Well run organizations getting up to a 10% advantage on their entire payroll is the difference between an all star and a 4th line player
except you demonstrated it’s nowhere near that as half the games are played in states with income tax that the players pay.
If you play for a no state income tax team, that's 1/2 your games. Then you add in road games where there is no state income tax, TX (Stars), FL (Panthers & Lightning), NV (Golden Knights), TN (Preds), WA (Kraken). You could play upwards of 47 or 48 games in no income tax states if you play for one of those six teams, compared to 6 or 7 games if you don't play for any of those teams. Plus, most of these guys are making big salaries, so they pay more raw dollars as well. That's more impactful than just a slight advantage. Again, it does not outweigh good ownership and leadership, but it is an advantage for those 6 teams, and 5 of the past 6 Cups have been won by those teams, which I would say were the most impactful years due to an essentially flat cap, that may not be a coincidence.
it's probably more impactful the advantage east coast teams have with travel. There is a massive difference between what teams like DAL or FL have to travel than what teams like NY do where they can hop on a short bus ride after the game vs. getting on a long flight. Anyone who's traveled knows the impact it has on a person.
I don't see how the tax break has anything to do with Bill Zito being the best GM in hockey. He manages to acquire Tkachuk for Huberdeau and Bennett for Emil Heineman to win the Cup last year. Then he gets Marchand this year for a 2nd round pick who is integral to the repeat Cup win. Who knows what he'll be doing this offseason to make another run? I'm not dismissing the tax code as a factor for some but winning the Cup usually becomes a priority for most players as they get older.
Except it is.... A NYR pays NY Income Tax or NJ or CT income tax on 100% of their earnings, whether it is earned in NY,NY, CT or not. Where as a player from a Florida team only pays state income tax when playing a game in a state that has income tax. So yes the difference in terms of the entire team salary, the savings can be the difference between a 4th liner and an all star.
I imagine with no proof that when most UFAs are deciding between multiple offers, they aren't as concerned with the state income tax rate of the destinations vs the prospect of winning a Cup. Assuming identical offers in terms of years/salary from teams that have different state income tax implications....if a player is more concerned about losing money due to income tax vs getting a legitimate chance to compete for a Stanley Cup, you probably don't want that player on your roster anyway.
if two equal teams have the chance at the Cup, money does play a role in the decision..one of many parts to deciding where a player would go
I think it's all of the above. Not sure a player will take similar, or even a little more, money from a bad team in a no income tax state, over a good team in an income tax state, but if things are all reasonably close, I think it can/does make a difference. I don't think anyone is saying players will go to terrible teams solely due to no state income tax, but it's one of the tools in the toolbox teams can use when they don't have state income tax. Like I mentioned, 5 of the past 6 Cups have been won by teams with no state income tax, that is a little bit of a trend IMO. With all that said, the main factor with regards to winning consistently, is having a well-run organization with good leadership, that's the most important deciding factor. If you make poor decisions and are poorly run, you will not win consistently, state income tax or not. For what it's worth, Brooks has written a few articles on this, and thinks it is an unfair advantage for the teams with no state income tax.
