The Florida Panthers celebrate their 2025 Stanley Cup victory. Florida’s lack of state income tax has been cited as one factor in helping build a competitive rosterapnews.com.

In the past few seasons, teams based in locales with no state income tax have dominated the NHL’s championship rounds. In fact, four of the past five Stanley Cup champions were based in places with no state income taxapnews.com. Examples include the Tampa Bay Lightning (Florida), Vegas Golden Knights (Nevada), and Florida Panthers – all franchises in tax-friendly states that lifted the Cup in recent years. Even the 2022 champion Colorado Avalanche, while not in a no-tax state, hail from Colorado, which has a relatively low flat income tax ratekhbrksport.com. This trend has not gone unnoticed. Alan Pogroszewski, a tax advisor who works with NHL players, bluntly states “there is a distinct advantage for those teams that are in states with no tax — always”apnews.com. The data backs him up: five of the last six Cup champions have come from no-tax states, and 13 of the last 24 Conference Final participants were from those six no-tax teamsdailyfaceoff.com.

Why might low-tax teams have an edge? The salary cap is the same for all clubs, but the net (after-tax) income players take home can vary widely by location. A given contract “is worth more” in a no-tax state than it would be in a high-tax marketapnews.com. This means teams in Florida, Texas, Nevada, etc., can sign and retain talent with deals that deliver comparable or better net pay than higher-dollar contracts elsewhere. As Tampa’s GM Julien Brisebois noted, one attraction for free agents to sign with the Lightning (aside from great weather and a winning culture) is the “favorable taxation situation”apnews.com.

It’s hard to deny that tax conditions have coincided with on-ice success. Florida’s teams in particular illustrate this: the Lightning won back-to-back Cups in 2020–21, and the Florida Panthers reached the Final multiple times in the mid-2020s, winning in 2024apnews.comapnews.com. The Panthers’ GM Bill Zito even quipped that their recent Finals runs got fans and media talking about Florida’s tax advantage – something nobody discussed years ago when Florida’s teams struggledkhbrksport.comkhbrksport.com. While no one claims championships are won because of taxes alone (factors like smart management and player talent are paramount), it’s clear low-tax teams have a structural leg up in assembling those talented rosters. San Jose Sharks GM Mike Grier acknowledged this reality: teams in no-tax states “can obviously pay guys a little bit less, and guys are happy to go there…those teams take advantage of the situation as they should”apnews.com. In other words, a tax break can be the tie-breaker that helps a good team keep or attract an extra key player, enhancing their competitive depth.

It’s also worth noting what this means for teams in higher-tax markets: they’ve been at a relative disadvantage in recent years. No Canadian team has won a Stanley Cup since 1993, and while there are many reasons for that drought, the heavy tax burden on Canadian salaries certainly hasn’t helped. For example, players on the Montreal Canadiens or Toronto Maple Leafs often face combined federal and provincial tax rates around 50%, among the highest in the leaguetsn.catsn.ca. By contrast, a star on the Dallas Stars or Tampa Bay Lightning keeps considerably more of each paycheck, owing only U.S. federal tax (roughly 37%) and negligible state tax. Bottom line: low-tax locales have become something of a “competitive loophole,” quietly tilting the playing field in a league that strives for parity.

Looking Ahead – The Next Tax-Advantaged Contenders

If recent history is any indicator, teams in tax-friendly jurisdictions will continue to punch above their weight. So, who might be the next to leverage this built-in advantage? Obvious candidates are the usual suspects: the six NHL clubs in no-income-tax states – Florida (Panthers), Tampa Bay, Vegas, Dallas, Nashville, and Seattleapnews.com. Many of these are already perennial contenders or rapidly improving. The Dallas Stars, for instance, have been to a Stanley Cup Final (2020) and remain a powerhouse in the West, aided in part by their ability to keep players on reasonable net deals. The expansion Seattle Kraken are another intriguing case – based in Washington (no state tax) and patiently building their roster. As the Kraken transition from upstarts to contenders in coming years, they “might have an edge…few other teams do” when it comes time to lure top free agentspuckprose.com. The same edge could apply if the NHL expands to other low-tax markets (Houston, anyone? Texas has no income tax, and Houston has long been floated as a potential franchise locationpuckprose.com).

