The financial landscape of professional hockey is far more intricate than just multi-million dollar contracts and salary caps. A recent deep dive by The Athletic into the minds of National Hockey League players has unequivocally confirmed a growing sentiment: state income tax significantly influences where players choose to ply their trade, with the emphatic goal of maximizing their earnings.
The Player's Perspective: A Clear Mandate for More Take-Home Pay
In a comprehensive survey conducted by The Athletic, an overwhelming 86 percent of 120 NHL players polled indicated that playing in a no-tax state matters to them. This statistic provides a powerful insight into the modern athlete's financial calculus, moving beyond just gross salary figures to focus on the tangible take-home pay.
The motivation is straightforward: "Make more money." This direct quote encapsulates the core reason behind players' preferences for states like Florida, Texas, Nevada, Tennessee, and Washington, which do not levy state income taxes. For players, every dollar saved in taxes is a dollar earned, directly impacting their personal wealth and future security.
"I'd like to keep my salary, and also those two teams have a chance to win the Cup and are good places to live, too, from what I gathered," an anonymous player currently in a no-tax state told The Athletic, referring to the Dallas Stars and Vegas Golden Knights as desirable destinations. This quote highlights a confluence of factors – financial benefit, competitive opportunity, and quality of life – but with the financial aspect clearly articulated first.
Challenging the Commissioner's Stance
This widespread player sentiment stands in stark contrast to previous remarks from league officials. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, for instance, dismissed concerns about state income tax as "ridiculous" during the 2025 Stanley Cup Final, a sentiment echoed by fellow analyst Anson Carter when Florida teams were historically less successful. However, the players' voices, as captured by The Athletic, present a compelling counter-narrative, suggesting that the issue is anything but trivial.
Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, while acknowledging other factors in player signing decisions, noted that these "have nothing to do with the tax situation in that market". Yet, the survey results and player testimonials strongly suggest that the tax situation *does* play a role, often a significant one, in the overall package a player considers.
Real-World Impact: Free Agency and Team Building
The impact of state income tax is not merely theoretical; it manifests profoundly in free agency and team construction. Teams in no-tax states have visibly leveraged this advantage. The Florida Panthers, for example, have been central to this discussion, particularly after their recent successes. Star forward Brad Marchand explicitly stated that the Panthers' ability to retain key players like Aaron Ekblad and Sam Bennett, especially when facing salary cap challenges, was directly attributable to Florida's no-tax status.
"If we're not in a no-tax state it wouldn't work out, probably for two guys. Two guys probably would be leaving in that situation," Marchand told reporters, emphasizing the tangible benefit for the team's roster continuity. "That's a benefit that this team has that we able to utilize and make work."
The financial savings for players can be substantial. For instance, Sam Reinhart's $69 million contract to re-sign with the Panthers is worth considerably more in Florida than it would be in a high-tax state. Calculations show he would pay $1.1 million more in California, $1.5 million more in New York, and $1.4 million more in Toronto annually, potentially saving him up to $12 million over the contract's duration. Similarly, winger Jake Guentzel's seven-year, $63 million deal with the Tampa Bay Lightning, another no-tax state team, underscores this trend.
General managers are acutely aware of this dynamic. Julien BriseBois, GM of the Tampa Bay Lightning, explicitly cited a "favorable taxation situation" as a factor in attracting free agents. San Jose Sharks GM Mike Grier acknowledged, "There is a distinct advantage for those teams: They can obviously pay guys a little bit less, and guys are happy to go there".
The Nuances of "Jock Taxes" and Duty Days
While playing for a team in a no-income-tax state offers a significant advantage for home games, the reality of NHL taxation is more complex due to "jock taxes" and the "duty days" concept. Players are taxed in every jurisdiction where they earn income, including for games, practices, and travel. This means a player from a no-tax state like Florida will still owe taxes when playing road games in high-tax states like California, which has a top rate of 13.3%. Despite these complexities, the overall financial benefit of residing in a no-tax state remains a powerful draw for a substantial portion of a player's earnings from home games.
A Shifting Landscape and Future Implications
The Athletic's findings solidify what many within the hockey world have long suspected: state income tax is a critical, often understated, element in an NHL player's decision-making process. As the league evolves and the financial stakes continue to rise, the competitive advantage held by teams in no-tax states is likely to remain a significant talking point, potentially influencing future collective bargaining agreements and team-building strategies across the NHL. The players have spoken, and their message is clear: when it comes to their earnings, every penny counts.
