Sam Darnold lost money for playing in Super Bowl

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.

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...

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.

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...

With his taxes, he might break even.

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...

Yeah, playing in Seattle definitely gives Darnold a nice edge since Washington doesn’t have a state income tax. Meanwhile, those games in California can really add up because of the state’s higher tax rates, especially with multiple appearances there. The jock tax rules make things more complicated than most fans realize, and location can quietly impact earnings a lot.

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.

I wonder if teams are changing travel plans before the game. Maybe coming in one day later, because of potential tax consequences. Could a player put in his contract that he wants to be paid only $100 per game played in a jock tax state and be paid $15,000,000 a game in non-jock tax states?