Newly Ratified NHL-NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement: Impact of Shorter Maximum Contract Lengths

Introduction

The National Hockey League (the “NHL”) and National Hockey League Players’ Association (the “NHLPA”) recently ratified a new collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), which is set to take effect beginning with the 2026-2027 season and will run through 2030.^[1]

We have discussed several key changes in a series of articles, which can be viewed below:

• Newly Ratified NHL-NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement: Standardized Retention of Draft Pick Rights
• Newly Ratified NHL-NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement: CBA-Driven Schedule Growth Sets NHL Apart

Among its various provisions, the CBA introduces a key change to maximum contract term lengths: players re-signing with their current team will be limited to a maximum contract length of seven years, while free agents signing with a new team will be restricted to six years.^[2] This represents a reduction from the previous limits of eight years for re-signings and seven years for new team signings under the current CBA.^[3]

This shift in maximum contract terms marks a change in how teams and players will negotiate contracts, with expected ripple effects on secondary contractual provisions, such as no-move clauses (“NMCs”) and no-trade clauses (“NTCs”). Notably, the NHL’s new framework aligns more closely with the National Basketball Association (the “NBA”), which has long enforced strict contract term limits, and invites comparison to Major League Baseball (the “MLB”), which is anticipating its own reforms in this category.

Potential Implications: Increasing No-Trade and No-Move Clauses

As opportunities for extended contract security diminish, players have increasingly negotiated for secondary contractual protections that compensate for shorter contract terms and help retain control over their careers. Recent estimates from the 2024-2025 NHL season indicate that approximately 24% of players hold either a NTC (full or limited) or a NMC in their contracts – about 15% with NTCs and 9% with NMCs.^[4] By comparison, during the 2009-2010 season, prior to the implementation of contract term limits, only an estimated 8% of players had NTCs, while NMCs were even rarer.^[5]

NTCs prohibit teams from trading a player without their consent. NMCs provide an even higher degree of control by preventing trades, waiver moves or demotions without player approval. These clauses provide players with additional security and help to mitigate the impact of shortened contract terms by limiting involuntary relocations.

With the reduced maximum contract lengths in the ratified CBA, it is expected that these secondary provisions will become even more prevalent, reflecting an evolving balance between player agency and team planning. While such clauses can increase complexity in roster management and trade negotiations, they have become critical tools for players seeking greater control in an environment of shorter contract terms.

Looking to Other Sports: Lessons and Future Implications

The NHL’s adjustment to contract term limits aligns it more closely with the NBA, which has long enforced strict maximum contract lengths that encourage frequent free agency cycles and player movement.^[6] This shift toward increasingly-capped contract terms represents a fundamental evolution in how leagues manage player contracts and competitive balance.

By contrast, the MLB has historically stood apart as an outlier among major North American sports leagues. The absence of a salary cap and a tradition of exceptionally long-term contracts – sometimes extending to as much as 15 years – have characterized the MLB’s market.^[7] These lengthy deals have contributed to escalating team payroll disparities and labour tensions.^[8] In the NHL, lengthy contract terms, such as Ilya Kovalchuk’s 15-year contract, once sparked similar debates before the league adopted term limits.^[9]

With the MLB’s current CBA set to expire in December 2026, its owners have reportedly begun pushing for major structural changes, including the introduction of a salary cap – a mechanism the MLB has never before implemented, making it the only major North American men’s league without one. Given recent trends, it is possible that the MLB could look to emulate the NHL and the NBA by introducing contractual term limits.^[10] These considerations largely stem from concerns about competitive balance, financial extremes between large and small-market teams and the desire to contain escalating player salary costs.^[11]

This emerging convergence of contract structures across leagues signals a broader transformation in professional sports labour relations. Traditional emphasis on long-term contract assurances is giving way to a more nuanced balance between player mobility, competitive fairness and labour stability. The NHL’s recent policy changes both reflect and anticipate this shift, providing a blueprint for the MLB and potentially other leagues as they navigate the evolving sports labour landscape.

Conclusion

The NHL’s reduction in maximum contract term lengths signals a strategic shift toward balancing player mobility and team roster flexibility. While this change may encourage more frequent negotiations and player movement, it simultaneously increases the importance of secondary provisions like NTCs and NMCs as vital tools for player security.

By aligning more closely with the NBA’s contract structures and potentially setting a precedent for the MLB’s labour discussions, the NHL’s new CBA demonstrates evolving labour dynamics in professional sports. As leagues aim to foster competitive balance and fiscal responsibility, contract frameworks will certainly continue to adapt, reflecting broader trends in sports and athlete empowerment.

The Sports, Media & Entertainment Group at Aird & Berlis LLP assists clients in navigating contracts, transactions, regulations, disputes and more. Please contact the authors or a member of the group if you have questions or require assistance.