We’re also seeing individual player decisions being influenced by these dynamics, which could shape the future landscape. In other sports, players have already started chasing tax havens: MLB pitcher Corbin Burnes explicitly cited Arizona’s low tax rate as a factor in choosing the Diamondbacks, noting his $210 million contract “has more value in Arizona” than it would in high-tax states like New York or Californiapuckprose.com. In the NHL, observers wonder if similar choices are on the horizon for big names. One Hockey News analyst raised concern that state taxes could play a role in the highly anticipated free agency of a star like Mitch Marner if he ever hits the marketpuckprose.com. The rumors show it, Anaheim is rumored to be offering $14.25M for Marner’s services, while Vegas is rumored around $12M. It’s not far-fetched – if a marquee player can pocket significantly more net money playing in, say, Vegas or Florida, that could sway his destination (especially if those teams are competitive anyway).

We’ve already seen mid-tier stars making moves that bring tax benefits. Take Jake Guentzel, a top-six winger who spent his early career in Pittsburgh. In the summer of 2025, Guentzel hit free agency and signed a 7-year, $63 million deal with Tampa Bay. He admitted the “atmosphere and lifestyle” in Tampa were huge draws, but also quipped that “it’s always a good thing if you can make more money” in the endapnews.com. Tax experts note that by choosing the Lightning, Guentzel will indeed “come out ahead financially” due to Florida’s tax setupapnews.com – effectively getting a raise on a post-tax basis without the team having to offer one on a pre-tax basis. We can expect more cases like this: solid players opting for contending teams in low-tax states, where they can compete for a Cup and keep more of their paycheck.

Another club to watch is the Florida Panthers, who have swiftly turned their zero-tax advantage into sustained success. After reaching the Final in 2023, the Panthers won the Cup in 2024 and invested heavily in keeping their core. They re-signed forward Sam Reinhart to a $69 million extension – a deal that, thanks to Florida’s tax laws, is significantly more lucrative for Reinhart in net terms than the same contract would be in most other citiesapnews.comapnews.com. How much more? At an average annual salary of $8.625 million, Reinhart would owe about $3.15 million in taxes playing for Florida. In California, that tax bill would be $1.1 million higher each year; in New York, $1.5 million higher; and in Toronto, about $1.4 million higherapnews.com. Over the life of his contract, staying in Sunrise could save Reinhart up to $12 million in taxes compared to those marketsapnews.com. It’s easy to see why Florida has become an attractive destination – they can retain talent like Reinhart without breaking the bank, because the bank (Revenue Canada or state treasuries) takes a smaller cut. They followed up the success in 2024 by wining the cup again (edging out the oilers in 6) they signed Sam Bennett to an 8x$8M contract and are rumored to have it on the table to keep both Marchand and Ekblad. The tax advantage will be on full display if this happens.

Looking ahead two years, one could argue the playing field remains tilted unless something changes. Teams like Vegas, Dallas, Tampa, and Florida will continue to enjoy an inherent recruiting advantage. Meanwhile, high-tax clubs – for example, the Toronto Maple Leafs or New York Rangers – might have to overspend on gross salary offers just to match the net pay those players could get elsewhere. One tax expert calculated that a New York team would have to offer over $88 million to deliver the same net income as Florida’s $69 million deal with Reinhartapnews.com. That’s a stark gap. It suggests that, absent other motivations, the next big-ticket free agents could be inclined to follow the money south (or to Nevada/Texas).

Of course, other motivations do matter – legacy, family, market size, chance to win, etc. Many stars will still sign in Toronto or New York for the prestige or personal reasons. Just ask Gary, he thinks this is a foolish non-issue. But the worry for some executives and fans is that a few percentage points of tax could increasingly become the silent hand guiding talent to certain markets. It’s a trend to watch in the next couple of off seasons: if more top players “surprisingly” choose teams like Seattle or Dallas, the tax factor might be the not-so-secret reason why.

High-End Stars vs. Bottom-Line Players – Who Benefits Most?

Tax disparities affect every NHL player’s paycheck – from the superstar down to the 4th-line grinder. But does the advantage of a low-tax market help the rich more, or the middle-class player more? The answer is a bit of both. High-salary players stand to save the largest dollar amounts in absolute terms, while lower-salary players may find the relative boost to their take-home pay more impactful for their personal finances. Let’s explore a few examples:

