Josh McDaniels is so great though
Super Bowl LX: (2) Patriots vs. (1) Seahawks
- Thread starter Brian in Mesa
- Start date
Josh McDaniels is so great though
Want nothing to do with Bain. The Arms dont lie.
I appreciate everything Kyler did here but going forward I don't want to be on the side of historic size issues.
Yep.. Bain being successful in the NFL would be a massive statistical outlier.
some dumb guy
Hall of Famer
WHAT?? Size DOES matter!!!
I'm gonna need to have a serious conversation with my wife...
OP
OP
No. Closest was Super Bowl 53. 13-3 final score.
OP
OP
This was a great example of why we go to our friends' house in San Diego to watch the Super Bowl each year. Even if the game sucks, we still had a weekend trip to San Diego.
OP
OP
Seahawks’ Sam Darnold Lost Money While Winning Super Bowl LX
www.newsweek.com
According to former NFL QB Boomer Esiason, who now hosts a morning talk show on WFAN Sports Radio, Boomer and Gio, Darnold lost money playing in this year’s big game.
As a result of California’s jock tax, a local income tax that impacts visiting professional athletes, Darnold had to pay the state of California nearly a quarter of a million dollars to perform under the bright lights in Santa Clara.
“For winning the Super Bowl, the winning team, each player gets $178,000—in other words, the Super Bowl isn’t a part of their salary,” said Esiason on Monday’s show. “And they look at duty days. So, each spends seven days in the state of California. So those are seven duty days, and they pierce your regular salary at 3.5%. So, he has to pay—when you take into account, he got the $178,000 plus his overall salary, he has to pay the state of California for spending seven days there $249,000.”
So, if you do the math, Darnold paid $71,000 to play in Super Bowl LX. Now, that’s one heck of a day at the office.
Seahawks’ Sam Darnold lost money while winning Super Bowl LX
Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold enjoyed the crowning achievement of his career, but wallet became a bit lighter in the process.
www.newsweek.com
According to former NFL QB Boomer Esiason, who now hosts a morning talk show on WFAN Sports Radio, Boomer and Gio, Darnold lost money playing in this year’s big game.
As a result of California’s jock tax, a local income tax that impacts visiting professional athletes, Darnold had to pay the state of California nearly a quarter of a million dollars to perform under the bright lights in Santa Clara.
“For winning the Super Bowl, the winning team, each player gets $178,000—in other words, the Super Bowl isn’t a part of their salary,” said Esiason on Monday’s show. “And they look at duty days. So, each spends seven days in the state of California. So those are seven duty days, and they pierce your regular salary at 3.5%. So, he has to pay—when you take into account, he got the $178,000 plus his overall salary, he has to pay the state of California for spending seven days there $249,000.”
So, if you do the math, Darnold paid $71,000 to play in Super Bowl LX. Now, that’s one heck of a day at the office.
MigratingOsprey
Thank You Paul!
It's false though
I think part of the failure is due to conflating his contact bonus for winning the SB and related taxes to just the usual SB player bonus, part taking his entire income and applying the jock tax to it rather than scaling it to just income that could be tied to be earned in CA and part simple minded CA bashing
I think part of the failure is due to conflating his contact bonus for winning the SB and related taxes to just the usual SB player bonus, part taking his entire income and applying the jock tax to it rather than scaling it to just income that could be tied to be earned in CA and part simple minded CA bashing
Ok boomerSeahawks’ Sam Darnold Lost Money While Winning Super Bowl LX
Seahawks’ Sam Darnold lost money while winning Super Bowl LX
Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold enjoyed the crowning achievement of his career, but wallet became a bit lighter in the process.
According to former NFL QB Boomer Esiason, who now hosts a morning talk show on WFAN Sports Radio, Boomer and Gio, Darnold lost money playing in this year’s big game.
As a result of California’s jock tax, a local income tax that impacts visiting professional athletes, Darnold had to pay the state of California nearly a quarter of a million dollars to perform under the bright lights in Santa Clara.
“For winning the Super Bowl, the winning team, each player gets $178,000—in other words, the Super Bowl isn’t a part of their salary,” said Esiason on Monday’s show. “And they look at duty days. So, each spends seven days in the state of California. So those are seven duty days, and they pierce your regular salary at 3.5%. So, he has to pay—when you take into account, he got the $178,000 plus his overall salary, he has to pay the state of California for spending seven days there $249,000.”
So, if you do the math, Darnold paid $71,000 to play in Super Bowl LX. Now, that’s one heck of a day at the office.
His concussions are catching up to him
That’s not how it works
And many states have a jock tax
So no, he did not lose money playing in the Super Bowl
some dumb guy
Hall of Famer
I've never heard of the "jock" tax. So, does that mean a cardinal player only pays state tax on the games he plays in AZ, and they have to pay taxes to every other state they play in?
I'm going back to school to learn tax preparation for athletes
That is the jist of it. Taxes follow where it is earned.
Great article that explains it.
And note, it applies to more than just athletes
Why athletes (and some remote workers) owe a ‘jock tax’ wherever they go
Professional athletes owe major tax bills every time they work in another state. If you’re a remote employee, you might, too.
thehustle.co
some dumb guy
Hall of Famer
Wow, thanks for the infoThat is the jist of it. Taxes follow where it is earned.
Great article that explains it.
And note, it applies to more than just athletes
Why athletes (and some remote workers) owe a ‘jock tax’ wherever they go
Professional athletes owe major tax bills every time they work in another state. If you’re a remote employee, you might, too.
and I'll stop there because any further comments belong in the political thread
The Superbowl set a new tv viewer record with 135M people watching live. Impressive.
But not as impressive as you think. About 8 hours earlier an estimated 700M people watched the Liverpool - Man City Premier league game live
But not as impressive as you think. About 8 hours earlier an estimated 700M people watched the Liverpool - Man City Premier league game live
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
Let’s go cityThe Superbowl set a new tv viewer record with 135M people watching live. Impressive.
But not as impressive as you think. About 8 hours earlier an estimated 700M people watched the Liverpool - Man City Premier league game live
Adam Schefter
@AdamSchefter
·
NBC announced that Sunday’s Super Bowl between the Patriots and Seahawks averaged 124.9 million viewers, making it the second-most-watched Super Bowl ever, behind last year’s Chiefs-Eagles game.
@AdamSchefter
·
NBC announced that Sunday’s Super Bowl between the Patriots and Seahawks averaged 124.9 million viewers, making it the second-most-watched Super Bowl ever, behind last year’s Chiefs-Eagles game.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
