Full Breakdown
Myles Garrett’s Trade to the Rams Results in Effective Pay Cut Due to California Taxes
6/7/2026, 9:11:26 PM
Trade and Contract Overview
Defensive end Myles Garrett was traded from the Cleveland Browns to the Los Angeles Rams. Upon completion of the trade, Garrett signed a new five-year contract that mirrors the remaining financial terms of his previous agreement with the Browns. The contract does not increase total compensation for the 2026-2030 period, meaning Garrett’s gross earnings remain unchanged while his net pay is reduced by state tax differentials.
Background: Trade Mechanics and No-Trade Clause
Garrett’s contract with Cleveland included a no-trade clause, granting him the right to veto any trade. He did not request a trade after the 2025 season, yet later accepted the Rams’ offer, citing a desire for a fresh start with a contender. The trade was finalized without a renegotiated salary to offset the higher tax burden in California.
Financial Details and Tax Implications
- Contract value: $179 million owed from 2026 through 2030 under both the Browns and Rams agreements.
- 2026 salary bump: $30.5 million increased to $37 million, a $6.5 million rise that does not affect the total five-year sum.
- State income tax rates: Ohio 3.125 % vs. California 13.3 %.
- Effective net loss: Approximately 10 % of gross pay, reflecting the higher California tax rate applied to home game checks and bonus income.
- Game-check taxation: Game checks are taxed in the state where the game is played; roughly half of the Rams’ 20 annual games occur at home, further exposing Garrett to California tax on those earnings.
Implications for Player Compensation and Market Opportunities
The tax disparity translates into a multi-million reduction in Garrett’s take-home pay, despite unchanged contract totals. The situation highlights the financial impact of state tax environments on NFL contracts, especially for high-earning players. The article suggests Garrett may seek to offset the net loss through marketing and endorsement opportunities in Los Angeles, though such income would also be subject to California taxation.
Criticism of Contract Structure
The article notes that Garrett could have requested a salary adjustment to compensate for the elevated tax burden, describing such a request as “more than reasonable” given the trade’s circumstances. The lack of such an adjustment is characterized as a “gift” to the Rams, who avoided additional cash outlay while acquiring a premier defensive talent. The piece suggests the contract’s structure does not address the fiscal reality of relocating to a high-tax state.
Potential Next Steps
Garrett’s ability to recoup the tax-induced net loss through Los Angeles-based marketing opportunities remains uncertain. The article implies that his future earnings may depend on how effectively he leverages the larger market, while his on-field performance will continue to shape his overall value to the Rams.
