Sam Darnold Received A $178,000 Player Bonus, And Still Lost Money Playing In The Super Bowl Due To California's "Jock Tax". Wait, What?

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.

Ok, I'm Italian so math isn't my strong suit, so bear with me here. 

Luckily, Esiason did a good job breaking it down for us. You take the Super Bowl player bonus of $178,000 + Darnold's $12.3 million salary breakdown by day, and it turns out he's paying the state of California $249,000 to play in Super Bowl 60.

So it was a net loss for him of $71,000 to play in the Super Bowl. 

Giphy Images.

Not including what he played in San Fran and against the Rams which adds another 2 “duty” days as Boomer pointed out. 

Paying money to play in the Super Bowl because of the state it's played in's tax laws is crazy town. Imagine being penalized for doing your job exceptionally well? What is this, Red China?

That kind of economic thievary takes skill. The mastermind of the jock tax was actually in the suite next to us at the game yesterday. 

(Sidebar - It's neither here nor there, and I'm just being an overly critical jerk here, but that was the Raiders suite, and Newsom was a guest of and hanging out with Mark Davis. Funny thing is the Raiders haven't played in California in quite some time now. Why wasn't he in the Rams or Chargers box?)

At least the silver lining in all this is that those tax dollars are being spent wisely and going towards the greater public good. 

But no, real talk the true silver lining is Darnold took down a $2.5 million dollar incentive bonus for winning the Super Bowl, so I'm sure he doesn't give a shit about 71k. But still a crazy story. 

p.s.- this all makes what the Dodgers are allowed to do with these contracts and bonus deferrals even more impressive.