• Impact on Star Players: The NHL’s elite often earn $8–$12 million in annual salary. In a high-tax locale like California or Toronto, roughly half of that gets eaten up by taxestsn.catsn.ca. In Montreal, for instance, P.K. Subban and Andrei Markov each earned $7 million, but after handing over 49.7% of their pay to the taxman, they brought home only about $3.5 milliontsn.ca. Contrast that with a no-tax state: when superstar defenseman Shea Weber was with Nashville, his $14 million salary incurred an estimated $5.5 million in taxes (mostly U.S. federal) – meaning he kept about $8.5 million, nearly 60% of his paytsn.ca. The difference is massive. For an elite player, choosing a low-tax team can literally mean millions more in their pocket each year. We saw this with the earlier Sam Reinhart example (up to $12M saved over his deal in Florida) and can imagine similar for others. It’s no wonder agents and players are acutely aware of these differences. In fact, veteran agent Don Meehan has said all players are briefed on tax implications, and many stars will spend days crunching the numbers during free agencytsn.catsn.ca. One anecdote: when U.S.-born star Zach Parise was a free agent in 2012, Meehan’s firm spent three full days analyzing various teams’ tax and financial setups before Parise chose Minnesotatsn.ca (Minnesota’s state tax is high, but Parise had other priorities). The key point is that for high earners, a contract’s true value can swing dramatically based on local tax – a fact not lost on today’s NHL stars.
• Impact on Depth and Role Players: At first glance, one might think a 4th liner making $1 million isn’t as concerned with taxes as a millionaire star. But proportionally, the tax gap still matters a lot. Consider a hypothetical player earning $1,000,000. If he plays for the Toronto Maple Leafs (Ontario), he could lose around 50% to combined federal/provincial taxes, taking home roughly $500k. If that same contract is with the Dallas Stars (Texas), he pays only U.S. federal tax (37% top rate) and no state tax, keeping around $630k (give or take, considering deductions and some road-game taxes). That extra ~$130,000 is huge for a player who might only have a few years in the league. It might be the difference that allows him to, say, buy a home for his family or set aside a bigger nest egg after a short career. In percentage terms, the low-end player actually sees a larger boost to his net income than a star would if we equalize for salary. The structure of a flat salary cap means even league-minimum contracts “go further” on a net basis in Florida/Texas than in New York or California. Agents confirm that players absolutely consider these factors. If two teams offer a bottom-pair defenseman the same $900k, the one in a tax-free state is offering a better real deal. In one online discussion, it was pointed out that an $8 million deal in Florida could net a player more take-home pay than an $11 million deal in Toronto – illustrating just how stark the gap can bereddit.com. While that example is extreme, it captures the sentiment that a lower gross salary can be offset by a friendlier tax environment. For a player scraping to stay in the lineup, every dollar counts, and a “tax shelter” team might be especially attractive.
• Middle-Class Contracts: There’s also the middle tier: players making, say, $3–$5 million. They feel both sides of this equation. These players may not have the same star power to command a premium in free agency, so a team in a high-tax market must often outbid a no-tax competitor just to offer equal net value. For instance, a $4 million offer from the Los Angeles Kings (California) might need to be ~$4.5–5 million to match a $4 million offer from the Vegas Golden Knights (Nevada), once you account for California’s ~13% state tax. This tier of players often comprises the secondary free agent market and important supporting cast on teams. If they flock disproportionately to low-tax teams for better net pay, it can hollow out the depth of high-tax teams. We’ve seen hints of this in recent offseasons: Nashville, Florida, Tampa, Dallas, Vegas, and Seattle combined to spend nearly 25% of all money on free agents on one July 1 – an outsized share for six teamsapnews.com. Many of those signings were mid-tier players who likely chose those destinations for a mix of competitive opportunity and financial benefit.

In summary, both superstars and role players benefit from favorable tax situations, albeit in different ways. Stars save enormous sums, while lower-paid players might appreciate the relative boost to their limited earnings even more. Importantly, this isn’t just theory – teams actively leverage it. The Lightning and Golden Knights have famously convinced players to take “hometown discounts” on salary, deals that only work because the players know they’ll net a good amount and have a shot at winning. As one GM said, players are “happy to go” to no-tax teams even for slightly lower gross payapnews.com, and it’s often the depth guys who sign cap-friendly deals to stay on winning, low-tax clubs.

That said, not every player prioritizes money. Culture, contender status, and personal preferences play a huge role. Buffalo GM Kevyn Adams noted that some players simply don’t want cold weather or high-tax states, and those guys “are probably not for us anyway”apnews.com – implying that teams like his must target players motivated by factors beyond just taxes. Meanwhile, other players shrug off the tax issue, reasoning that making millions anywhere is a blessing, and they’d rather choose a team for lifestyle or competitive fittsn.ca. Every individual is different. But the underlying financial math is constant: all else equal, a contract in a low-tax jurisdiction will pad a player’s bank account more than the same deal in a high-tax area. And that reality continues to shape roster decisions up and down the lineup.

