Another aspect of this is that a team in Florida or Seattle can pay players less, which allows more cap flexibility for them. Some players will be willing to take less in those markets simply because their take-home would be the same, giving those teams a bit of an advantage.
However, players can be traded of course, so players willingly taking less can then get burnt at some point in their deal. I wonder how many players take discounts when negotiating their deals, and how many make sure they get trade protection on top of it for this very reason. Just an added interesting wrinkle here.
I have long suspected that taxes are a 3rd or lower tie-breaker for players deciding which teams to play. Winning, location (weather, logistics, amenities) and where there family are probably play larger roles in choosing where to go, among other variables. It does, however, seem silly to think that differing tax rates hasn't impacted which markets players choose to play in. That's a lot of money on the table.
|