Why isn’t the Super Bowl always in a tax-free state?

Forbes calculates that players in the Super Bowl will, on average, be worse off financially for having shown up to play (spending 7 days in California subjects them to state income tax on a portion of their 2016 earnings). Rather than force players to take a cut in spending power, why not always have the Super Bowl in tax-free Florida, Nevada, or Texas? It would be sold-out regardless of location, right?

Separately, if you want to fly on a mostly empty plane, buy a ticket during the Super Bowl. JetBlue BOS to DEN at 7:45 pm was not a popular choice for others!

2 Comments

  1. lvl

    February 8, 2016 @ 9:18 am

    1

    Maybe because America’s favorite “sport” (league) NFL is socialist? https://youtu.be/bNbMPz5CPY8

  2. ianf

    February 8, 2016 @ 2:59 pm

    2

    I have yet to hear of a major sports event (of whatever kind or shape), that did not involve complex advance negotiations among/with sponsors, location subsidisers, TV-emission rights holders, and other heavy financial and hospitality actors. That’s where backhanders happen, and why such “crowd-pleasing” events are so often associated with corruption. I suppose that minimisation of income tax of the players is among the least of considerations, though perhaps not (as in the case of CA) entirely bypassed in thought by CA taxmen.

Log in