Why Low-Tax Markets Matter More for Bottom-Line Players

While star players making $8–12 million per year enjoy massive tax savings when playing in low-tax jurisdictions, the financial edge arguably means even more to the league’s lower-tier earners — the depth players, journeymen, and fourth-line grinders who make league minimums or short-term deals.

Here’s why:

1. Shorter Careers, Smaller Windows

The average NHL career is just 4–5 years. For players at the bottom of the roster, it can be even shorter — a handful of seasons on one- or two-year contracts. That means every dollar earned must stretch farther into retirement than for top-end players who rake in generational wealth.

• A player on a 3-year, $900K-per-year deal playing in Toronto may only bank about $1.3M total after tax.
• The same player in Dallas or Florida could keep nearly $1.7M — a 30% increase in post-tax lifetime earnings.

That $400K difference could be the entire down payment on a home, a college fund, or a bridge to post-hockey life. For the stars, it’s a rounding error. For these players, it’s real life.

2. Proportionally Larger Net Impact

While a superstar might save $2–4 million annually in taxes by playing in a no-tax state, that still represents a smaller percentage of their overall wealth. For a player making $800K, the difference between a 50% tax rate and a 37% one could be the difference between scraping by and financial stability.

Example:

• A $900K salary taxed at 50% yields $450K net.
• That same salary taxed at 37% yields $567K net.
• That’s a 26% increase in take-home pay — far more meaningful to someone trying to build a financial base.

3. No Luxury of Chasing Prestige Over Pay

Top players often prioritize legacy, market exposure, or contender status over dollars. Bottom-line players can’t afford to think that way. They often sign where the paycheck is biggest — and in net terms, that’s often a no-tax team.

This means:

• A fourth-liner might accept a lower AAV if he knows he’ll take home more.
• No-tax teams can build deeper rosters not just because they attract stars, but because they offer a higher effective salary to marginal players without spending more cap dollars.

4. They’re Often the Ones Taking Discounts

Ironically, low-tax teams have been able to convince depth players to accept less than market value because the net pay is so favorable. This leads to competitive advantages:

• A $775K league-minimum player in Florida brings home ~18% more than in Toronto.
• That allows the team to retain more players under the cap and keep consistency.

In other words, low taxes amplify the impact of low salaries, letting players stay employed longer while teams benefit from affordability.

Bottom Line:
The tax advantage is a powerful tool for all players — but for bottom-line NHLers, it can be a lifeline. It’s the difference between breaking even and saving, between a few years of modest pay and long-term security. While millionaires benefit in dollars, role players benefit in sustainability. If tax inequality in the league is ever addressed, equity for the middle and bottom of the roster should be a major part of the discussion.

Would you like this written in a styled blog format with headings and formatting for publication? I can package it cleanly for upload.

Leveling the Playing Field – Can (and Should) the Tax Advantage Be Fixed?

The current situation raises an obvious question: is it fair, and should the NHL do anything to address the tax disparity between teams?

It’s become a hot topic among fans, media, and executives alike. With six NHL teams based in U.S. states that charge no state income tax, and several Canadian markets facing combined federal and provincial rates near 50%, the competitive balance is under quiet but constant strain. The NHL’s salary cap was designed to promote parity—but when a $6 million contract in Florida can be worth the same as an $8 million deal in Ontario after taxes, are all teams really playing with the same deck?

The Idea of Tax Equalization

Proposals have been floated for some kind of “tax equalization” mechanism. Fans and analysts have suggested options like:

• Giving high-tax teams a higher salary cap to offset their disadvantage.
• Penalizing low-tax teams with cap surcharges to account for their net-pay advantage.

The logic is simple: taxes are acting as a backdoor form of cap circumvention, outside the league’s control. If parity is the goal, shouldn’t the league neutralize this loophole?

What the League Thinks

In theory, this sounds fair. In practice, it’s extraordinarily complicated—and the NHL isn’t interested.

Commissioner Gary Bettman has publicly dismissed the idea as “ridiculous,” arguing that attributing a team’s success to tax policy is an insult to strong management. NHLPA Director Marty Walsh has echoed this sentiment, stating, “There’s nothing we can do about it… it’s a state issue, same in Canada.” He’s also expressed skepticism that a “10% tax difference” is truly swaying free agency decisions as much as media suggests.

