Ranking · zero-rate jurisdictions
10 places that tax athlete wages at zero
Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and 5 others levy no income tax on wages. A $10M contract keeps the full $10,000,000 against local tax in every one of them — the federal or national bill is a separate question.
The full list
| Jurisdiction | Group | Treatment | Local tax on $10M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| Nevada | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| Tennessee | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| Texas | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| Washington | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| Alaska | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| New Hampshire | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| South Dakota | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| Wyoming | United States | No state income tax on wages | $0 |
| Saudi Arabia | International | No personal income tax | $0 |
Zero state tax is not zero tax. In the United States the federal bill still applies, and a player resident in one of these states owes tax to other states for games played there. Saudi Arabia is the only entry where no national income tax applies either.
Why residency decides this, not the club
A player is taxed by the jurisdiction where he is resident on the whole salary, and by other jurisdictions only on duty days worked there. So signing for a team in a zero-tax state helps only if the player actually becomes resident there — a distinction that matters most for players who keep a home elsewhere.
That is also why the biggest winner from a no-tax market is usually not the highest earner. High earners often have residency ties elsewhere and end up paying in both places.