days in the state can result in a significant tax liability. The issue gained attention when quarterback Sam Darnold's situation became public. After winning the Super Bowl in California, he earned a bonus of approximately $178,000. However, because of how California apportioned his salary for those additional duty days, his estimated state tax bill was around $249,000. In effect, his California tax obligation exceeded the bonus he received for winning the championship.

The situation sparked criticism on sports radio, including comments from former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason. He argued that the NFL Players Association should consider refusing to play future Super Bowls in California if players are placed in a position where their tax burdens outweigh their championship bonuses. His comments reflected frustration over how a celebratory moment could translate into an unexpected financial downside for players.

The contrast becomes clearer when comparing California to states that do not impose personal income taxes. Several Super Bowls have been played in states such as Florida and Texas, both of which have no state income tax. When the championship is hosted in one of those states, players still owe federal income tax, but they typically do not face additional state income tax on their bonus or prorated salary for the event. As a result, the net amount they take home is substantially higher than if the same game were played in a high-tax state.

In practical terms, this means that a Super Bowl held in California represents one of the highest potential state tax burdens a player can face, while a Super Bowl played in Florida or Texas represents one of the lowest. The difference can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars for high-earning players because the tax applies not only to the bonus but also to a portion of their annual salary.

For fans, the Super Bowl is about championships, legacies, and unforgettable moments. For players, however, the location of the game can have a meaningful financial impact. The debate highlights a broader tension between state tax policy and national sporting events. As long as states maintain vastly different income tax systems, where the Super Bowl is played will continue to influence how much of that championship payday players actually keep.