The reality: the NHL’s current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which runs through 2026, contains no provision to address tax disparities, and both the league and the NHLPA have signaled no appetite for change.

The Challenges of a Fix

Even if the will existed, the logistics are daunting:

• Tax laws vary not just by state/province, but by city and even residency status.
• Would the league recalculate the salary cap annually based on changing tax rates?
• How would mid-contract tax law changes be handled?
• What about players with dual citizenship or those who file taxes across borders?

As one analyst noted, “implementing tax parity might drive even the most seasoned capologists insane.”

Then there’s the political friction. Why would teams like Tampa, Dallas, or Vegas—who’ve built smart rosters under favorable tax rules—agree to subsidize teams in less fortunate tax zones?

The Workarounds: Signing Bonuses and RCAs

In the absence of league intervention, teams in high-tax markets have gotten creative:

• Canadian franchises often offer large signing bonuses, taxed at a flat 15% under the U.S.-Canada tax treaty. This was famously used by Toronto in Phil Kessel’s contract and Ottawa in Bobby Ryan’s deal.
• Teams sometimes work with Retirement Compensation Arrangements (RCAs), allowing players to defer and flat-tax portions of their income.
• U.S. teams in high-tax states like New York and California pitch intangible perks—endorsement potential, lifestyle, history—to lure or retain talent.

But these are band-aids, not solutions.

Creative (and Hypothetical) Fixes the NHL Could Explore

If the league were to reconsider, here are several novel tax parity concepts, inspired by other sports and economic structures:

1. Net-Cap Accounting (Inspired by European Soccer)

Instead of calculating a player’s cap hit based on gross salary, use their after-tax net income. A $6M deal in Florida would be a $6M cap hit; that same deal in Ontario (after taxes) would count for less—leveling the playing field.

How it works:

• Teams submit contracts to the league including the net take-home pay the player will receive.
• The NHL uses a standardized tax model to “gross up” the contract for cap purposes, depending on the team’s location.

Example:

• A $6M gross deal in Florida might carry a $6M cap hit.
• That same $6M gross deal in Toronto (where taxes are higher) might be “grossed down” to a $4.5M net deal, carrying only a $4.5M cap hit.

Pros:

• Creates a level playing field for take-home pay.
• Makes team-building more equitable without restricting salaries.

Cons:

• Complex and difficult to standardize.
• Incentivizes creative tax planning or residency manipulation.
• Could run afoul of CBA fairness or salary transparency.

Used where?

• Some European football (soccer) leagues allow flexibility in contract structuring and use after-tax salary disclosure in player negotiations.

Challenge: Incredibly complex to standardize and monitor.

2. “Tax Burden Adjustment Fund” (Inspired by MLB Revenue Sharing)

Create a pool funded by low-tax teams, distributed to high-tax franchises to reinvest in infrastructure, development, or analytics—indirectly boosting competitiveness.

How it works:

• Teams in low-tax states pay into a “tax advantage pool.”
• That pool is redistributed annually to teams in high-tax jurisdictions.

Pros:

• Doesn’t touch the salary cap, keeping the CBA structure intact.
• Allows teams like Toronto, Montreal, and San Jose to reinvest more in development, coaching, or scouting.

Cons:

• Politically sensitive: no-tax teams would strongly oppose subsidizing competitors.
• May require CBA amendment and legal review.

Used where?

• MLB’s luxury tax and revenue-sharing systems aim to support smaller-market clubs. The NBA also redistributes funds via luxury tax penalties.

Challenge: Politically volatile; low-tax teams would fight this hard.

3. Tax-Based Escrow Modulation

Adjust the escrow withholdings based on tax rates. Players on high-tax teams contribute less; those on low-tax teams contribute more. Escrow already exists—this would just tweak it to soften tax pain.

How it works:

• Players on high-tax teams pay lower escrow percentages (e.g. 5%).
• Players on low-tax teams pay higher escrow percentages (e.g. 10–12%).

Pros:

• Keeps total league escrow pool balanced, while softening the blow for high-tax markets.
• Escrow is already a controversial issue; this could make it more “fair.”

Cons:

• May be seen as punitive by players in low-tax areas.
• Complex to administer across changing tax codes and individual residency.

Used where?

• Nowhere exactly — but this would be a novel application of an existing league-wide mechanism in the NHL.

Challenge: Escrow is already a hot-button issue among players.

