Sam Darnold lost money for playing in Super Bowl

18IsTheMan said:

I don't really care about all that. I'm not in the "hate the rich" camp though.

California is simply a toilet. And not a decent toilet. Like the toilet in a Taco Bell.

Click to expand...

Harvard Gamecock said:

Kind of hard to hold financial sympathy for an individual who signed a 3 year contract for... wait for it

100,500,000. (Yes, 100 million)
55.000,000 guantereed
32,000,000 signing bonus.

Click to expand...

adcoop said:

Actually, there are only 5 relevant states (Texas, Florida, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada) and D.C. that do not have a jock tax. Given that Darnold plays in Seattle, he wins with his state taxes this year. His state tax liability in California not only includes his Super Bowl stay, but previous games in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
It’s funny how small advantages stack up over time kind of like improving at manok na pula, where every little edge helps in the long run.

Click to expand...

18IsTheMan said:

His players' share for winning was $178,000. Due to California's jock tax, he'll pay $249,000 in state income tax. Meaning a net loss of $71,000 for playing in the Super Bowl. He'll be ok, though. But, man, California is a toilet.

Sam Darnold Has to Pay Hefty California Tax After Seahawks' Super Bowl Win

Sam Darnold helped the Seahawks win the Super Bowl LX, but California’s jock tax means his victory bonus turned into a surprising financial loss.

sports.yahoo.com

The situation with Sam Darnold is actually pretty interesting. Reports say that even though he played in the Super Bowl LX and earned a bonus, he ended up with less money after taxes in that specific situation. This is mainly because of something called the “jock tax,” where players are taxed based on where games are played. Since the Super Bowl was held in a high-tax state, a larger portion of his total earnings became taxable there, which reduced his net income despite the bonus .
It’s important to understand that he didn’t literally lose money overall—he still earned millions—but in terms of that specific game and tax calculation, the extra tax burden outweighed the direct game bonus. Players in the Super Bowl typically receive around six-figure bonuses (for example, about $178,000 for winners), but taxes and contract structures can change how much they actually keep .
In a different context, this kind of “performance vs reward” discussion also shows up in gaming. For example, players often look for better versions or smoother gameplay experiences like the mini militia ios version, where performance, strategy, and smart choices can improve overall results without unnecessary losses or disadvantages.
So whether it’s professional sports or mobile gaming, understanding the system—rules, mechanics, or even taxes—can make a big difference in outcomes.

Click to expand...

18IsTheMan said:

I don't really care about all that. I'm not in the "hate the rich" camp though.

California is simply a toilet. And not a decent toilet. Like the toilet in a Taco Bell.

Click to expand...

Harvard Gamecock said:

Kind of hard to hold financial sympathy for an individual...

Click to expand...

Harvard Gamecock said:

Kind of hard to hold financial sympathy for an individual who signed a 3 year contract for... wait for it

100,500,000. (Yes, 100 million)
55.000,000 guantereed
32,000,000 signing bonus.

Click to expand...

Gradstudent_rivals30147 said:

Seems like its taken out of context, or not the full story, he is a California resident and while every player got a even $178,000 superbowl bonus, he also got a $2.5 million bonus on his contact for winning the Superbowl, so how did he lose money for winning the superbowl? Nonsense, he made millions.




Pro Football Network - On Sunday night, the Seattle Seahawks dominated the New England Patriots, winning 29-13 to capture Super Bowl 60.

Sam Darnold has been an excellent addition to the Seahawks’ offense and was one of the key reasons for the team’s success this season. However, despite winning the biggest game of the year, Darnold is set to lose $249,000. Here’s why.

Darnold is set to lose $249,000 due to California taxes. As part of winning the Super Bowl, every player on the championship team receives a $178,000 bonus, along with the Lombardi Trophy.

However, Alex Worth of talkSPORT noted that the bonus is not as straightforward as it seems. Players are taxed on the payout, and at a significant rate:

“The bonus is classed as ‘regular income’, meaning that federal tax will be paid on it. It is projected that they will take home between $89,384 and $109,248, meaning each player is likely to lose $67,616 in tax, but Darnold is a different story. The Super Bowl-winning QB is a California resident, meaning he is set to pay a staggering $249,000 in income tax. It is an astonishing $71,000 net loss for helping Seattle win their second Super Bowl in franchise history.”

A $71,000 loss is a small price to pay for winning a Super Bowl. Beyond the championship itself, the victory could boost Darnold’s value through endorsements and potentially lead to a contract extension, as he still has two years remaining on the three-year, $100,500,000 deal he signed last offseason.

Additionally, Darnold earned a $2,500,000 incentive in his contract for winning the Super Bowl. As a result, the California tax hit will have little overall impact on his total earnings from the game.

