Preface: This story has conceptually been in the works since the brand started. It was born out of multiple conversations about what a dynamic similar to the one in the 2010 NFL season, wherein a salary cap did not exist in a “de jure” sense, would look like in the contemporary NHL. However, this work is not meant as any sort of analogy, critique, statement, nor analysis. Ergo, with this being something of a “for fun” work, some liberties might be taken with the accuracy of some matters within on the margins. We apologize for any potential inaccuracies in some of the more concrete aspects.

On September 14th, 2023, just under one year after the 2013 collective bargaining agreement’s originally intended expiry date and a little over three years after its extension via the July 2020 Return to Play agreement, NHL owners voted unanimously to void the existing CBA, unsatisfied with its terms. However, not wanting to disrupt the action, especially with the on-ice season quite literally knocking on the door, an agreement was reached to let play continue for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 seasons with no salary cap in place and an option to do the same for 2025-26 if no new CBA could agreed upon… sort of.

A gentleman’s agreement was made to keep the existing cap (well, again, kind of – The league sent out a memo to all 32 NHL franchises explaining the situation and expecting them to abide by it), still increasing at the originally intended rates, on the books in a de facto sense. Knowing full well that a totally uncapped season would be detrimental to fair play, this seemed like the best compromise. Otherwise, teams with greater budgets would have an opportunity to salary dump or acquire the best names on the market with exorbitant bonuses. The parties involved would have to implement safeguards against this. The league also prepared disciplinary measures for clubs who stepped out of line, in the event that they caught wind of any infractions or inappropriate actions within this timeline.

Seemingly, the first two seasons proceeded without incident. Not only was the league communicative regarding the augmentation of the “cap”, but franchises had no trouble complying with the terms of the “gentleman’s agreement.” At no point did the league catch wind of anything that betrayed the terms of the informal agreement, nor were there any egregiously bad offenses. However, the 2025-26 season is when some eyebrows were raised, and the bad apples were found. The fallout would be among some of the most earth-shattering events to ever play out in NHL history.

A handful of these infractions were relatively innocuous, being bonuses and dead money that went slightly over the “agreed upon” terms. These were addressed via mild to moderate fines. However, after necessary due process investigation and evaluation, the Carolina Hurricanes, Chicago Blackhawks, and New York Rangers were determined to have unfairly front-loaded free agent contracts into the 2025-26 season. The NHL also found strong evidence of negotiating attempts at such actions by the Toronto Maple Leafs. However, they were unable to get anyone to sign to the terms they were looking for to capitalize on the situation, most likely due to elimination of disposable income via taxes and escrow and the lower buying power of the Canadian dollar. The Leafs were provided with immunity from discipline in exchange for information provided to them via their “backdoor operatives” about whatever they may have known about “inappropriate activities” happening around the league, under the impression said information could potentially be of at least some use to the NHL.

The NHL did not respond the following year, as another lockout ended up occurring (the implications of which were less dire than previous work stoppages, as the only ramifications were the elimination of training camp, preseason, and the first 16 games of the regular season). The league instead opted to levy punishments under the new CBA in its first full season of enactment in 2027-28. Following the model set by the NFL when having faced a similar situation (though with different implications, as the NFL has means of circumvention such as contract restructuring that the NHL does not and will not – It was rumored heading into the 2026 CBA talks that this would be discussed but it was visible that it never even was a possibility due to the NHLPA being vehemently opposed to the idea on the grounds of fully guaranteed deals being fundamental to players’ rights), the NHL took away 9.5% of Carolina’s cap space for the coming year. Chicago and New York faced even steeper penalties, surrendering 11.5% of their cap space for the next two seasons. However, not following the NFL’s precedent to the letter, the league took matters a step further. Carolina were not docked any draft picks. However, both Chicago and NYR were – Both teams surrendering a first in 2028 and a second in 2029, respectively. It was clear that the NHL was not taking this matter lightly.

Perhaps what was most curious, however, was that these moves did not do a lot to significantly move the competitive needle for any of the teams that committed these infractions. Indeed, Chicago and Carolina ended up having pretty mediocre campaigns and New York had a very disappointing season relative to expectations. Perhaps since the dawn of the cap era, it has been worth contemplating what use the league’s regulations are in promoting competitive parity and fairness. Yes, of course, superteams paid for by big bucks existed prior to then, but dynasties have existed in the cap era, as well. The 2025-26 season also further showed that being carefree with money is also not a guarantor of success, as has been seen many times across almost all professional sports. So, what should the NHL do going forward? Surely, this year provided something of a reflection point for the league. Is the best thing to do just to eliminate the hard cap altogether, permanently? Surely, this would at least be better than a system wherein room for weaseling around and promoting hypocrisy exists. One may think of rugby union’s decision to allow professionalism in 1995, to eliminate hypocritical “shamateurism” and having to use disciplinary apparatuses and investigate clubs and players tirelessly. Getting rid of the problem (which would likely still continue even with an example set by the punishment of the 2025-26 clubs and a “formal” cap in place) by eliminating the restrictive framework could potentially make sense.

However, whatever conclusions the NHL and NHLPA reach, we may not know for quite some time. The only thing hockey fans and the community around the sport can do for now is ponder and debate endlessly against the still looming backdrop of one of the league’s greatest ever competitive controversies. We must look ahead to 2036 and whatever changes may be on the horizon, for now.