4. Player Residency Declaration System (Inspired by FIFA & Tax Treaties)

Allow players to declare their legal residence, and apply the true tax burden of that jurisdiction rather than simply using the team’s location.

How it works:

• A U.S.-based player signing in Canada might declare Florida residency.
• The cap hit reflects the actual net compensation they’ll receive, leveraging tax treaties or deferral tools (e.g., signing bonuses, RCAs).

Pros:

• More precise: taxes differ more by residency than location in many cases.
• Could reward teams who structure smart contracts.

Cons:

• Opens a Pandora’s box of legal ambiguity.
• Easily manipulated — especially with shell residency claims.

Used where?

• International soccer contracts often involve declared residence and bonus structuring to optimize taxation.

Challenge: Could be easily gamed; hard to regulate across borders.

5. Location-Based Cap Multiplier (NBA-Style Exception)

Give tax-burdened teams a cap space boost (say, 5–10%) to help retain or sign key players. Or allow one “designated” tax-adjusted contract per team.

How it works:

• A team in Quebec or California gets a 5–10% bonus cap space per player, or only for one or two designated players.
• Used solely to offset tax gaps for market fairness — not as a loophole for superteams.

Pros:

• Targets the teams that need it most.
• Prevents a flood of talent to a handful of tax-free markets.

Cons:

• Could be viewed as “special treatment.”
• Would require strict enforcement to avoid misuse.

Used where?

• The NBA’s “designated player exception” lets teams retain one key player above standard cap rules.

Challenge: Could favor legacy markets; introduces complexity to cap rules.

6. League-Mandated Tax Transparency

Require all teams to submit net compensation disclosures to the league and union. While it wouldn’t fix the imbalance, it would create visibility and possibly discourage cap arbitrage.

How it works:

• All contracts must include a league-approved “net value” worksheet using standard assumptions.
• Teams can’t “hide” tax savings — net value is publicly known and reflected in cap planning.

Pros:

• Forces honesty and transparency.
• Could create natural pressure for tax parity without regulation.

Cons:

• Doesn’t change outcomes — only visibility.
• Could be weaponized in negotiations or leak-sensitive data.

Used where?

• Some European player unions publish net earnings lists for competitive fairness.

Challenge: Wouldn’t change outcomes—but might pressure the league into action.

Why It Likely Won’t Happen

Despite the options, change seems unlikely:

• Teams in low-tax states have no incentive to change the system.
• The NHLPA is focused on maximizing player earnings, not redistributing them.
• The league believes success comes from drafting and development, not taxes.

Plus, if taxes are compensated for, where does it stop? Should teams get bonuses for cold weather? Weak local media? Poor transit access?

As Walsh put it, “You can’t micromanage away every market difference.”

Hot Take: The NHL’s Cap System Is a Lie and Taxes Are the Loophole No One Wants to Close

Let’s stop pretending the NHL’s salary cap creates a level playing field. It doesn’t.

While GMs stress over million-dollar margins and fans obsess over cap hits, six NHL teams are walking around with a built-in advantage the rest of the league can’t touch:
No state income tax.

Tampa Bay, Florida, Dallas, Vegas, Nashville, Seattle — these teams don’t just benefit from good scouting or smart front offices. They benefit from geography. A $7 million deal in Sunrise, FL is worth more than $9 million in Toronto after tax. Let that sink in.

The result?

• Players take less to stay on winners in tax-haven states.
• Bottom-six grinders stretch out careers because their paychecks go further.
• Mid-tier free agents quietly follow the money, even if the AAV looks lower.

And the NHL’s response? Shrugs and spin.

Gary Bettman calls it “ridiculous” to say taxes tilt the ice. Marty Walsh says players don’t care about a “10% difference.” Really? Ask any agent. Ask any accountant. Ask Sam Reinhart, who saved up to $12 million in taxes by signing in Florida. You think that’s coincidence?

Meanwhile, teams in Ontario, Quebec, and California have to overpay just to compete — or load up contracts with bonuses, deferments, and Olympic-level tax gymnastics. And still get roasted when a player leaves for “lifestyle” reasons.

If the NHL cared about parity, they’d do something. Cap multipliers. Net-salary cap hits. Escrow modulation. Literally anything. Instead? Silence.

Why? Because the teams benefitting are winning. And the ones losing are stuck in a rigged system with no fix in sight.

This isn’t sour grapes — it’s math.

Every dollar isn’t equal in the NHL. And until that changes, the “hard cap” might as well come with an asterisk:
*Valid only in low-tax states.