Click to expand...

Harvard Gamecock said:

Kind of hard to hold financial sympathy for an individual who signed a 3 year contract for... wait for it

100,500,000. (Yes, 100 million)
55.000,000 guantereed
32,000,000 signing bonus.

Click to expand...

Forkcock said:

That has no bearing on anything.

Click to expand...

KingWard said:

When a man is taxed for significantly more than he earned for a service rendered, it sucks, and I don't care what his overall earnings are. It's a rod job.

Click to expand...

Harvard Gamecock said:

His overall earnings are very meaningful in this situation

Darnold has a very high value contract, in addition to the 178k NFL player winnings, he also received 1,000,000 dollar bonus from Seattle for winning the Super Bowl, along with his yearly salary included . So the pro rated tax calculation resulted in a higher tax liability based on all of those factors.

It is usually good practice to gather all relative and pertinent facts to an argument, before making forceful pronouncements.

Click to expand...

khan766 said:

Sam Darnold’s Super Bowl appearance generated plenty of discussion about the financial side of playing in the NFL’s biggest game. While reaching the Super Bowl is a major career achievement, players do not necessarily receive a huge individual payday simply because they participate. Their compensation is generally based on contracts, postseason bonuses, and team-related incentives.

For athletes, the financial details surrounding major games can be complicated. Contract structures may include performance incentives, playoff bonuses, and other conditions that affect how much a player ultimately earns. This is why claims that a player “lost money” by playing in the Super Bowl should be examined carefully and explained in the right context.

Clear writing is especially important when discussing sports salaries and contracts. Using accurate information and checking spelling can make sports articles easier to understand and more professional. Sam Darnold’s Super Bowl experience is ultimately about more than money—it represents a significant milestone in an NFL quarterback’s career.

Click to expand...

DannyTree1 said:

Yes- and he also chooses to live in California, clearly he believes his personal benefits outweigh anything else given he could live anywhere he chooses.

It's wild watching people feel sorry for a multi-multi-multi millionaire who has no issue at all where he lives. You can tell the political machine has done its job when you have middle class people worried and concerned that extremely rich people- ones that are perfectly fine with the status quo- are being hurt. It's like an All in the Family episode come to life. LOL.

Click to expand...

khan766 said:

Sam Darnold’s Super Bowl appearance generated plenty of discussion about the financial side of playing in the NFL’s biggest game. While reaching the Super Bowl is a major career achievement, players do not necessarily receive a huge individual payday simply because they participate. Their compensation is generally based on contracts, postseason bonuses, and team-related incentives.

For athletes, the financial details surrounding major games can be complicated. Contract structures may include performance incentives, playoff bonuses, and other conditions that affect how much a player ultimately earns. This is why claims that a player “lost money” by playing in the Super Bowl should be examined carefully and explained in the right context.

Clear writing is especially important when discussing sports salaries and contracts. Using accurate information and checking spelling can make sports articles easier to understand and more professional. Sam Darnold’s Super Bowl experience is ultimately about more than money—it represents a significant milestone in an NFL quarterback’s career.

Click to expand...

DannyTree1 said:

Yes- and he also chooses to live in California, clearly he believes his personal benefits outweigh anything else given he could live anywhere he chooses.

It's wild watching people feel sorry for a multi-multi-multi millionaire who has no issue at all where he lives. You can tell the political machine has done its job when you have middle class people worried and concerned that extremely rich people- ones that are perfectly fine with the status quo- are being hurt. It's like an All in the Family episode come to life.

Click to expand...

Lurker123 said:

Did you really create an account just to post an AI generated reaponse?

Click to expand...

Gamecock Jacque said:

Accounts don't create themselves. Unless they're AI of course. I like how my AI assistant can knock someone out of the Dr's appointment slot I really really wanted.

Click to expand...

Gradstudent_rivals30147 said:

Seems like its taken out of context, or not the full story, he is a California resident and while every player got a even $178,000 superbowl bonus, he also got a $2.5 million bonus on his contact for winning the Superbowl, so how did he lose money for winning the superbowl? Nonsense, he made millions.




Pro Football Network - On Sunday night, the Seattle Seahawks dominated the New England Patriots, winning 29-13 to capture Super Bowl 60.

Sam Darnold has been an excellent addition to the Seahawks’ offense and was one of the key reasons for the team’s success this season. However, despite winning the biggest game of the year, Darnold is set to lose $249,000. Here’s why.

Darnold is set to lose $249,000 due to California taxes. As part of winning the Super Bowl, every player on the championship team receives a $178,000 bonus, along with the Lombardi Trophy.

