Freedom Line Blog

What does state tax policy have to do with wins and losses in the NFL? Potentially a lot, according to an editorial in the Washington Times.

During a recent luncheon, Houston Texans star running back Arian Foster implied that part of the reason he chose to re-sign with the Texans last year was due to the lack of an income tax in the Lone Star State.

Foster appears to be part of a growing movement of NFL players considering how state income tax rates impact their bottom line when deciding where to play.

It makes perfect sense. As the Washington Times editorial points out that NFL players receive “only 17 paychecks a year, nine of which are subject to state income taxes in the town where their home games are played, and the remaining eight are taxed according to the location of away games.”

The editorial continues:

Since salary caps limit how much NFL teams can pay players, the biggest difference in what players can earn from one team to the next often comes down to home-state income taxes. This can range from zero in Florida, Tennessee, Texas and Washington state to 8.82 percent in New York, 8.97 percent in New Jersey and 13.3 percent in California.

Last year, when Mr. Foster earned $18 million, he didn’t have to pay state or local income taxes on any of the money he earned in Texas. If, however, he played for the San Francisco 49ers or the San Diego Chargers, Mr. Foster would have shelled out more than $1.2 million to California bureaucrats.

As more top free agents begin to take state income tax rates into consideration, organizations in high-tax states such as the Cleveland Browns, Oakland Raiders, Minnesota Vikings, Buffalo Bills, New York Jets and New York Giants could be hard-pressed to lure talent. Teams in low- and no-income-tax states such as the Dallas Cowboys, Seattle Seahawks, Miami Dolphins, Indianapolis Colts, Denver Broncos and Tennessee Titans will increasingly be in a better position to sign quality players and, ultimately, succeed on the field.

Still think state taxes can’t determine winners and losers in sports? Just look at the NBA where teams are even more restricted in the salaries they can offer players. The editorial points out that “over the past nine years, teams located in the 10 lowest-taxed cities in the NBA reached the NBA Finals 10 times, winning six championships. During that same span, only three times did a team playing in an NBA market with one of the 10 highest income-tax burdens appear in the Finals.”

It was quickly apparent to anyone watching television last weekend that college football is back. On channel after channel, dozens of games were broadcast from packed stadiums courtesy of million and billion dollar television packages. Sure college football is rooted in pageantry and tradition, but the reality is that the sport has become a big business. How big? Over $2.2 billion annually.

But the young men whose talents generate astronomical sums of cash for television networks, apparel makers, the NCAA and their colleges earn, at best, a scholarship worth — including all perks — about $40,000 a year.

The value of a scholarship is dwarfed by the amount of money a star college football player earns for his school. Sports economist Robert Brown discovered that college football players who make it to the NFL were worth as much as $2.6 million to their colleges — and those figures were compiled in 2005, so that figure is substantially higher today.

College football players (and basketball players, for that matter) have startlingly little to show for carrying a billion dollar industry on their backs. They aren’t even allowed to earn a stipend from their school and, because of training and practice schedules, they can’t hold down a job like most college students. As a result, college football players are mired in a state of persistent poverty. For that reason, major college athletes have been compared, fairly, to sweatshop workers and even slaves.

Can anything done to correct this unreasonable treatment and inject reasonable market forces into the arena of college sports?

Some argue that Title IX, the (unnecessary and offensive) federal requirement aimed at increasing female participation in college sports, would prevent football players from earning a stipend. They argue that stipends would have to be doled out evenly to participants in all sports, not just athletes in profit-generating sports like football and men’s and women’s basketball. That argument, however, is incorrect.

Title IX requires equal spending on athletic scholarships for males and females in relationship to the population of men and women students at a given college. It doesn’t, however, require equal funding.

The reality is there is only one thing preventing the NCAA and universities from coming up with a stipend system to share a small amount of their revenues with players — greed.

The average European man has grown 4.33 inches taller in the past 100 years, according to a new study produced by the University of Essex and the Australian National University in Canberra. Researchers cite a previously demonstrated link between decreased infant mortality and increased height as one reason for the growth spurt. The study’s author, Timothy Hatton, also says smaller family sizes are related to an increase in height, as are improved food availability and disease reduction.

News of the increase in average height has been met with cheers by American media. After all, it reflects a significant improvement in health — at least among European males, the focus of the study. Oddly, the media refused to celebrate last year when a British medical journal reported that obesity is now a bigger health crisis globally than hunger.

Malnutrition and other hunger-related illnesses have killed more people throughout human history than any other cause. Now, thanks to the development of high-yield, disease-resistant crops, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides — not to mention the increase in capitalism and free trade throughout the world — there is more than enough food to feed every person on Earth. Hunger and malnutrition today are almost exclusively a result of failed government food distribution policies.

The increase in height brought on by lower infant mortality rates and smaller families is exciting news. But it pales in comparison to the fact that, because of cheap, easily available food made possible through private innovation and market forces, humans throughout the world are now living longer and healthier than ever before.

And that obesity epidemic? Well, it turns out that it has been greatly exaggerated.