Seattle's (Washington) new 9.9% tax – How much does this hurt their pursuit of FAs?

[Magox]

I’m trying to keep this strictly about the "football" side of things and not turn this into a political debate, but I saw this report about the new 9.9% levy in Washington state and it got me thinking about the competitive disadvantage it creates for teams like the Seahawks.

 

We always talk about "weather" or "small markets" being a hurdle for some teams, but a nearly 10% hit to the paycheck is a massive lever. When a guy is looking at two identical $10M a year offers—one from a team in a state with no income tax (like us here in Florida or teams in Texas/Tennessee) versus a 10% haircut in Seattle—that’s a million dollars a year left on the table.  Even though, I do see that they didn't have a state income tax.

 

With that said, In a hard-cap league, those margins matter. If agents start baked-in "tax premiums" into their asking prices, it basically lowers the effective cap space for those specific teams.

 

Keep it to the football consequences, please—I really don’t want this thread to get locked in ten minutes.

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

It’s interesting for sure and will be a factor. Doesn’t NYC have an additional tax for employees, in addition to the state tax? If so, that would be something that Knicks players (and obviously other teams) would deal with. I bet there are some case studies out there on the impact.

[Gregg]

It probably will hurt. FLA teams for example have a huge advantage. No state income tax plus great weather. 

[Dave_Bills]

I’m admittedly a skeptic but I think issues like taxation are overblown in general. Does it factor into one’s ultimate decision? Maybe but I think overall it doesn’t matter.

 

Im in Canada and this issue was hotly discussed/debated over the last couple decades regarding the Raptors. As many may know our tax structure is even more punitive. Has it hurt in terms of free agency? I guess one could argue to an extent but they still get top players.

 

i realize the cap is different but overall i think it’s a little overblown.

Edited March 13 by Dave_Bills

[Kincaid Kool-Aid]

It's a great question purely from a football impact perspective. Chances of some knuckleheads turning this into a political debate are 100%. Curious to see how long this lasts until the thread is locked though!

[NeverOutNick]

33 minutes ago, Magox said:

I’m trying to keep this strictly about the "football" side of things and not turn this into a political debate, but I saw this report about the new 9.9% levy in Washington state and it got me thinking about the competitive disadvantage it creates for teams like the Seahawks.

 

We always talk about "weather" or "small markets" being a hurdle for some teams, but a nearly 10% hit to the paycheck is a massive lever. When a guy is looking at two identical $10M a year offers—one from a team in a state with no income tax (like us here in Florida or teams in Texas/Tennessee) versus a 10% haircut in Seattle—that’s a million dollars a year left on the table.  Even though, I do see that they didn't have a state income tax.

 

With that said, In a hard-cap league, those margins matter. If agents start baked-in "tax premiums" into their asking prices, it basically lowers the effective cap space for those specific teams.

 

Keep it to the football consequences, please—I really don’t want this thread to get locked in ten minutes.

 

 

Good thing they just won their Super Bowl before this 

[H2o]

26 minutes ago, Gregg said:

It probably will hurt. FLA teams for example have a huge advantage. No state income tax plus great weather. 

Then, places like Seattle have this new 9.9% tax and 150 days (general average) of rain while being in a northwest climate. 

[boyst]

We play in Seattle next year - our players gonna spend a bunch of their money to play there. 

[4BillsintheBurgh]

I think it's probably more of a short term hit, the taxes are made a higher factor for some players out of the gate, sort of like higher prices.

 

Over time the higher taxes will get normalized and less free agents will care about it. It's always a personal decision on how much the taxes weigh on the decision.

[dcinmuncie]

isn't california even worse? am i wrong or is the State income tax 13% or something like that? 

[SCBills]

There have absolutely been players that have cited taxes as part of their decision. 
 

Throw in Seattle being a cold, rainy West Coast team and it absolutely could cause them some headaches.  
 

That being said, if you’re a well run organization that is successful, players won’t care too much about all this.   See Buffalo, as we have a ton of players who would never willingly live in New York absent football, but fall in love with the community and organization. 
 

 

Edited March 13 by SCBills

[US Egg]

Oh boo-friggin’-hoo! Try building a competitive franchise being in the poorest city in the NFL, with the noted reputation of having the worst winters, in what is widely known as one of very highest taxed state.

Edited March 13 by US Egg

[pennstate10]

Doesn’t this dynamic already exist?

 

New York and California have income tax rates of 10% or greater for income over $1M. 

[Magox]

2 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

Doesn’t this dynamic already exist?

 

New York and California have income tax rates of 10% or greater for income over $1M. 

 

It does.

[Steptide]

I know it'll never happen, but the nfl should have some kind of tax related cap. Meaning if 2 teams offer the same amount, but the tax rates are different, the team with the higher tax rate should have a higher cap to offset the taxes. So the player gets the same amount regardless of the states taxes. It'll never happen, but would make sense 

[wppete]

Florida for players becomes even more appealing. If I was a player i would only choose the Florida teams for these reasons. 

[H2o]

30 minutes ago, US Egg said:

California hits millionaires harder than any state, don’t recall hearing franchises there going public all doom and gloom.

It's California. It's a completely different environment and brand.

 

I think people also have to realize the team is just going up for sale. This could affect that effort as well I believe.  

Edited March 13 by H2o

[prissythecat]

Even if a player joins a team in a state with no income tax,   they have to pay taxes for the road games in jurisdictions that have state tax.  So the allure  of the zero income tax isn't quite what people think.  Places like california even tax championship rings lol.

[corta765]

So while the team is good not much of an impact because everyone likes a winner and majority of players overlook stuff like taxes or even facilities if they can get Ws.

 

Where things get interesting and where advantages/disadvantages show is when a team is down for a long time. The LA markets seem immune from the tax issue despite high taxes given how many people like living in California and the money you can make being in the LA market. But when teams are down for a really long time like the Bills were the taxes piece becomes a real talking point when a players considers signing. Think of how many players even after Mario signed said no to Buffalo because they weren't winning, the weather is not received well, and then of course NYS taxes. Heck McCoy we had to redo his deal with just to keep him happy and get him to Buffalo. Any team playing in a market where taxes are a thing who have been dogs for a while will have this to contend with until they get better.

 

I still believe that in the end competent ownership that spends money on players/facilities & stays the hell out of decision making will always keep you in the market for good players. But the tax thing is more prominent then before and something that can be another obstacle if your org is not in a good place.

[Don Otreply]

I don’t believe I can care less than I currently do.