Only a relative handful of players ever get that big 2nd contract or big endorsement money or other marketing opportunities.
So unless a player is certain they are in that category, then I don't see how they can't consider a local government taking so much from them in taxes, and a higher cost of living (that isn't just a little bit) as compared to their peers on teams elsewhere.
And, yes, I can see where a small handful of players would go to a team with a chance of winning a Superbowl, etc disregarding the economics. But the biggest name FAs tend to go to whoever offers the biggest bucks... and more often than not it is to a losing team that is desperate to make a big splash. Those teams that a player truly believes are Superbowl ready are darn few, and if a team truly is a Superbowl ready team it is very picky, and so again ...what.... 5 players in a year might go there and ignore all other economic factors? Such as the certainty that they'll have a ton taken out of their paychecks in California? Easily the largest in the nation?
It didn't use to be this way. Local economic and taxation no doubt varied, but now the difference is huge. The difference between having either zero or 13% (or maybe 3 or 4% in some states) taken from you in addition to Fed Taxes is real and it matters no matter how much you make.
The idea that players are some special species that don't care about how much money winds up in their pockets is, I think, a hopeful fan's perspective. This is why I think the day is coming that the NFL is going to be forced to do something that can equalize salary cap according to the economics and taxes of varying locations. Commercial industry has had to do this for decades. Trust me: you get paid a whole lot more in San Francisco for the same job you do in Biloxi Mississippi. Why should it be different for players?
