In November, I described a scenario in the upcoming NHL/NHLPA collective-bargaining process whereby the NHLPA might have to consider demanding a halt to expansion as a tactic to pursue its stated goal of player salary growth. Player salaries have been a staple of NHL-related conversations since they became publicly available in 1990, following many decades of secrecy. In the twenty years since the application of a salary cap for the 2005-06 NHL season, these discussions have become increasingly contentious and complex. The narrative du jour centers on how teams may be advantaged/disadvantaged in negotiating player contracts based upon the taxation variations across national and state lines. Some excellent articles have been written on the topic, but they all seem to be lacking some important context.

To gain that context, we must step back and understand that the income tax issue is merely one of several financial considerations a player (and his agent) must factor into any contract decision. Within the tax realm, while income tax is likely the biggest driver of cost, it is not the only one, as NHL players will have to pay sales, property and excise taxes just like the rest of us. In fact, due to their higher-than-average earnings (NHL minimum salary is well above the threshold for the highest tax........

© Sports Business Journal