Myles Garrett’s Rams deal keeps $179M gross as California taxes cut net

Defensive end Myles Garrett agreed a new contract with the Los Angeles Rams following his recent trade, keeping the same cash he was due with the Cleveland Browns from 2026 through 2030. The gross total remains $179 million over five years. Because California’s top state income tax rate is higher than Ohio’s, his take-home pay will decline relative to what he would have kept in Cleveland. In practical terms, holding the gross flat in a higher-tax state functions as a pay cut.

The adjustment added no new dollars and mirrors the Browns’ obligation across the remaining term. The gap between California’s 13.3% rate and Ohio’s 3.125% is the main driver of the after-tax change. While players’ income is taxed in the state where games are played, a large portion of earnings is still exposed to the team’s home-state rules.

Roughly half of regular-season games are at home, placing a significant share of salary under California’s rate. Bonus income is typically taxed in the team’s home state, which pushes more of Garrett’s compensation into California’s bracket. As a result, he is projected to forfeit about 10% of the gross he otherwise would have retained under the Ohio-based deal, a difference that adds up to millions over the term.

Tax exposure after move to California

How game checks and bonuses are taxed

NFL players’ game checks are generally subject to the tax laws of the state where each game takes place. That means road games are taxed outside California, but home games fall under California’s higher rate. Because teams play about 10 of 20 games each year at home, a significant portion of annual salary is taxed locally. The remaining road slate spreads income across multiple jurisdictions with different rates.

Bonuses add another layer. Signing, roster, and performance bonuses are typically taxed in the team’s home state, concentrating a meaningful chunk of compensation under that state’s rules. For a player moving from Ohio to California without a raise, the bonus structure alone can materially reduce net income. Keeping the gross dollars flat therefore has a predictable, downward effect on take-home pay in California.

Contract terms and team planning

Why the structure favors the team

Because the Rams matched the Browns’ remaining cash obligation rather than increasing it, the team avoided adding new money to offset the higher tax burden. Players in similar situations sometimes seek additional compensation to neutralize state-tax differences; that did not happen here. The unchanged gross figure delivers stability for the club’s long-range planning while shifting the tax impact to the player’s net.

For Garrett, the five-year window from 2026 through 2030 remains intact at $179 million in gross terms, but the after-tax outcome changes under California law. The practical effect is a smaller net on the same contracted cash.

The Rams and Garrett could revisit terms in future seasons, but absent a raise, the state-tax dynamics outlined above will continue to weigh on his net earnings over the deal’s duration.