Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
I'm not sure, but I don't think that is exactly right. At least in the US, I think they would pay home state tax (if there is one) on their whole salary, but do get charged a "jock tax" of 3% of the portion considered earned in the visiting state.
|
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad...h=d71b72a411e8
A google search suggests that's not the case - they pay tax where the live and where they earn their money, which is where they actually play the games. However, it's complicated.
In any event, in my view the bottom line is this. It is a very small minority of circumstances where tax matters. For it to matter:
1) The player has to have a say in where they play (so UFAs, for the most part, or in listing destinations on NTCs or NMCs);
2) The jurisdiction they want to play in has to want the player;
3) The jurisdiction they want ot play in has to have cap space for the player, or be able to create it; and
4) The player chooses this jurisdiction over others solely for tax reasons, and not the multitude of other reasons they may want to play in a certain place (competitiveness, family proximity, other perks of the city/area like cost of living, night life, schools, proximity to mountains, etc.)
Tax is merely a perk and I think quite far down the list of the most important things for a player. I would bet it is the extreme minority of circumstances where it is more than just a tiebreaker.
NYC is the prime example. It's the highest-tax jurisdiction in the NHL, and the cost of living likely the highest anywhere in the NHL. Dollar-for-dollar you're likely poorer playing in NYC than anywhere else. Yet they are the poster child for players wanting to play there ... it's not money.