Boomer Esiason says NFL Players Should BOYCOTT California Super Bowls after Sam Darnold JOCK TAX!

Boomer Esiason Calls for Rethink of California Super Bowls After Reports of “Jock Tax” Impact on Players

A longstanding debate over state taxation and professional sports resurfaced this week after former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason suggested that the league and its players’ union should reconsider holding future Super Bowls in California.

The comments came in the wake of financial analyses showing that some players — including Seattle quarterback Sam Darnold — could face a higher state tax bill than their Super Bowl bonus after competing in Super Bowl LX in California.

During a radio segment earlier this week, Esiason argued that the state’s so-called “jock tax” system creates a financial disadvantage for players participating in championship games held there. “If I’m the NFL Players Association, I’d say we’re not playing Super Bowls in California anymore,” Esiason said. “It ends up costing players money.”

How the “Jock Tax” Works

California, like many states, applies income tax to professional athletes based on “duty days” — the number of days an athlete works within the state during a season. That includes practice days, game days and certain travel days connected to team activities.

Under this system, nonresident athletes must pay state income tax on a portion of their annual salary proportional to the number of duty days spent in California. The policy is not unique to California; most states with income taxes apply similar formulas to visiting athletes. However, California’s relatively high top income tax rate means the total obligation can be substantial for high-earning players.

According to a recent analysis cited by Forbes, Darnold received a $178,000 bonus for his team’s Super Bowl victory. When accounting for his prorated annual salary tied to duty days in California — including the week leading up to the Super Bowl and regular-season road games against the San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Rams — his total California tax liability may exceed the game-day bonus itself.

Financial experts note that while the bonus is separate from a player’s base salary, the tax calculation considers total annual earnings apportioned by duty days.

“It’s not that the player ‘loses money’ in a vacuum,” said Mark Reynolds, a sports tax consultant based in New York. “It’s that when you allocate a high annual salary across multiple states, a championship game in a high-tax jurisdiction can increase overall state tax exposure.”

Esiason’s Criticism

Esiason characterized the system as unfair, arguing that players are effectively penalized for participating in marquee events held in certain states. He suggested that the NFL Players Association should push back when future Super Bowl sites are selected.

The NFL rotates Super Bowl locations years in advance, typically favoring cities with warm weather or domed stadiums. California has been a frequent host, with games played in the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area over the past decade.

League officials have not commented publicly on Esiason’s remarks. A spokesperson for the NFLPA declined to say whether the issue has been formally discussed within union leadership.

Broader Context

The “jock tax” has existed for decades and has affected athletes across professional sports, including the NBA and Major League Baseball. The policy gained national attention in the 1990s when states began more aggressively auditing visiting players.

While critics argue that high state income taxes can create competitive disadvantages or discourage major events, defenders say the system simply ensures that high earners contribute to public services in states where they generate income.

“Professional athletes earn income while performing in our state,” said a California Department of Tax and Fee Administration representative. “Like any worker, they are subject to the tax laws in effect.”

It is worth noting that players’ total financial situations often include endorsements, signing bonuses and contract structures designed with tax implications in mind. Many athletes also employ accountants and tax strategists to minimize liability within legal boundaries.

Seattle Schools and Parade Debate

Separate from the tax discussion, another controversy emerged in Seattle after public school officials announced that classes would remain open during the Seahawks’ Super Bowl victory parade. The Seattle Seahawks defeated their opponent in Super Bowl LX, prompting a citywide celebration scheduled for midweek.

Seattle Public Schools stated that parade attendance would not qualify as an excused absence, a decision that sparked debate among parents and fans. Some argued that civic celebrations of historic sports achievements merit accommodation. Others said maintaining the academic schedule was appropriate.

School districts in cities such as Philadelphia and Kansas City have previously closed for championship parades, though policies vary widely by region.

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson encouraged residents to attend the celebration responsibly, while district officials emphasized that families could make their own attendance decisions within existing attendance guidelines.

Future Super Bowls in California

The NFL has already awarded upcoming Super Bowls to host cities years in advance, including a future game in Los Angeles. Changing locations due to state tax policy would be unprecedented and could carry significant contractual and logistical complications.

Sports economists say tax considerations are one factor among many in selecting host sites, which also include stadium capacity, infrastructure, sponsorship relationships and climate.

“There’s a long list of criteria,” said Andrew Feldman, a sports business professor at Georgetown University. “Taxes may enter the conversation, but they’re unlikely to override the broader economic and marketing factors that drive site selection.”

For now, Esiason’s call for a boycott appears more rhetorical than procedural. There is no indication that the NFL or the NFLPA plans to alter the existing rotation of host cities.

Still, the discussion underscores how financial policy intersects with professional sports at the highest levels. For players earning multimillion-dollar contracts, even marginal differences in state taxation can translate into six-figure consequences.

Whether the debate leads to tangible policy change remains uncertain. But as long as championship games rotate through high-tax states, questions about the “jock tax” are likely to resurface — especially when the financial math captures public attention in the wake of a Super Bowl victory.