However, Alex Worth of talkSPORT noted that the bonus is not as straightforward as it seems. Players are taxed on the payout, and at a significant rate:

“The bonus is classed as ‘regular income’, meaning that federal tax will be paid on it. It is projected that they will take home between $89,384 and $109,248, meaning each player is likely to lose $67,616 in tax, but Darnold is a different story. The Super Bowl-winning QB is a California resident, meaning he is set to pay a staggering $249,000 in income tax. It is an astonishing $71,000 net loss for helping Seattle win their second Super Bowl in franchise history.”

A $71,000 loss is a small price to pay for winning a Super Bowl. Beyond the championship itself, the victory could boost Darnold’s value through endorsements and potentially lead to a contract extension, as he still has two years remaining on the three-year, $100,500,000 deal he signed last offseason.

Additionally, Darnold earned a $2,500,000 incentive in his contract for winning the Super Bowl. As a result, the California tax hit will have little overall impact on his total earnings from the game.

Click to expand...

KingWard said:

I appreciate the rich. I've been comfortably retired since I was 59 years old by virtue of the employment they provided. More power to them. I don't play favorites in decrying inequity.

Click to expand...

DannyTree1 said:

and I'm not complaining about the taxes a Super Bowl winning QB pays, given he chooses to live in California.

Click to expand...

Tngamecock said:

The point is……that kind of taxation is criminal.

Click to expand...

Sam Darnold lost money for playing in Super Bowl​

DannyTree1 said:

My company didn't pay me money for the fun of it. They pay me for a service I provide that helps them make money. I'm not a charity case for them. They make money based on what I do for them. If they didn't want to pay me, my skills allow me to take my abilities to another company that would.

I don't sit around and waste one second worried about the tax rate our CEO chooses to pay given nearly any place to live in the world is available to her.

and I'm not complaining about the taxes a Super Bowl winning QB pays, given he chooses to live in California.

I also don't feel bad for my landscaping company owner neighbor when his yard needs a trim.

Click to expand...

KingWard said:

I was speaking in terms of the opportunity to earn, which should have been readily apparent. There are the people who possess the vision, take the initiative, assume the risk, and then there is everyone else, who mostly come to little or nothing without the risk-takers. The former realize greater benefits than the latter - and rightly so.

Click to expand...

KingWard said:

I was speaking in terms of the opportunity to earn, which should have been readily apparent. There are the people who possess the vision, take the initiative, assume the risk, and then there is everyone else, who mostly come to little or nothing without the risk-takers. The former realize greater benefits than the latter - and rightly so.

Click to expand...

DannyTree1 said:

I don't disagree with that in general. But each situation is different.

However, that doesn't describe every rich person, or business owner, or corporate CEO.

Lots of people work for companies where the company, not the owner is "rich." Sometimes they make ends meet and pay the bills and live ok but certainly aren't rich. Most owners of small businesses in the United States aren't rich- far from it.

But back to this topic, I've run out of issues to be concerned about if I am trying to empathize with a multi multi millionaire's tax rate.

Click to expand...

KingWard said:

I am empathetic when it's applicable and sympatheic beyond that.

Click to expand...

DannyTree1 said:

My sense is if a multi-multi millionaire is worried about his tax rate, he can choose to make less money to reduce his tax rate. (doubtful) He also has other tools to reduce the rates that will be applied.

The average millionaire is 62 years old and reaches that through 401k investments. Thankfully, the laws allow that person to have some control over the tax rate that will be applied to them- via withdrawal amounts- and some control based on where they choose to live.

I am not empathetic or sympathetic to their predicament. There are people that do get my empathy and sympathy, but multi millionaires aren't on my list. I've never driven by a mini-mansion on Lake Murray warterfront and felt sorry for the owner. I also don't hold ill will toward them at all and I don't blame society problems on them either.

Click to expand...

Harvard Gamecock said:

Click to expand...

18IsTheMan said:

Angel Reese still sucks.

Click to expand...

DannyTree1 said:

My sense is if a multi-multi millionaire is worried about his tax rate, he can choose to make less money to reduce his tax rate. (doubtful) He also has other tools to reduce the rates that will be applied.

The average millionaire is 62 years old and reaches that through 401k investments. Thankfully, the laws allow that person to have some control over the tax rate that will be applied to them- via withdrawal amounts- and some control based on where they choose to live.

I am not empathetic or sympathetic to their predicament. There are people that do get my empathy and sympathy, but multi millionaires aren't on my list. I've never driven by a mini-mansion on Lake Murray warterfront and felt sorry for the owner. I also don't hold ill will toward them at all and I don't blame society problems on them either.

Click to expand...