Toggle sidebar

Should the NHL salary cap adjust for local income tax?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Players don't just pay income tax to the state or province of their home team. They pay income tax in every state or province they play in.

Panthers players for instance pay California income tax for each day they play in California.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cane mutiny
Sypher04 said:
I don't know why people try to muddy the topic up with things like you've mentioned. If you're rich, these aren't going to be problems virtually anywhere you live. There is however very clear and obvious mismatch in the buying power of some teams within the cap versus others
Click to expand...
Would you rather be rich in Toronto/Chicago/NYC or Columbus/Edmonton/Minnesota?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cane mutiny and Scott Malkinson
original.gif


Yes all those big name free agents flocking to Nashville, Dallas, Tampa and Florida number in the single digits.

The tax advantage is minuscule at best and can be fixed if politicians lower taxes instead of adjusting the salary cap. If you did adjust the cap then certain cities would tax hockey players at 95% and the salary cap would be a billion for those teams.
 
Gnashville said:
original.gif


Yes all those big name free agents flocking to Nashville, Dallas, Tampa and Florida number in the single digits.

The tax advantage is minuscule at best and can be fixed if politicians lower taxes instead of adjusting the salary cap. If you did adjust the cap then certain cities would tax hockey players at 95% and the salary cap would be a billion for those teams.
Click to expand...
Yeah well good luck with that one.
 
Gnashville said:
original.gif


Yes all those big name free agents flocking to Nashville, Dallas, Tampa and Florida number in the single digits.

The tax advantage is minuscule at best and can be fixed if politicians lower taxes instead of adjusting the salary cap. If you did adjust the cap then certain cities would tax hockey players at 95% and the salary cap would be a billion for those teams.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm still waiting for these big free agents that keep signing with those teams.
 
Howboutthempanthers said:
Exactly. I'm still waiting for these big free agents that keep signing with those teams.
Click to expand...

It's not just about UFA's. Re-signing your own players applies equally as much.

I don't think it's a huge concern, by any means, but I do feel like the tax differential can and should be leveled.
 
Sypher04 said:
It's not just about UFA's. Re-signing your own players applies equally as much.

I don't think it's a huge concern, by any means, but I do feel like the tax differential can and should be leveled.
Click to expand...
And that's no different than the free agents. Has anyone walked because of taxes? (hoping to get someone else's homegrown player doesn't count)
At any rate, even if there is something there, it's not nearly big enough to make such an impactful rule in the sport.
 
Howboutthempanthers said:
And that's no different than the free agents. Has anyone walked because of taxes? (hoping to get someone else's homegrown player doesn't count)
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not implying this is an epidemic by any means, but the Stamkos situation pretty clearly showed the flaw in the system. That's not to say I ever truly thought he'd leave Tampa, and I wasn't too worried either way about landing him, but there was a ton of reporting on the differential in what Toronto or other high tax markets would have had to pay to match what he ultimately got in Tampa.

It was reported in the Tampa Bay Times with the assistance of a Sports tax specialist, I forget his name, that Stamkos taking the 8year/68 million deal he inevitably ended up signing would see him take home just under $30 million dollars, and that the Leafs (or similiar) at 70 million, over 7, would still see Stamkos end up with like $7 million less. Yes, the 8th year Tampa can offer is a factor here too, but ultimately, we're talking the difference of ~12 million vs 8.5, and a reasonably decent chunk of that is tax related (~2.3 million of each year)

Even Stamkos himself has said how "“it’s obviously a perk of playing in Florida.”"

Callahan re-signing was also widely considered below market value. His agent was quoted afterwards saying taxation definitely played a role.
 
Last edited:
Auston Marlander said:
Quality of life is a statistically tracked metric. Vienna tops Mercer’s 20th Quality of Living ranking
Click to expand...
But that has no bearing on preference. Just because a company says certain metrics put one city ahead of another on their scale that doesn't mean everyone has the same preferences, or that NHL players are at all subject to the same rating factors that were used in the study. An NHL player with a guaranteed multi-million dollar guaranteed contract isn't going to be the standard respondent to their surveys.
 
Goose312 said:
But that has no bearing on preference. Just because a company says certain metrics put one city ahead of another on their scale that doesn't mean everyone has the same preferences, or that NHL players are at all subject to the same rating factors that were used in the study. An NHL player with a guaranteed multi-million dollar guaranteed contract isn't going to be the standard respondent to their surveys.
Click to expand...

Sure for some people they want small town, but the vast majority of people with money want to live in places they can spend it. While a millionaire has a better quality of life in a bad city, they will also have MUCH better quality of life in a world class city.
 
Howboutthempanthers said:
Exactly. I'm still waiting for these big free agents that keep signing with those teams.
Click to expand...
Gnashville said:
original.gif


Yes all those big name free agents flocking to Nashville, Dallas, Tampa and Florida number in the single digits.

The tax advantage is minuscule at best and can be fixed if politicians lower taxes instead of adjusting the salary cap. If you did adjust the cap then certain cities would tax hockey players at 95% and the salary cap would be a billion for those teams.
Click to expand...

Florida and Dallas get FAs. Or used to.

As for the op, no. @SHANNYPLAN we just had this thread 2 weeks ago.
 
Teemu said:
The. Salary. Cap. Is. Not. Meant. To. Be. Fair.
Click to expand...
yup.

Auston Marlander said:
It was literally implemented to level the playing field and keep small market teams alive.
Click to expand...

HockeysFinest said:
It was literally implemented to make the league more fair.

In regards to the OPs topic, its really not possible with all the factors that are involved. Cost of living/taxes/other
Click to expand...
ThatGuy22 said:
No, it was literally implemented to provide cost certainty to the owners.
Click to expand...
Where does this idea come from? The cap is about cost certainty and nothing else.
 
What about a cap on coaching salaries ? You know, to keep everything fair and equal since there couldn't possibly be any other motivation for Leafs fans in particular to keep starting these threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drakon
The point is quality of life is highly individual and subjective. Taxes are not. Which is why one is valid as something to consider addressing within the cap system and one is not. One is a matter of finances while the other simply isn't. They aren't related issues.
 
dechire said:
What about a cap on coaching salaries ? You know, to keep everything fair and equal since there couldn't possibly be any other motivation for Leafs fans in particular to keep starting these threads.
Click to expand...

As a leaf fan, I can honestly say, I have zero issues with a coaching cap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom