How Much Parity Has the Salary Cap Added to the NHL?

The league seems to be more balanced than it was before, but that comes with an asterisk or two.

Aside from spreading the wealth regarding player salaries, one of the major goals of the NHL’s salary cap, in theory, was to have a more competitive league. Instead of having the same clubs pile up losses and others buy their way to wins, a floor and a ceiling were placed onto spending after the 2005 lockout.

For commissioner Gary Bettman and the NHL, did this work? How competitive was the league before and after the cap was created?

Gary Bettman, the NHL’s commissioner since 1993 (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

Note: If reading through e-mail, click the data tables included below to view them.

---

Comparing Parity During the Pre- and Post-Cap Era

Since the salary cap was implemented, has the league had more parity? In terms of goal and win-loss differentials, the past 20 seasons have had a decent balance:

Today, a decent amount of parity exists. The Buffalo Sabres, Columbus Blue Jackets, and now-defunct Arizona Coyotes have spent most of the salary cap era either uncompetitive or in the basement. Aside from them, even the “bad” clubs had memorable periods of success, like the Edmonton Oilers today and the New York Islanders in the early 2020s. For a bit, the Sabres themselves were a threat to win the Stanley Cup, too.

There’s not too much else to analyze other than the fact that most teams, at least for a brief moment in history, had the spotlight on them. While organizational dysfunction can prevent this from happening, good front offices will bring about long stints of excellence. Smart teams are rewarded and those who aren’t perpetually rebuild—that’s why the Coyotes are no longer with us. With competence comes success, regardless of how much an owner is willing to spend.

Let’s compare that to the 20 seasons before the salary cap was implemented. What did the league look like then?